Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 36555
San Diego, California, US
Mousseline wrote:
I see myself as MM's D. W. Griffith Good stuff.
You know a lot of things about the heyday of Hollywood, don't you?
If you know about film-making for yourself in the form of youtube-length short films or punchy snippets, I need a tutor.
Photographer
Gryph
Posts: 1696
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 36555
San Diego, California, US
kickfight wrote:
Yes. There ARE gay folks on MM. I have worked with several. Others post on the forums on a regular basis. MM membership is NOT limited to heterosexuals. Click Hamilton wrote:
May I ask what the relevance of this is to her question? kickfight wrote:
You may.  What is the relevance of this to her question, Sir?
You always have interesting things to say.
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Click Hamilton wrote:
What is the relevance of this to her question, Sir?
You always have interesting things to say. Thank you for asking! 
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 36555
San Diego, California, US
kickfight wrote:
Thank you for asking! Sure Kickfight. Anytime.
Thank you for being here.
Photographer
Gryph
Posts: 1696
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Click Hamilton wrote:
Dang. That's a buzz-kill. Anytime Click. 
![https://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn256/gryphb/aika_zps7hxqc8ak.gif]()
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Click Hamilton wrote:
Sure Kickfight. Anytime.
Thank you for being here. You're welcome!
Photographer
D a v i d s o n
Posts: 1216
Gig Harbor, Washington, US
Lohkee wrote:
I'm just confused. I didn't even get a category. I think she has an issue with confused people. Oh well, sucks to be me. I agree it would...
Model
Stella Sidney
Posts: 887
Los Angeles, California, US
kickfight wrote:
Intolerance or Birth Of A Nation?  orphans of the storm
but the other ones are greats, too.
Model
Stella Sidney
Posts: 887
Los Angeles, California, US
Click Hamilton wrote:
You know a lot of things about the heyday of Hollywood, don't you?
If you know about film-making for yourself in the form of youtube-length short films or punchy snippets, I need a tutor. I woukld be honored to tutor you, Click. But I only know the history, not the technical.
Photographer
DOUGLASFOTOS
Posts: 10604
Los Angeles, California, US
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
kickfight wrote:
Intolerance or Birth Of A Nation? Mousseline wrote:
orphans of the storm
but the other ones are greats, too. Oooh, nice. Add the selected Biograph shorts and Broken Blossoms and you got the Masterworks box set.
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 36555
San Diego, California, US
DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
... She doesn't need one.
Photographer
Whose nudes
Posts: 54
East Hampton, Connecticut, US
there are no questions about race color or sexual preferences asked when joining. so there wont be any stats on these parameters listed anywhere aside from m or f age or talents.
so what was the point of this?
Photographer
Risen Phoenix Photo
Posts: 3779
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I have also. I think everyone has, no one is disputing that. And no one ever said that MM membership is limited to heterosexuals.
Photographer
Peter Claver
Posts: 27130
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
I think everyone has, no one is disputing that. And no one ever said that MM membership is limited to heterosexuals. in fact the OP said *precisely* that.
Model
Stella Sidney
Posts: 887
Los Angeles, California, US
Peter Claver wrote:
in fact the OP said *precisely* that. no I didn't,just pointed out general demographics. Didn't say anything about other sexual orientations. It's not my job to cater to peoples' various insecurities about their sexual orientations.
Photographer
Peter Claver
Posts: 27130
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Mousseline wrote:
no I didn't,just pointed out general demographics. Didn't say anything about other sexual orientations. Mousseline wrote:
40% heterosexual male photographers in their 30-50s
60% heterosexual female models ages 16-35
anyone have anything to add or dispute to this? 40% plus 60% is 100%
Thus.. only heterosexuals, in your estimation.
Model
Stella Sidney
Posts: 887
Los Angeles, California, US
Peter Claver wrote:
Thus.. only heterosexuals, in your estimation. I was doing majority estimations. That's why I said anyone can dispute this.
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Mousseline wrote:
I was doing majority estimations. That's why I said anyone can dispute this. Hm. That's odd, because your thread title refers specifically to gender demographics, and yet you specify "heterosexual" in your break-down. What criteria were you using to determine heterosexuality?
Photographer
martin b
Posts: 2770
Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines
I didn't mind the heterosexual idea. I think that is probably close to correct.
Model
Stella Sidney
Posts: 887
Los Angeles, California, US
kickfight wrote:
Hm. That's odd, because your thread title refers specifically to gender demographics, and yet you specify "heterosexual" in your break-down. What criteria were you using to determine heterosexuality? I think we all know what's the majority, I just wanted everyone else's opinion.
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
kickfight wrote:
Hm. That's odd, because your thread title refers specifically to gender demographics, and yet you specify "heterosexual" in your break-down. What criteria were you using to determine heterosexuality? Mousseline wrote:
I think we all know what's the majority, I just wanted everyone else's opinion. That's kind of a broad assumption there. There's no reason to simply assume that MM membership aligns strictly with a general-population break-down on sexual orientation.
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 65617
Danbury, Connecticut, US
Model Mayhem doesn't keep track of members' sexual orientations. We do, on an as-reported basis, keep track of other information. Age information is only available for models. Here's some info for members who have logged in recently.
Models 41.6%
Male 22.5%
Female 77.5% (32.2% of all members)
Under 18 1.1%
18-29 74.3% (30.9% of all members)
30-40 18.5%
Over 40 6.2%
Photographers 48.9%
Male 91.0% (44.5% of all members)
Female 8.1%
MUAs 2.3%
Male 8.5%
Female 90.9%
Other 4.7%
Male 58.9%
Female 39.0%
Model
Stella Sidney
Posts: 887
Los Angeles, California, US
Brian Diaz wrote:
Model Mayhem doesn't keep track of members' sexual orientations. We do, on an as-reported basis, keep track of other information. Age information is only available for models. Here's some info for members who have logged in recently.
Models 41.6%
Male 22.5%
Female 77.5% (32.2% of all members)
Under 18 1.1%
18-29 74.3% (30.9% of all members)
30-40 18.5%
Over 40 6.2%
Photographers 48.9%
Male 91.0% (44.5% of all members)
Female 8.1%
MUAs 2.3%
Male 8.5%
Female 90.9%
Other 4.7%
Male 58.9%
Female 39.0% and there we have it.
Photographer
Click Hamilton
Posts: 36555
San Diego, California, US
Brian Diaz wrote:
Model Mayhem doesn't keep track of members' sexual orientations. We do, on an as-reported basis, keep track of other information. Age information is only available for models. Here's some info for members who have logged in recently.
Models 41.6%
Male 22.5%
Female 77.5% (32.2% of all members)
Photographers 48.9%
Male 91.0% (44.5% of all members)
Female 8.1% Photographers outnumber models? Am I understanding this correctly?
"recent log-ins" ... is that representative or different from the numbers for total accounts or active accounts?
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 65617
Danbury, Connecticut, US
Click Hamilton wrote:
Photographers outnumber models? Am I understanding this correctly? When we're looking at members who have logged in recently, yes. If you look at total numbers of all profiles, no. Consider that the average career of a model is much shorter than that of a photographer, so a model is more likely to move on and stop using MM. Photographers generally stick around longer.
Photographer
Slack Dragon
Posts: 93
Fort Worth, Texas, US
Brian Diaz wrote:
Here's some info for members who have logged in recently.
Models 41.6%
Photographers 48.9%
MUAs 2.3%
Other 4.7% Not that I have a dog in this fight or that it really matters much, but this adds up to 97.5%. Shouldn't it be 100%? ("Other" accounting for members who do not match the other three categories?)
What am I missing?
(Sigh... I really do have too much time on my hands.)
Photographer
Risen Phoenix Photo
Posts: 3779
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Peter Claver wrote:
in fact the OP said *precisely* that. No she didn't. Those percentages were not at 100% that leaves plenty of room for others. You are pretty intolerant and closed minded to all but your own opinion.
If she states that 40% are male heterosexual photographer that allows for 60 % to fall out side those age ranges, or gay or bi , or female. Pretty generous I think.
And if she says 60 % are female models that allows for 40% to be out side that age range as well as gay or bi, or male models.
She very easily could have meant that.
Photographer
Risen Phoenix Photo
Posts: 3779
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
kickfight wrote:
kickfight wrote:
Hm. That's odd, because your thread title refers specifically to gender demographics, and yet you specify "heterosexual" in your break-down. What criteria were you using to determine heterosexuality? That's kind of a broad assumption there. There's no reason to simply assume that MM membership aligns strictly with a general-population break-down on sexual orientation. That's a weak argument... The corollary is also true.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45209
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Brian Diaz wrote:
Here's some info for members who have logged in recently.
Models 41.6%
Photographers 48.9%
MUAs 2.3%
Other 4.7% Slack Dragon wrote:
Not that I have a dog in this fight or that it really matters much, but this adds up to 97.5%. Shouldn't it be 100%? ("Other" accounting for members who do not match the other three categories?)
What am I missing?
(Sigh... I really do have too much time on my hands.) I just assumed that it was 100% without doing the math. You got me to get off my lazy ass to do the addition, and you are right! Maybe there is "another other" that was left out?
Photographer
Capitol City Boudoir
Posts: 774
Sacramento, California, US
A couple of weeks back I did a browse here on MM. I was looking for photographers active within the last 90 days versus models active in the last 90 days.
100,299 photographers
96,643 models
Models active in the last 30 days was only 44,770.
Looks like a lot of people sign up and then lose interest. MM keeps their portfolios active to keep their numbers up.
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
That's a weak argument... The corollary is also true. It's not an "argument" at all. It's an observation. So that's another assumption that just bit the dust.
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 45209
San Juan Bautista, California, US
Capitol City Boudoir wrote:
A couple of weeks back I did a browse here on MM. I was looking for photographers active within the last 90 days versus models active in the last 90 days.
100,299 photographers
96,643 models
Models active in the last 30 days was only 44,770.
Looks like a lot of people sign up and then lose interest. MM keeps their portfolios active to keep their numbers up. It's interesting how this has become a topic of the forums. I thank the OP for sparking some life in these forums. It's been pretty stale lately. Lots of dead wood. Takes time to clear it.
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 65617
Danbury, Connecticut, US
Slack Dragon wrote:
Not that I have a dog in this fight or that it really matters much, but this adds up to 97.5%. Shouldn't it be 100%? ("Other" accounting for members who do not match the other three categories?)
What am I missing?
(Sigh... I really do have too much time on my hands.) Good catch. There is another that I didn't account for: Talent Recruiter profiles. They're not full members, as the only way they can interact with the site is through Sponsored Castings. They do show up in Browse if you choose "Any" as the artist type, but not if you select individual profile types.
Including those profiles makes it:
Models 41.6%
Photographers 48.9%
MUAs 2.3%
Other 7.1%
That makes 99.9%. The 0.1% is missing due to rounding.
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 65617
Danbury, Connecticut, US
Not considering profile type, the breakdown by sex is:
Male 56.6%
Female 40.0%
Choose Not to Say 3.4%
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 65617
Danbury, Connecticut, US
Capitol City Boudoir wrote:
Looks like a lot of people sign up and then lose interest. MM keeps their portfolios active to keep their numbers up. I would note that MM keeps those profiles active because many times people come back (I know there are about a dozen sites I'm a member of, but I only log in every few months or years) as well as because there are too many higher priority initiatives on the tech team's plate to go through the process of removing them.
Photographer
Frank Lewis Photography
Posts: 14494
Winter Park, Florida, US
Mousseline wrote:
40% heterosexual male photographers in their 30-50s
60% heterosexual female models ages 16-35
anyone have anything to add or dispute to this? I am outside your demographic on the high side by at least twenty years.
I guess I'm in a class by myself. Or maybe not. Me and Lohkee...
|
