egafd.com

XNK4457 = Elke

Sometimes it pays off to go to medical school or at least take a beginner's course to fully understand and appreciate IAFD's bio/personal information about a performer
Non-Ear Piercings: Clithood; one each outer labium

... although they've eschewed the more formal term for the hood, which is- as
everyone knows [!!!]- the preputium clitoridis.
And at least in the UK, we'd use the term 'labia majora'.

On another tack: why use the awkward "non-ear piercings"? It would be simpler
to have a general note that ear-piercings are not listed and note all else under
"piercings".

If I had to list all the incongruities one finds at the IAFD database, the list would be long.
Say for instance actress X appears in more than one scene in a movie. In one scene she does a lesbian scene while in another she does a b/g scene. The way her sex activity is listed in IAFD will show no reference to [lesbo].
The same goes if actress X has a regular b/g scene with actor John Smith, but in another b/g scene (in the same movie) she does an anal with actor John Doe. She may be listed as performing an anal for THAT movie, but you have no clue in WHAT scene the anal occurred or with WHAT actor (unless you bought/rented/downloaded the movie or was fortunate enough to locate some review or screencap somewhere).
My burning question I would have for IAFD is: what is the purpose of listing scene breakdown and pairings, when in each scene it does NOT fully describe what occurs?

This deserves an answer [however inadequate], so I'll risk Alec's wrath by
further continuing our unjust highjacking of marcel's thread.....

I raised this very point [about multiple sex-acts in one movie] with Walter and
Jeff ages back- alas, the data-entry tool has been configured the way it is, and
to substantially re-jig it would effectively mean the db shutting down for months.
I know from personal experience [designing a program that can deal with multiple
character-states to be used in a cladistic analysis] that it's very difficult to
produce a format that can cope with subsequent changes in focus or detail.
You build it, you run it, and you live with the consequences- even if that means
starting all over again from scratch when it's finished its run-time.

A similar problem has arisen with Peter's database set up. For older films involving plotlines, sometimes there were sex scenes which ran concurrently with other partners (sometimes located in the same room, say for instance on a separate couch, etc and sometimes they were located completely somewhere else. So the film alternated between one couple to another, until they more or less concluded around the same tie. It was the habit of Peter to list each coupling as separate scenes even when the action was occuring at the same time in the very same room/location.
But as you say, that's the way the database was conceived amd to change that would be nightmarish.
I occasionally post selective filmographies on an Italian forum, and to expedite things I used to tag video box covers found in Jadedvideo.com to avoid reposting them on the forum's server for more permanent and easy usage. On a couple of occasions Jadedvideo changed the codes for the video box covers and discarded the old VHS covers (and I think now they are no even linkable), and all my Jaded link references have become completely useless. There was no way for me to rework things, so all those filmographies have to be redone.
So I do understand the frustrations of living with changes and wanting to make changes whenever possible. However, if you are trying to pin down whether actress X actually took it up the bum by Rocco Siffredi, or did a lesbian scene with such and such, it is a little tricky to resolve.

That's why, of course, the review-links are so useful- as long as they're a least
moderately competent [i.e. not of the Ranchocarne Neanderthal-level type], and
those links are kept current : -)