Feetboyy (user)2014-11-29 16:39:13
There was nothing wrong with the pictures I uploaded? They perfectly showed her feet?
Templar97 (user) - rated (beautiful feet)2014-11-29 16:42:00
@Feetboyy- Have you read the site guidelines?
Feetboyy (user) - rated (beautiful feet)2014-11-29 16:46:52
Yes, but if we're posting pictures of her feet, surely the ones I posted were 'of' her feet?
Iluvfeet (guild knight)
- rated (nice feet)2014-11-29 16:48:05
@feetboyy - let me spell it out for you. Feet covered by socks, is No Feet Showing!
Templar97 (user) - rated (beautiful feet)2014-11-29 16:54:16
Take a nice long look at those guidelines before you upload again, sir.
@Feetboyy- The pictures in question were of Fearne wearing a pair of shoes that cover and encompass her entire foot. "All uploaded pictures must show toes, soles, or arches"
BackInBlack60 (guild knight)2014-11-29 17:00:08
o All uploaded pictures must show toes, soles or arches. If they don't, please report them as "No feet". Shoes and socks aren't really what wikiFeet is about.
Socks definitely aren't. Only sheer (see-through) hosiery is allowed, and some aren't happy about even *that.*
@T97- You left out part of that:
herfeetmyface (user)2015-04-25 13:37:10
Check out this shot of Michelle Keegan in socks.
I think high-quality shots like this from various angles should be allowed. I mean, you can't say that you don't get a better idea from that photo than you do from at least 50% of the shitters already on the site.
I think that it's about time that rule was changed. Pictures of feet in socks can give a very good indication to the shape of the foot. It's less than 5mm of fabric for f*ck sake. You can clearly see a girl in socks' arches in a lot of cases. I find it crazy that pictures like 692370 are accepted, but any photos of a girl wearing socks aren't even up for consideration.
herfeetmyface (user)2015-04-26 02:32:27
Here's another example of a great sock shot. Jennifer Aniston this time.