Images

[kimmy]

I notice that at present in-line images are enabled.

In the past this forum had disabled in-line images, intentionally.

I would like to offer 3 suggestions:

-I think that images should remain enabled. They can be useful. For example the "Any art students here?" thread which features the painting in question. I think that it would be worthwhile to be able to post an in-line image to put a relevant graph in a thread, for example, or a piece of artwork under discussion, or a map, or a historical site, or in general anything relevant to the topic at hand.

-I think that images should be limited to those relevant to the topic at hand. I think that allowing off-topic images will decrease the quality of discussion. I don't think we should allow threads to become cluttered with irrelevant pictures-- for example, somebody says something and another poster responds with a 1000x700 picture of Jean Luc Picard doing a face-palm. That would become old quickly. I think that in general "meme" style pictures should be discouraged. I don't think that allowing threads to become cluttered with "U Mad Bro?" and "Cool Story Bro" type images would be good for the forum. I think posting Not Safe For Work images (nudity, inappropriate gore, etc) should be grounds for suspension or banning. There are times when a NSFW image might be relevant to a thread... the aftermath of some act of violence, perhaps. People who post an image they think is relevant but may not be appropriate for a general audience should probably just use a hyperlink with a "NSFW" warning.

-I don't think we should have images in our signatures. They disrupt the flow of the thread. I think that as a general policy, signatures should be kept to a modest size.

I am Inviting other opinions. I would personally like to see images remain enabled, so I am hoping that if we set out some guidelines now, we can stop people from abusing them to the point that they get disabled again.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

I'm in total agreement with everything you said.

[Argus]

I agree. I've already expressed my opinion of Peeve's signature.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree.

[dre]

I notice that at present in-line images are enabled.

In the past this forum had disabled in-line images, intentionally.

I would like to offer 3 suggestions:

-I think that images should remain enabled. They can be useful. For example the "Any art students here?" thread which features the painting in question. I think that it would be worthwhile to be able to post an in-line image to put a relevant graph in a thread, for example, or a piece of artwork under discussion, or a map, or a historical site, or in general anything relevant to the topic at hand.

-I think that images should be limited to those relevant to the topic at hand. I think that allowing off-topic images will decrease the quality of discussion. I don't think we should allow threads to become cluttered with irrelevant pictures-- for example, somebody says something and another poster responds with a 1000x700 picture of Jean Luc Picard doing a face-palm. That would become old quickly. I think that in general "meme" style pictures should be discouraged. I don't think that allowing threads to become cluttered with "U Mad Bro?" and "Cool Story Bro" type images would be good for the forum. I think posting Not Safe For Work images (nudity, inappropriate gore, etc) should be grounds for suspension or banning. There are times when a NSFW image might be relevant to a thread... the aftermath of some act of violence, perhaps. People who post an image they think is relevant but may not be appropriate for a general audience should probably just use a hyperlink with a "NSFW" warning.

-I don't think we should have images in our signatures. They disrupt the flow of the thread. I think that as a general policy, signatures should be kept to a modest size.

I am Inviting other opinions. I would personally like to see images remain enabled, so I am hoping that if we set out some guidelines now, we can stop people from abusing them to the point that they get disabled again.

-k

I agree with your points, but just wanted to point out that requiring images to be "relevant to the topic at hand", will create a bunch of human labor (potentially a whole lot), and theres no staff to perform that labor, and no way to programatically identify off-topic images.

A better idea might be to remove this privilege from users shown to abuse it.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree with your points, but just wanted to point out that requiring images to be "relevant to the topic at hand", will create a bunch of human labor (potentially a whole lot), and theres no staff to perform that labor, and no way to programatically identify off-topic images.

A better idea might be to remove this privilege from users shown to abuse it.

I would have thought so - but we don't have people abusing it so far.

[Guest American Woman]

I agree. I've already expressed my opinion of Peeve's signature.

In case everyone isn't aware, there is an option to ignore signatures.

[TheNewTeddy]

Limits are always an excellent idea. There are ways to have the software do the following things:

Limit Signature sizes

Limit Signature image sizes (or turn them off altogether)

Limit image sizes

Limit image numbers (1 per post, for example)

Limit avatar sizes (a frequent complaint when they are new)

My personal views are as follows.

Allow signature images, but limit it to 3 or 4. Limit them to this wide

---------------------------------------------------

and this tall

||

||

Allow images in posts, 3 or 4, but limit them to this wide

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and this tall

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

||

Roughly, of course. And you could always click them to see them in full size.

Avatar sizes are fine as they are IMO

Edited October 14, 2012 by TheNewTeddy

[Argus]

In case everyone isn't aware, there is an option to ignore signatures.

I'd like an option to ignore signatures that are more than five lines long...

[jacee]

I don't like images in signatures, but if there's an option to ignore, I'm ok with that.

I like being able to use images in posts.

Thanks for the upgrade. It looks good and works well.

[cybercoma]

I agree with everything kimmy said.

Just a point to note, you can ignore signatures individually, rather than all signatures by hovering over the poster's post and clicking the "x" in the upper-right hand corner of the signature.

I think the moderator team needs to be more responsive when it comes to images. We could always report posts that include pornographic or obscene images, but if you look at how long it takes sometimes to clean up spam, the images could be on the forum for days.

[Shakeyhands]

I agree with Kimster...

I removed a Youtube link out of my sig cause it was HUUUUUUUUGE!

[TheNewTeddy]

Download adblocker and block the offending images.

[Greg]

Images in signatures is a no go for me, and I will update the rules to reflect this.

[jbg]

I agree with Kimster...

I removed a Youtube link out of my sig cause it was HUUUUUUUUGE!

One can use tinyurl instead, or turn the youtube link into a hyperlink.

[cybercoma]

Images in signatures is a no go for me, and I will update the rules to reflect this.

You can disable them in signatures alone in the admin panel.

[scribblet]

In case everyone isn't aware, there is an option to ignore signatures.

I have signatures and images disabled as I find them a huge pain in the butt, they distract from the post. Not only only that they slow down page loading on a slower connection. If images and large signatures are allowed, then the least that should be done is limit their size.

I wanted to see peeve's signature to see what the fuss is about, but I couldn't find where the options are now, are they still in the board options ?

[Guest American Woman]

I have signatures and images disabled as I find them a huge pain in the butt, they distract from the post. Not only only that they slow down page loading on a slower connection. If images and large signatures are allowed, then the least that should be done is limit their size.

I wanted to see peeve's signature to see what the fuss is about, but I couldn't find where the options are now, are they still in the board options ?

It's in your "my profiles" section under settings - click "ignore preferences" and on the top of "users I'm ignoring" there's a box you can check to not see signatures or leave blank to see signatures. Peeve's sig line seems to be gone now, though.

[Greg]

Peeve's sig line seems to be gone now, though.

I manually removed it.

[scribblet]

It's in your "my profiles" section under settings - click "ignore preferences" and on the top of "users I'm ignoring" there's a box you can check to not see signatures or leave blank to see signatures. Peeve's sig line seems to be gone now, though.

Many thanks, but I guess I missed it... darney poo -

[Charles Anthony]

BUMP

-I think that images should be limited to those relevant to the topic at hand. I think that allowing off-topic images will decrease the quality of discussion. I don't think we should allow threads to become cluttered with irrelevant pictures-- for example, somebody says something and another poster responds with a 1000x700 picture of Jean Luc Picard doing a face-palm. That would become old quickly.

Indeed.

Folks,

If you post an image with none of your own writing to accompany it, your post will be deleted without warning.

If you post an image with a feeble attempt to accompany it with your own writing, your post will likely be deleted without warning as well.

[Guest]

A couple of questions:

Are jpegs no longer a valid extension? I tried to post one yesterday and it wouldn't take. Got the error message.

I posted the link instead, but I think it's gone. Is that what you are talking about? If so, what was wrong with it? I thought it was a clever satire, and quite amusing. ( I could be wrong about it being gone. Maybe I just forgot where I posted it.)

[cybercoma]

A couple of questions:

Are jpegs no longer a valid extension? I tried to post one yesterday and it wouldn't take. Got the error message.

I posted the link instead, but I think it's gone. Is that what you are talking about? If so, what was wrong with it? I thought it was a clever satire, and quite amusing. ( I could be wrong about it being gone. Maybe I just forgot where I posted it.)

Some links aren't recognized by the forum software, particularly when they have nested URLs in them or '%20' in place of spaces. Embedding still works when the URL is clean.

[Guest]

Thanks. I'll see if I can find it again and check the URL. It was the Canadian $90000 bill.

I won't risk CA's anger though. I'll post it in the cartoons thread.

Edit> It worked this time.

Edited June 1, 2013 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

Good to hear. Looks like you used a different URL with the repost from the original post in the fed section.