Jump to content

Quoting PDFs


Recommended Posts

this is not workable; given native formatting, copy from a .pdf file doesn't properly position text when pasting into the MLW editor. This nonsensical position that so frets over images presented in MLW posts is not practical/realistic. The claim that it... image text representation... "clutters" the forum... causes moderators additional work, needs further clarification.

as it's timely, an example I just put forward in another thread... and this example really doesn't include the kind of elaborate formatting that can be found within .pdf files:

- this, as an image 'snapshot' snip:

p6p2r3o.jpg

- versus, a copy and paste:

8. If the 2016 election for President was held today and the candidates were [ROTATE: Republican
Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton] who would you most likely vote for? Would you say you
are certain to vote for [ANSWER] or could change your mind? [iF UNDECIDED:] If you had to
choose, who would you lean towards?
National
Trump - certain
7%
Trump - not-certain
2%
Undecided - lean Trump
2%
Clinton - certain
66%
Clinton - not-certain
7%
Undecided - lean Clinton
3%
Undecided / Don't know
12%
Total Clinton
76%
Total Trump
11%
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's review then:

In the same post where you deride moderator opinion as 'nonsensical' partly because it causes us extra work, you complain that cut/pasting from a PDF will cause you what appears to be one minute's effort of reformating and adding quotes ?

All this from a private complaint from you about a ruling that cutting/pasting from PDFs/linking to them wasn't allowed "in the past".

Well the answer is - cutting/posting copy from PDFs IS allowed. Provide the link to the original material and if you post an image try not to clutter the forum - which will be decided by the moderators case by case since there's no way to prescribe such things.

Feel free to complain to me via PM but I probably won't respond on this topic as there's nothing more I can do for you.

If you think something might be cluttering the forum, then just use your best judgment as we do.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, respectively, whether you respond... or not. As I said in regards your PM advising me you had removed an image and replaced it with a link, in the past I received a warning/suspension for simply providing a link to a .pdf file, even though, of course, one can't provide links directly to a point within a .pdf file.

in my prior post I provided a representative example... you speak of 'one minutes effort to reformat' the straight C&P example. As I said, I could have provided a much more complex and elaborate formatting example. The image representation of that text... looks like... text! How would one really know it's an image simply looking at it? And again, I'm most unclear how something (like the textual based image I had replaced) adds clutter... or how it provides additional/more work for moderators.

so... my takeaway from your latest reply is that a 'image snapshot snip' of textual data from a .pdf file is NOW allowed... subject to whether or not MLW moderators view it as clutter. I appreciate that in regards to determining "clutter", you emphasize the subjective aspect of that moderator determination; you state determination as, "case by case since there's no way to prescribe such things." However, this provides no guidelines for MLW members to attempt to adhere to: for example... is there an image pixel sizing (vertical-to-horizontal) that members should attempt to adhere to when posting an 'image textual representation' from a .pdf file?
.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case, type it all out -- the good old-fashioned way. Do not post photographs of text.

Post a link to the source document instead. It is that simple.

Type it all out? Then we get raked over the coals for misquoting or some crap like that. I believe pics are fine and they should not have been banned in the first place. Some of those pics lead to thread drift as the thread was already drifting, but instead of dealing with the the thread drift, we get a blanket 'no pics' ruling.

It's always the few asshats that ruin it for the rest of us.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case, type it all out -- the good old-fashioned way. Do not post photographs of text.

Post a link to the source document instead. It is that simple.

you've just contradicted the other MLW moderator who advised the textual image was ok, subject to a "clutter evaluation". Could we have consensus please! This is most important given your hangin' judge propensity - please advise.

as I said, just looking at the textual image... how would you even know it's an image? Your "good old fashioned way"... typing it all out... how "fashion forward" of you!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Type it all out?

Yes.

I believe pics are fine and they should not have been banned in the first place.

Pictures of text are not fine. We are telling folks not to post pictures of text.

We are telling folks to post text or to post a link to the source of the text.

Posting pictures of text is not acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're complaining about people posting images of PDF documents as part of the image rules, when in the same thread you've got these ridiculous emoticons not two posts later.

What's that got to do with what I've said? What's Romney votes got to do with it? forehead-slap-smiley-emoticon.gif

Why bring up Romney? What? Did the attendance he got anywhere near Trump's at every rally?

Did you see those kinds of passionate crowds? Was he anywhere near Trump in popularity?

Did he do a sweep in primaries like last Super Tuesday - with 60% against TWO OPPONENTS?

Golly......hopeless-smiley-emoticon.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're complaining about people posting images of PDF documents as part of the image rules, when in the same thread you've got these ridiculous emoticons not two posts later.

Yeah... just bizarre... clearly a picture of text to cite a report which is part of the discussion is so much worse than the idiotic huge emoticons...

Come on Mods... give your heads a shake... please reconsider.

Edited by The_Squid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Images like the one waldo posted above do not in any way detract from the discussion or clutter a thread. The copy-pasted version looks much worse, and suggesting that it all be typed out is absurd (and it still wouldn't look as good or compact as the image).

Reconsider your policy.

And those emoticons? WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're complaining about people posting images of PDF documents as part of the image rules, when in the same thread you've got these ridiculous emoticons not two posts later.

That post was unreported and unseen. I have now removed the animated emoticons which are of course not permitted.

Did you think that we had reviewed the animated emoticons and decided somehow that they were ok ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering you were addressing waldo's post inline with it, yeah, I assumed you read at least that page of the thread. Here's the thing with reporting. We shouldn't have to report posts. You guys should be actively involved in the forums so that you can see how conversations are unfolding and guide discussion as you used to do. This nonsensical posting abstinence does more harm then good. We end up with distant mods making decisions without context. I'm not altogether sure how you guys come to the conclusion that an image drafted from a report is off limits, but it's bizarre, especially when it's completely relevant to the discussion. Maybe if you guys were more actively involved in the discussions, the decisions you make wouldn't be so confusing to the membership.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This move to ban all images to appear impartial is edging on absurdity now.

Posting images of tables and graphs are OK.

Posting images of text-with-complete-sentences is not OK. Moderators may take such images of text-with-complete-sentences down and convert them to links.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posting images of tables and graphs are OK.

Posting images of text-with-complete-sentences is not OK. Moderators may take such images of text-with-complete-sentences down and convert them to links.

Actually in some cases there is no way to cut and paste text. So posting an image will have to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posting images of tables and graphs are OK.

Posting images of text-with-complete-sentences is not OK. Moderators may take such images of text-with-complete-sentences down and convert them to links.

yabut... what if you have "text-with-complete-sentences" interspersed with tabular text... with graphs. You know - a composite makeup!

in the following example copy from a .pdf file, I didn't include the graph, only 2 related lead-in text passages to the graph. Is this where your suggestion to do it the "old fashioned way" comes in... to "type it all out"... or take the time/effort to try to edit this into something presentable? As opposed to just including the 2 text paragraphs as a part of the "snapshot snip" to capture the graph?

Annual CO
2
emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement
production were 8.3 [7.6 to 9.0] GtC
12
yr
–1
averaged over
2002–2011
(
high confidence
) and were 9.5 [8.7 to 10.3] GtC yr
–1
in 2011, 54% above the 1990 level. Annual net CO
2
emissions from
anthropogenic land use change were 0.9 [0.1 to 1.7] GtC yr
–1
on average during 2002 to 2011 (
medium
confidence
). {6.3}
From 1750 to 2011, CO
2
emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production have released 375 [345 to 405]
GtC to the atmosphere, while deforestation and other land use change are estimated to have released 180 [100 to 260]

GtC. This results in cumulative anthropogenic emissions of 555 [470 to 640] GtC. {6.3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,599
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    No_Smile433
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...