egafd.com

Author: tintoretto2
Date: 04-22-07 00:09

I see...you'r simply great, Len 801, since you can manage to write filmography of most porn actrices around. What it's surprising to me is that you know in dept all movies and film's covers for all European actices, which shouldn't be your job.

However, thanks for your suggestion. I am indeed very interested in ORIGINAL movies only of Christy Canyon as well, but here in Italy these movies are almost impossible to find (for example I am looking for a movie since long time : "I dream of Christy" ,but I cannot find it anywhere). Any suggestion?

I am not sure we are OT, but, if you think so, I can open a new Topic comparing European actices to USA actices, so we won't be OT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know whether we are heading in O.T. territory since we are discussing US movies and performers, which is not the raison d'etre of this forum.
Perhaps the EGAFD administrators, will be a little tolerant so I can respond further, I was not aware that Christy Canyon movies are hard to come by in Italy (I do not live there), nor was I aware that I DREAM OF CHRISTY is no longer in distribution.
I think this was the second comeback tape she made for Video Exclusives in 1989 (I think the first one was HOT IN THE CITY) under her exclusive label she set up called "Canyon Video" (after her name of course).
In my view the best Christy titles were the ones she made during her first run in the mid 1980's. The ones she made for Canyon Video were OK (shot on video), and the Vivid stuff was sub-standard in my view. HOT IN THE CITY is technically a little better than I DREAM OF CHRISTY, but both have a short running length (even for that time) (approx 75 minutes in length). The visuals werea little better than the Video work (which tended to be soft-focus and muddy photography, at least the videos that I saw at the time).
If you are having trouble finding some older titles which are no longer in circulation, try an outfit in the US called Sure Luck:

Contact is usually done by e-mail and they charge you a finder's fee for trying to locate the film. If they find it, they will advise you of the cost involved. I think they also list some popular titles, so you may want to look around before sending them an e-mail.
Good luck.

Len801 wrote:

> IAFD.com has dumped a lot of the compilation titles it used to
> list in the beginning, but there is still some stuff there that
> could be removed.

Let me clarify the current IAFD policy on comps.

We usually will not enter data on compilations. There is already too much original material being released for us to keep up with, really.

Having said this, there are exceptions.

1) We will enter comps when they have the same title as an original video. If a comp were to be released with the title New Wave Hookers, we will list it. We do this because otherwise vendor links for that comp will automatically be added to the existing, original film. The only way to avoid this, is to add the comp and move the correct vendor links manually. It's actually a pain in the ass, if you ask me.

2) Some comps have original material. The Deep Inside Star X series from VCA or The Private Life Of Star X series from Private comes to mind. Sometimes, it's even hard to tell whether a series is basically a comp, or a loop carrier, or more or less original. The Private Castings X series is hard to define in this regard and has only recently been marked as comps (basically because they fucked up the Years Active field of dozens of performers).

3) Lately we have been receiving many user submissions with data on compilations. We are still debating whether or not we should respond to these submissions by adding the titles to the database or not. IMO, we should not, but I am in the minority camp. So, we add comps when the data is given to us on a silver platter, so to speak, through user submissions.
(On a personal note, I tend not to respond to such submissions myself. I think they are a waste of time. Like I said above, we can't keep up with the original stuff. So why waste time and energy on comps at all?)

4) We tend not to drop any existing titles any more. So, if a title is already listed and we find out it's a comp, we won't remove it from the database. We do very clearly mark it as a comp though.

To sum it up, IAFD lists many comps. However, whenever we know that a title is a comp, we clearly mark it as such.

If suggest you try posting the actual titles that are doubles and you'll see they will be fixed after a few updates. Don't keep the info for yourself

Author: candela
Date: 04-22-07 20:51

If suggest you try posting the actual titles that are doubles and you'll see they will be fixed after a few updates. Don't keep the info for yourself
-----------------------
Candela you are basically repeating that JJ said in his post. If one knows and has on hand first hand information that a movie is a compilation or has been retitled they should bring it to the attention of the relevant database administrators (be it EGAFD or IAFD).

With regards to Walter Burns comments about the IAFD policy, their database used to be full of compilation titles (which they frequently properly identified as such). They have done a lot of good work in past year or so, in dumping a lot of those titles, as they fill not particular useful purpose.
Sometimes compilation tapes are useful to certain people who are unable to acquire a number oforiginal films of a particular performer (they may be difficult or too expensive to get, etc).
The worst feature in including or excluding them in databases like IAFD, is in trying to determine the "active" years of a performer. An actress may have worked say between 1997-2001 and left the business for good. Then 2-3 titles tapes crop up and are listed for 2005, 2006, so you do not know whether these may have been comeback titles or simply compilation crap (which may not be properly identified as such). One is left to wonder whether that actess was still active in 2006 or when she abandoned the business. So you may be chasing (and spending time and money) titles that may be totally irrelevant to that performer's filmography.

Hi Len801 and all,

thank you very much for your clarifications.

Frankly speaking, I find IAFD, the USA database much more complete and accurate then EGAFD.

This it doesn't mean EGAFD is no good. In fact EGAFD is a VERY GOOD database, but miss some of IAFD stuffs which are very useful as well.

1. Missing the sex scenes details (as IAFD does. Example : "Girls on fire" they say _: first scene : Gynger Lynn with John Holmes, etc...).
2. Missing the accurate search engine of IAFD : example : IAFD you can se which actrice had sex with who, or with wich other actor/actrice was in a movie...etc...
3. Missing dropping the compilations. In fact, many times I bought a movie listed in EGAFD, and in fact it was a compilaton. Es : Una pornodiva con i tacchi a spillo with Angelica Bella.
4. EGAFD has many titles repeated twice but not listed as same film. Example: Luana's and Moana's movies, are listed in both, USA and italian title released, w/o saying it is same title.
5. Many actices which performed in several Magma video (series Teeny and maximum perversum), there is no name or photo at all, but in fact they appears often in these series. As the brunette of Lollipos 3 XNK2684, there is no name for this girl, but I saw her in at least 5 films so far...so it should be no difficult to know her name I guess.

However, EGAFD it's also very good, and I will help to provide as many info as possible.

P.S. I DREAM O CHRISTY is no listed in that Sharlock Holmes site, so I was correct that it is an hard video to find. I like it because I saw once a scene with Christy Canyon and Ron Jeremy having sex very wild, and I liked that scene. I beleave, after searching on IAFD, that the movie it should be I DREAM OF CHRISTY. Christy Canyon was having sex with Ron Jeremy first on the bed, then on the sof?, until Ron Jeremy comes on her face while she sitting on the sof?. She said : "I am gonna fuck you hard"...and so she did. That's the reason why I am looking for that scene and the movie I beleave the scene it's in.

tintoretto2 wrote:

> Frankly speaking, I find IAFD, the USA database much more
> complete and accurate then EGAFD.

It depends on your criteria; for Euro actresses I find iafd is much LESS
accurate than egafd. This is not a criticism; just an observation that
[naturally] the main thrust of iafd has been toward listing US actresses and
films. Also, iafd has been going a lot longer than egafd [only seven years
for the latter, I think] and, to continue the analogy I made above, is further
down its 'evolutionary path' than iafd.
As to general accuracy and completeness, I find where older films [say, pre-
1992] are concerned there are often gaps in iafd's info [even for US-
made films] as well as egafd's; this is to be expected, since they are
harder to get hold of, even on VHS. Cast-lists generally tended to be
optional rather than obligatory.


> ....missing the sex scenes details

Egafd is wholly reliant on contributions. Alec can hardly use thumbscrews
to elicit reviews [however much he might like to...]. Again this is in part a
function of the databases' relative ages.


> 2. Missing the accurate search engine of IAFD : example : IAFD
> you can see which actrice had sex with who, or with wich other
> actor/actrice was in a movie...etc...

Not so: enter, say 'Erika Bella Philippe Dean' [or even 'Erika Dean'] in the
egafd 'search function' and this will throw up all relevant listed cross-
references. For BOTH sites this is of course dependent on the information
entered in the d/b. No entries= no info.
A criticism of the iafd's search-engine is that it does not seem to allow
generalised cross-reference searches- say, for 'Katarina'- it will insist you
specify which 'Katarina' you want before you can proceed.


> 3. Missing dropping the compilations. In fact, many times I
> bought a movie listed in EGAFD, and in fact it was a
> compilaton. Es : Una pornodiva con i tacchi a spillo with
> Angelica Bella.

A better guide when purchasing is your own experience- hard-won and
expensive I know, but better in the long run. I can now smell an Italian
hack-job a kilometer away : -)


> 5. Many actices which performed in several Magma video....
> the brunette
> of Lollipos 3 XNK2684, there is no name for this girl, but I
> saw her in at least 5 films so far...so it should be no
> difficult to know her name I guess.

How? If YOU don't know, having seen 5 of her films, how are the rest of us
who haven't seen these titles expected to know? Alec and the team, and
posters such as myself are neither omnipotent nor psychic.


> However, EGAFD it's also very good, and I will help to provide
> as many info as possible.

Exactly.


Christy: How's your Japanese?

JJ said: >...As to general accuracy and completeness, I find where older films [say, pre-
1992] are concerned there are often gaps in iafd's info [even for US-
made films] as well as egafd's; this is to be expected, since they are
harder to get hold of, even on VHS. Cast-lists generally tended to be
optional rather than obligatory
-----------------------
JJ you should see what has been happening at IAFD in the past year or so. If there were gaps before, there are now grand canyons. IAFD is missing out on a lot of titles, that are being produced by smaller outfits, that are not widely seen or distributed. IAFD does not seem to have the contacts to get info on these releases, and the other major major problem with IAFD (at Excalibur it is horrendous) is that they frequently combine titles of performers with similar names. I understand they may not have the manpower and the time to crosscheck everything, but the bloody b... that produce/release these films know very well (since 1995 at least due to record keeping legal requirements) who is who, so they could be helping out in making ID's a little easier.
EGAFD may have a smaller database, and less titles per performer but at least it seems to be more accurate and they generally will not cross reference a title to a performance name unless it has been checked out. IAFD just dumps a title to a performer's name whether it may or may not be the same individual. For European performers it is even worse.

I believe that in the US it's customary for the larger [or higher-profile, or
more ambitious...] outfits to send out review copies; this doesn't seem to
be the case in Europe [except the UK]. I can sympathise with reviewers on
a limited budget ! I imagine this problem will get worse as more new
output appears solely as online material.

Porn producers generally have little interest in the names of their
performers [or raw material, to be cynical], making life difficult for those of
us who like to keep track of the girls' careers. Where there is a profusion
of, say, 'Cindy's, there are two ways to go- lump them in with an existing
'likely prospect' [iafd's stance- but UP TO A POINT only], or [as egafd do]
create a 'new' alpahanumeric 'Cindy [as iafd also does albeit in a different
fashion]'. I'm sure there are arguments for both approaches. I would
favour the latter approach as it creates less confusion in the long run.
This mirrors almosty exactly a long-running argument in taxonomy between
'splitters' [those who would, say, keep the genera Homo- man, and
Pan- chimpanzees, as separate evolutionary entities] and 'lumpers',
those who believe that their degree of morphological and genetic similarity
warrants inclusion of all three species in the same genus and better
reflects the taxa's genealogy.

Author: jj
Date: 04-23-07 14:33

>.......I believe that in the US it's customary for the larger [or higher-profile, or
more ambitious...] outfits to send out review copies; this doesn't seem to
be the case in Europe [except the UK]. I can sympathise with reviewers on
a limited budget ! I imagine this problem will get worse as more new
output appears solely as online material.
....Porn producers generally have little interest in the names of their
performers [or raw material, to be cynical], making life difficult for those of
us who like to keep track of the girls' careers. Where there is a profusion
of, say, 'Cindy's, there are two ways to go- lump them in with an existing
'likely prospect' [iafd's stance- but UP TO A POINT only], or [as egafd do]
create a 'new' alpahanumeric 'Cindy [as iafd also does albeit in a different
fashion]'. I'm sure there are arguments for both approaches. I would
favour the latter approach as it creates less confusion in the long run.
I can understand why they have little interest in wanting to tell you that "Cindy" did 3 movies for them. These actresses move around a lot and some of the more successful performers are shooting practically every day of the week. Vivid is known for giving their "star players" a new name (and what have you) when they move over to their outfit, just to differente them from work tey have done elsewhere.
Perhaps the worst offenders are the performers themselves. Many know the existence of databases like IAFD, EGAFD or EBI, and many have even their own website (for how it long they last) but very few performers list film titles they have appeared in (partial list, no list, or just movie titles, sometimes just a handful of box covers of movies they want to peddle through their site or some associate distributor). So that is the situation with databases basically. You have a "Cindy" who started as "Silvia", then "Lorena", then had 2-3 boob and face jobs, who has worked for 12-15 porn distributors, has done maybe 75 movies, and she herself has no clue what movies she made because she just went in shot the scene (for a movie title yet unknown) grabbed her check and out she goes to the next assignment.
In Europe it is even worse (many porn performer have used a dozen or so sometimes quite different names in a brief career), websites of most female performers contain no useful info on their biographies or movie titles. They are more interested in telling you in what club they are/will be lap dancing (schedule for the next 6 months, if there is any update!).

Len801 wrote:

> JJ you should see what has been happening at IAFD in the past
> year or so. If there were gaps before, there are now grand
> canyons. (...) IAFD just dumps a title to
> a performer's name whether it may or may not be the same
> individual. For European performers it is even worse.

[flaming rant]

Take your own advice, man, and check what's been happening on the IAFD the past year or so.

I grant you one thing: we are missing a hell of a lot of titles. Like I said elsewhere, we can barely keep up. Or in fact, we can't. There is just too much shit being produced and released.

But regarding accuracy A FUCKING LOT has changed. We do NOT dump titles to a performer's list. I know this was done in the past (meaning at least 5 years ago) when Peter had little or no info to go on and sources on the net were almost nonexistant. But in the past two years, we are a lot more careful in this regard and we do a lot more research to be more accurate. Our modus operandi now is like this: if we don't know with a reasonable certainity who a (new) performer is, we create a new perfID for her/him. Do we still make mistakes? You bet your ass we do. In fact, most of the mistakes we still make, come from reviewers that make them in the first place. (I could name some BIG names in the review game that are pretty lousy when it comes to making decent IDs.)

The thing is, we often have to choose between being (more) accurate or being (more) complete. If we want to be absolutely sure that we are accurate, we should only be listing movies we have seen ourselves. That is utter madness. So out of necessity we often rely on secondary sources -- reviews, vendor sites, box covers, other online databases, ... -- instead of primary sources -- the actual videos. Even then, we still do some cross checking when we are in doubt. And that takes time. Time we could otherwise spend on adding new titles.

If I were to guess, I would say that we are spending twice as much time on correcting mistakes in the database than that we are spending on adding new titles. A couple of months ago I had finally convinced my fellow admins that we should include European titles in a more systematic way -- which IMO has become an absolute necessity in todays international market -- but I haven't even had the time to add the 2000+ European titles I have seen myself because all I seem to be doing lately is add headshots and correct mistakes. I am making between 50 and 100 corrections to films and performers on a daily basis. That can be anything from adding sex notes or scene breakdowns to older titles, till adding height and weight to performers or even splitting up existing performers in 2, 3 or more performers. Moving titles from one performer to another is also something we do on a daily basis.

Let me try to give some figures to illustrate what we have been doing lately -- and remember, there are basically only 5 admins who do 90% of the work.

Take a look at the New Performers List: In the past 30 days, we have added 773 new performers -- that's almost 26 new performers added PER DAY. I guess that we will discover sooner or later that about 200 (or 300, who knows?) of them will have to be merged with other performers already listed.

Also take a look at our Changed Performers List: In the past 30 days, we have made corrections to 1849 performers -- or almost 62 PER DAY. And this does not include adding titles to their film list. This is only about corrections of biographical data and matters related to ID questions.

Take a look at our New Headshot page: In the past 30 days we have added headshots to 796 performers -- almost 26 new headshots PER DAY.

Take a look at our New Movies page: yes, all those titles were added in the past 30 days only.

At this moment we don't keep score of the amount of titles we change on a monthly basis -- by adding sex notes, a scene breakdown, directors, runtime, alternative titles/distributors, ... Nor do we keep track of the number of titles we move from one performer to another.

I'm not really sorry that I have been aggresive here. I am just sick of people complaining more or less behind our backs on all sorts of discussion boards how we suck and how many mistakes we have. Believe me, we know that we have mistakes and we fucking hate it that we have mistakes. Furthermore, we have created a very easy to use system for submitting corrections and additions for both titles and performers. I have very little sympathy for complainers and whiners now. Instead of whining and complaining, do something constructive: use the corrections button and let us know our mistakes. Believe me, we will treat every submission very seriously -- and yes, that includes doing research to see if the correction is correct (which it often is not -- I have lost count the number of times we have 'corrected' data that was correct to begin with -- and that's only the ones I know about).

[/flaming rant]