Questions for the admin

[jj]

It's essentially a data-processing problem; too much info, and too diffuse.
Iafd has already hit the buffers with web-only content and AFAIK decided to ban
it altogether. Unless bgafd takes on 100 staffers they can't cope.
And there's a degree of 'commercialism' to listing website data.... as in your
comment about older material. It's the database's aim only to list the original
titles- and for consumers to find them; that's what Google's for. For newer
[web-based] material, I don't know what the eventual solution will be. It may be
that, like the US, ahem, 'escorts' or erotic dancers who do the occasional porno
to 'keep their profile up', Brit girls will have to do the occasional DVD to make
punters aware of the web-stuff : -)
While purchase-links are supplied where known, they quickly become obsolete-
many [especially on egafd] are now dead. Sponsor-sites are the exception in all
this, of course : -)

[jj]

I'd missed the 'definition' angle in the above. Thanks : -)

[jj]

Like all such compilations, the problem is not so much what to include as what
to exclude. There's frequent discussion on egafd over whether US titles featuring
Euro girls should be included- with no firm answer now, or likely in future.

As randyandy pointed out, most web-content fails the basic test by not
being remotely describable as 'a film'. If someone wants to take on the burden of
collating all the online stuff, good luck to them- but it's a Sisyphean aim, IMO
essentially futile- such material is even more ephemeral than the regular type.

[The Bear up a tree]

i think it's up to the girls to keep track of their work, also. after all, if anyone knows what work they've done it's the girls themselves. but failing that; google it.

[paul markham]

Listing everything would be a nightmare. Finding it even worse.

Should not stop the site from doing some. And relying on sites to help.