Annett Gebhardt

Germany would have won ww2 had they unleashed those weapons of mass destruction - fucking hell those are some big sloppy heavy looking milky orbs of Teutonic tits

Posted by ShinjiReply3 02025-01-24 21:28  🛈  ⚠

Great body... she reminds me of Jessica Robbin in that way... but she has the face of a Mordovian ploughwoman.

7/10

Posted by LeLoyon71Reply0 22025-01-24 12:07  🛈  ⚠

🧐 HONEST QUESTION :
How does a new profile of a non-famous babe that just LAUNCHED 2 DAYS AGO (on January 22nd) already amass 60+ votes and reach #2 on the all-time Top List?

Also, are the pics uploads guidelines only suggestions and not mandates? The rules say pics have to be "high quality" and at least 1024 pixels in length, yet SO MANY pics on this site are around 400ish to 890ish. I've only been on this site for over a month now and have been diligently trying to upgrade the TONS of lo-res pics on EVERY profile to hi-res images, but if even brand new 2025 profiles are allowing these lo-res, icon-sized pics in then the guidelines mean nothing and there's really no point in me uploading HQ images anymore.

Posted by thecrisisReply6 02025-01-24 04:31 (edited 2025-01-24 11:05)  🛈  ⚠

In regards to your first question, there's really only one way, and I touched on something related to this just today on Sydney Sweeney's page.

As far as the pictures go, I think the 1024 this is just a guideline, rather than a rule. Most of the pictures on here are of really good quality.

Posted by LeLoyon71Reply1 12025-01-24 04:51  🛈  ⚠

The profile didn't launch on January 22 but on February 24 last year. She reached enough votes for a ranking today.

Regarding the photo guidelines, it's a good question. We want to enforce these requiring a minimum width and height. But we fear this will result in users stretching the photos to meet the minimum resolution, resulting in even lower quality images. Yes, the image has more pixels, but the image detail is lower. If you're doing this, please don't. So, for now, we're using the photo guidelines as suggestions, and our reviewer judges the photo using various subjective and objective criteria. Many photos are rejected for being too small or too narrow, ...

If you see a photo that is low quality, you can use "flag this profile" to report it and suggest the removal.
After receiving the notification that it was reviewed, you can then upload a new one.

Posted by Pryda (admin)Reply1 02025-01-24 12:07  🛈  ⚠

@ Pryda
I honestly don't understand the fear that people would arbitrarily distort a pic or even enlarge one to meet a minimum 1024 pixel height. That is not an unreasonable low bar to meet as even the most general pics available from social media are 1080 pixels, but a lot of these sub-1000 pics seem to be the first preview image grabbed from galleries when all it'd take was a second click to grab the larger pic.

Hell MANY of the hi-res pics I've been submitting to replace the deluge of lo-res images is simply by 'Yandex reverse image search' or typing info about the pic into 'Google image advance search set to 2mb - 6mb'.

Enforcing a minimum standard would encourage people to grab better copies of images rather than lo-res 300x600 pics. And go a long way to ensuring a quality control.

Hell there is even a 564x564 square pic in Sydney Sweeney's gallery. That is roughly the size of the native resolution of computer app icons (which used to be 512x512).

Sigh. Sorry.... end of rant. I'll end my crusade.

Posted by thecrisisReply1 02025-01-24 19:06 (edited 2025-01-24 19:14)  🛈  ⚠

We have not paid that much attention to the image quality. We made the guidelines, and the reviewer decided. What is shown is more important than the resolution. If you think it would help the site to set strict minima, I invite you to submit this idea to our idea page. The link is at the bottom of the contact form page.

Posted by Pryda (admin)Reply0 02025-01-25 01:38  🛈  ⚠

Incredible, some young women, way less than in prior decades, but still have truly feminine voluptuous bodies that have actual ample natural breasts and wide birthing hips,healthy juicy incredible thighs and a plump fit ass. With a beautiful labia and crotch region on top of it.

Posted by Valiant_DukeReply4 12025-01-23 04:41 (edited 2025-01-23 04:42)  🛈  ⚠

Yes. In prehistoric times, she would have been worshipped as a fertility goddess.

Posted by slipkidReply6 02025-01-24 03:27  🛈  ⚠

@slipkid

True, but your also talking about people with sub-50 IQs that sacrificed other humans and/or animals to please their respective, made-up gods... not exactly an era of logic.

Posted by LeLoyon71Reply1 42025-01-24 11:51  🛈  ⚠

One could make a strong case that the human race has never been guided by logic. Most man-made calamities past and present are the result of superstition (religious beliefs), prejudice, greed, and so on. But i digress. The point is that Annett is a beautiful woman.

Posted by slipkidReply3 02025-01-24 14:21  🛈  ⚠