Babybean wrote:
I always see models with 0-0-0 as their measurements. Why? Is it related to searching? Are they just shy?
My thoughts are that it makes it easier for someone to find wardrobe for you or fit you for a project... So I'm a little baffled.

MM had a glitch awhile back (shock and awe!!!) that cleared the bios and measurements of a significant number of site members. Unless these members are aware of that and go back and re-enter their information it reads as 0.

Or they don't care. *shrug*

Babybean wrote:
I always see models with 0-0-0 as their measurements. Why? Is it related to searching? Are they just shy?
My thoughts are that it makes it easier for someone to find wardrobe for you or fit you for a project... So I'm a little baffled.

B R E N N A N wrote:
MM had a glitch awhile back (shock and awe!!!) that cleared the bios and measurements of a significant number of site members. Unless these members are aware of that and go back and re-enter their information it reads as 0.

Or they don't care. *shrug*

Yup, I remember that glitch... ah, good times.

MM should really have tech's run a query on their database for things like that and send out an email to those people asking them to update their profiles, but apparently a concern for encouraging a database with accurate information is not much of a priority around here.

Babybean:

Kinda goes hand in hand with the bra size thread and confusing over the bust measurement... as you rightly point out, those stats are used to search for measurements, but of those who don't have "0", possibly near 1/2 the site has their bra size down in the bust measurement slot, when there *should* be a bra size number with the cup size, leaving the bust measurement to correctly be a model's actual bust measurement.

Don't be a little baffled... just feel like you're being welcomed to the Mayhem.

Babybean wrote:
I always see models with 0-0-0 as their measurements. Why? Is it related to searching? Are they just shy?
My thoughts are that it makes it easier for someone to find wardrobe for you or fit you for a project... So I'm a little baffled.

B R E N N A N wrote:
MM had a glitch awhile back (shock and awe!!!) that cleared the bios and measurements of a significant number of site members. Unless these members are aware of that and go back and re-enter their information it reads as 0.

Or they don't care. *shrug*

Either this, or they want to be judged on the strength of their portfolio, not on their measurements. Which is fine if they're looking to shoot art nudes, but not all that useful if they want to do more commercially oriented work.

Isis22 wrote:
I am puzzled over a lot of things models put down. Things like None for Piercings and then they clearly state in their Bio that they have pierced ears. I don't know if it's not paying attention, not caring, or what. I will say there are too many things open to interpretation but measurements can at least be attempted to be filled out IMO. You won't get any true answers in the Forums though. Most models who are active in here are not those models you are referring to.

Is it the fault of the models or is it the fault of the site for creating things that they can't possibly not know are going to have happen exactly as you say.

Things like you say for piercings, or the tattoo function are great examples of recently added data points that were doomed to fail before they ever went live.

Many of these things are primarily a result of really bad design.

GRMACK wrote:
I do find the ones who post a 22 inch waist weighing in at over 220 pounds a bit humorous - if not wishful thinking.

especially when they are 100 years old and only 12 inches tall

DougBPhoto wrote:

Is it the fault of the models or is it the fault of the site for creating things that they can't possibly not know are going to have happen exactly as you say.

Things like you say for piercings, or the tattoo function are great examples of recently added data points that were doomed to fail before they ever went live.

Many of these things are simply a result of really bad design.

I agree there is a lot of bad design on this site. Yes, bra size should be added. Hair length is very open to interpretation. But really, how hard is it to actually read the list to the left of your bio or update your profile? Maybe I expect too much.

Isis22 wrote:
I am puzzled over a lot of things models put down. Things like None for Piercings and then they clearly state in their Bio that they have pierced ears. I don't know if it's not paying attention, not caring, or what. I will say there are too many things open to interpretation but measurements can at least be attempted to be filled out IMO. You won't get any true answers in the Forums though. Most models who are active in here are not those models you are referring to.

Really? I figured most us women had their ears pierced excluding conservative religions who wouldn't be on here anywho. Do you know many women who don't?? Maybe it's because I'm from a city?? I would assume like the poster above it's referring specifically to other peircibgs which I've seen aplenty on here. Do you ever really zoom in on an earlobe? And aren't they tiny enough to not notice? Not exactly a barbell threw the nipple or a septum ring, is it?

lynne g wrote:

Really? I figured most us women had their ears pierced excluding conservative religions who wouldn't be on here anywho. Do you know many women who don't?? Maybe it's because I'm from a city?? I would assume like the poster above it's referring specifically to other peircibgs which I've seen aplenty on here. Do you ever really zoom in on an earlobe? And aren't they tiny enough to not notice? Not exactly a barbell threw the nipple or a septum ring, is it?

This.

Schlake wrote:
When I'm looking for a model all I'm hoping to find is some willing to model for money.  I don't even bother to look at their portfolio.

Isis22 wrote:
Things like None for Piercings and then they clearly state in their Bio that they have pierced ears.

I have my septum and my ears pierced and put none for piercings.

lynne g wrote:

Really? I figured most us women had their ears pierced excluding conservative religions who wouldn't be on here anywho. Do you know many women who don't?? Maybe it's because I'm from a city?? I would assume like the poster above it's referring specifically to other peircibgs which I've seen aplenty on here. Do you ever really zoom in on an earlobe? And aren't they tiny enough to not notice? Not exactly a barbell threw the nipple or a septum ring, is it?

My BFF didn't get her ears pierced until she was 25. I do know women with no pierced ears or pierced anything else. They are not religious. In fact I have noticed a model or two on this site with no pierced ears.

AlexisWren wrote:
I've always wondered if listing my height causes some photographers to hit the back button before even checking out my work.

Being in proportion is more important than height, but, in any case, 5'7" is a pretty good height

AlexisWren wrote:
It's hard to tell if people even read the sidebar.

Maybe some models also hope that if they leave their measurements off, they will get judged for their work first and not their weight or waist size?

If the sidebar is empty or obviously wrong (100 yrs old, 12" waist, etc), I take it a sign that the model lacks professionalism.

GRMACK wrote:
I do find the ones who post a 22 inch waist weighing in at over 220 pounds a bit humorous - if not wishful thinking.

Rob Photosby wrote:
especially when they are 100 years old and only 12 inches tall

There are the models who list a waist size larger than their hips.  And male models who list their biceps size rather than their sleeve length.

Mark Salo wrote:

There are the models who list a waist size larger than their hips.  And male models who list their biceps size rather than their sleeve length.

Which is why I cannot fathom how some cannot even work a tape measure.  I've gotten some very bizarre responses as to things like: "My armpit-to-wrist is 43 inches" at times.  Like they are 11 feet tall, or maybe built like a chimpanzee. Later I find out, "Their mom buys all their clothing and they have no idea."

Drives me mad.

As to the ink thing on MM, they should have just made it a "Yes, I have ink." or "No, I do not have ink."  (i.e. A simple "Yes"/"No" answer would suffice.).  Don't know why MM even included "Some" - like a jury would say "You are 'Some'what guilty" or you are 'Some'what pregnant.  You are, or you aren't.  Many cannot figure out they have it and then answer "None" but probably hedging their bets as no one will notice their ink and profile response as "None" even if they feel "Some" is good 'nuff like a vanity-sized some P.C. correct measurement.

(Where's the 'rolleyes' response here?)

Rob Photosby wrote:
If the sidebar is empty or obviously wrong (100 yrs old, 12" waist, etc), I take it a sign that the model lacks professionalism.

I don't think age should matter, just your look and whether your portfolio and measurements are up to date. I am extremely professional (ask anyone I have shot with), I just don't list my age properly. However, the rest of my stats are accurate and my images are recently updated.

B R E N N A N wrote:

MM had a glitch awhile back (shock and awe!!!) that cleared the bios and measurements of a significant number of site members. Unless these members are aware of that and go back and re-enter their information it reads as 0.

Or they don't care. *shrug*

While I find this an acceptable explanation (but rather unhelpful glitch), I don't think it applies everywhere.  I've noticed a lot with 32"-32"-32" on models that definitely have a normal woman's waistline.  That, I think, comes from women buying low-rise jeans that are sized to her hips NOT her actual waist and therefore they don't really know their correct waist size.  From commercial point of view, listing inaccurate measurements will cost a model work that she might otherwise qualify for.  Same with age of 99 or some other ridiculous number that is clearly and intentionally off.  Inaccurate numbers make the search engine completely useless, which is why people so often use other resources on the web.

It's helpful if you are trying to get work in the modeling business to get measured at a fine department store or at an alteration shop.  List your correct age and weight, as well as current hair color and length.  Hair many times gets changed on a shoot but extensions, color and cutting all add to the budget they may have. 

If you are a fit model, you already know the value of correct sizing - if a dressmaker is looking for an average size 8 with a series of other requirements , they won't be pleased if you show up and you are way off the numbers. 

http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archiv … surements/

It's not personal, modeling of all types is a body business.

david durkee wrote:

I've noticed a lot with 32"-32"-32" on models that definitely have a normal woman's waistline.  That, I think, comes from women buying low-rise jeans that are sized to her hips NOT her actual waist and therefore they don't really know their correct waist size.

There is absolutely no way a woman with 32 inch hips would wear jeans that say 32 for the waist. You obviously have no idea how jeans run.

Isis22 wrote:

There is absolutely no way a woman with 32 inch hips would wear jeans that say 32 for the waist. You obviously have no idea how jeans run.

I DO know how jeans run.  I was speculating as to why any woman would come up with such ridiculous measurements.  It was nicer than saying "stupidity".

Southern_Jas wrote:
The piercings option had me for a bit.  I thought they were referring to other than ear piercings.

Like you I also thought the piercings option was referring to body piercings 'other' than earlobes.

I'm still not sure about it. It seems deceptive to answer yes when I don't have 'piercings' but, do have pierced ears.

Jen

david durkee wrote:

I DO know how jeans run.  I was speculating as to why any woman would come up with such ridiculous measurements.  It was nicer than saying "stupidity".

It's possible the model meant to put 32 22 32. Or maybe they are just a smartass.

Ken Warren Photography wrote:

Babybean wrote:
I always see models with 0-0-0 as their measurements. Why? Is it related to searching? Are they just shy?
My thoughts are that it makes it easier for someone to find wardrobe for you or fit you for a project... So I'm a little baffled.

Either this, or they want to be judged on the strength of their portfolio, not on their measurements. Which is fine if they're looking to shoot art nudes, but not all that useful if they want to do more commercially oriented work.

Except they won't show up in searches for anyone looking soemthing specific to judge the strength of that portfolio.

I guess I never see them myself so I was unaware it was that big of an issue...