WITTWITT wrote:
Hello all,
I understand that tattoos are a very popular thing, however, if you are going to cover yourselves in artwork, please edit your profile.

Before the haters come out to give their biting comments:
I do not hate tattoos.  I don't care if you have them.  I just wish that search engines gave results that are correct.  That can only be done with some effort on all of our parts.

It may be N/A for you that you have tattoos, but it may be an issue for the photographer.

If you have them be proud of them and list yourself as one of the increasing many that adorn themselves with this form of art.

On behalf of future search results,
Thank you.

M'kaaay

Isis22 wrote:
The tattoo stat question on the left side of the profile is a fairly recent addition. Keep that in mind. Perhaps this would be better suited to the newbie section?

Lol he got newb'ed

P I X I E wrote:
What I don't find helpful is that I'm supposed to figure out if my tattoos fall into 'some' or 'many'. It really isn't very clear.

Yeah, that's problematic. Same with my piercing, which can 100% be hidden with no trade. I chose none.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

Yeah, that's problematic. Same with my piercing, which can 100% be hidden with no trade. I chose none.

What if it's only one small tattoo on your ankle? It's not 'none', but it's not really 'some' either. Ya know?

P I X I E wrote:
What if it's only one small tattoo on your ankle? It's not 'none', but it's not really 'some' either. Ya know?

Seriously. I don't know why they didn't consider this.

Edit: In my previous post, I meant trace, not trade.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

Seriously. I don't know why they didn't consider this.

Edit: In my previous post, I meant trace, not trade.

I pointed this out in the Site Related forum (in the thread specifically about it), but the mods didn't take any notice to it.

P I X I E wrote:

I pointed this out in the Site Related forum (in the thread specifically about it), but the mods didn't take any notice to it.

Unsurprising.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
Seriously. I don't know why they didn't consider this.

Edit: In my previous post, I meant trace, not trade.

I get the feeling they discount a great deal of the feedback they receive, simply does not agree with their preconceptions and/or whatever they've already decided they want to do.

P I X I E wrote:
I pointed this out in the Site Related forum (in the thread specifically about it), but the mods didn't take any notice to it.

They notice, but if it comes from the people they hate, it is pretty quickly dismissed. 

After all, if the goal was about creating the best site possible, we would not recognize this place.

For the OP... the tattoo statistic is a fairly recent development, and as implemented, there was nothing (that I am aware of) to make a huge effort to get that field be populated, but like so many data fields on this site, you can't really rely upon them.

Filles de Pin-up wrote:
An easier thing is for models just to have photos in their port where the tattoos or lack there of is clearly visible.

but... but... that would necessitate a photographer actually doing something (other than complaining) - they would have to actually LOOK at the model's port!

Unheard of!! - Unthinkable!! - Totally Ridiculous!!

Filles de Pin-up wrote:
A programmer with half a brain could spend 5 minutes and realize that you need concrete easily definable categories. It comes back to the experience category which is meaningless as well.

An ankle tattoo is very different from a sleeve.  A searcher needs to know where and how big. A tattoo on the but is not going to matter in a head shot.

1. none
2. small and easily obscured
3. some (e.g. 2-5)
....
etc

Then you would have to have a location list (select all that apply)
e.g. foot, shin, thigh, torso (front - back), arm, neck, face.

With piercings it would be easier since most piercings have a name or specific location.

Professionalism is dead the world is ruled by hobbyists.

This would have been awesome.


Also, OP: I had a full and detailed list of my tattoos/piercings in my profile. My portfolio shows all of these tattoos and piercings. I have my piercing/tattoo boxes ticked as some and many, respectively... people still got mad at me for showing up and having them.

JoJo wrote:
but... but... that would necessitate a photographer actually doing something (other than complaining) - they would have to actually LOOK at the model's port!

Unheard of!! - Unthinkable!! - Totally Ridiculous!!

I have to agree with JoJo on this one....LOL

WITTWITT wrote:
Hello all,
I understand that tattoos are a very popular thing, however, if you are going to cover yourselves in artwork, please edit your profile.

Before the haters come out to give their biting comments:
I do not hate tattoos.  I don't care if you have them.  I just wish that search engines gave results that are correct.  That can only be done with some effort on all of our parts.

It may be N/A for you that you have tattoos, but it may be an issue for the photographer.

If you have them be proud of them and list yourself as one of the increasing many that adorn themselves with this form of art.

On behalf of future search results,
Thank you.

It would be nice if the site could have their technical staff query the database for all of the models that are still active, but have "N/A" selected (or other non-completed data points) and send them a PM asking/suggesting they update their profiles.

It can't be that difficult to run a query on the database, but it would require a little effort being put forth trying to improve the site.

JoJo wrote:
but... but... that would necessitate a photographer actually doing something (other than complaining) - they would have to actually LOOK at the model's port!

Unheard of!! - Unthinkable!! - Totally Ridiculous!!

I still don't think you get it.  It isn't that we don't look at a model's port.  We do.  But if you are in the biz of trying to cast for a specific type of job and you enter a lot of search criteria which should narrow it down to 100 or so nationally and you end up with 3,000, NO ONE is going to look through them all unless they have nothing to do.  Even if it does narrow it down to 100 or so, I'm not going to go through every photo just to see if there is something my client or myself object to.  It's simple.  Make a complete profile with as much information as possible that is searchable.  Some people may want what you have others may not.  But it's about reducing the results to those that are close to save time.

We aren't lazy.  Some of us have better things to do than look at all the pretty pictures of people that don't fit what we are looking for.

If the search engine is not capable of retrieving results that are even *close* to accurate, then it's not usable.

JoJo wrote:

but... but... that would necessitate a photographer actually doing something (other than complaining) - they would have to actually LOOK at the model's port!

Unheard of!! - Unthinkable!! - Totally Ridiculous!!

The search feature exists so we don't have to look at each individual profile. That is the purpose of the search feature.

Fotticelli wrote:
"n/a" in the "Tattoos" and "Piercing" fields means, to me, that there are tattoos and piercings.

I happen to prefer models without tattoos so if you don't have tattoos please update the field so I can find you.

+1

david durkee wrote:
OK, I'll be the A-hole. 

I don't come to MM as I don't shoot Glamour which seems to be the vast majority of models and shooters. No problem with that, it's just not what I do.  However when I run a search for a nude model with NO ink, NO steel and hopefully no silicone I get tons of results, most of which do not fit the search criteria.  If the search engine isn't going to come up with the correct results, why even have it at all?  It's a waste of time.  I'm not going to use dermablend or makeup and incur the cost of that from the makeup artist, nor will I spend hours on photoshop removing someone's doodle "that has significant meaning" from the photograph.  As a model you are a blank canvas.  No one in the art store wants a canvas that has graffiti on it, unless that is their style and that would be extremely rare. 

Same with age and measurements.  I just did a commercial shoot for an athletic accessory manufacturer and had to completely ignore MM.  Why?  The stylist wanted to know measurements for a wardrobe to change two or three looks on site.  The search on MM revealed that many models were 0"-0"-0" (REALLY??) or 32"-32"-32" (a fence post).  Having ACCURATE measurements, including height and other sizes (shoes, gloves hats) is necessary to ensure that we (the lowly photographer) have the proper information to pass on to the stylist.  The stylist will still have to use clips and such to trim things up, but 0"-0"-0" ISN'T going to help.  If I'm searching for a model between 35-40, having your age be 99 isn't going to get you noticed or get you work.  We use these search criteria to find someone who fits a JOB REQUIREMENT.

These numbers and search fields aren't about ego, self-image or your political message, it's about the business of preparing properly for a shoot.

OK, I have my asbestos underwear on, flame away about my port (hasn't been touched in years and I don't care) my ignorance of body art (it's still a ridiculous fad) and my lack of photographic skills.  Those posts will be ignored.

But if you think I'm wrong about my last statement: "These numbers and search fields aren't about ego, self-image or your political message, it's about the business of preparing properly for a shoot."  - I'd love to hear what you have to say.

Thanks for your input. Very valuable, especially the part about body art being a "ridiculous fad," you know, since tattooing and piercing hasn't been going on for thousands of years.

Leenah  wrote:
That was actually kinda helpful, thanks. I had no idea that function was there. Now hopefully I don't lose work when I fix my info..

Ah cool, this is first. Glad you found out about this feature

WITTWITT wrote:
Hello all,
I understand that tattoos are a very popular thing, however, if you are going to cover yourselves in artwork, please edit your profile.

I am glad someone finally speaks up on that matter.

So many members and not one ever posted such a warning.

Although, it is my understanding that the "tattoo" feature in the description is a new addition and wasn't much publicized, so, the vast majority of models on MM with existing accounts don't even know about this check box.

I am glad you brought this up, because we really don't have enough tattoo threads.

Btw., it's an old post but: How to get (temporarily) rid of a TATTOO:

david durkee wrote:
...  As a model you are a blank canvas.  No one in the art store wants a canvas that has graffiti on it, unless that is their style and that would be extremely rare. 

...

Hearing this just never gets tiring to me, not sure why.
Jen

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

Thanks for your input. Very valuable, especially the part about body art being a "ridiculous fad," you know, since tattooing and piercing hasn't been going on for thousands of years.

That may be, but you didn't see tattoos on women anywhere near like you do today, in the 80's even.