- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
Originally posted by: mugs
How the hell could people object to having embedded pictures as an option that is disabled by default?
2 reasons.
1) If a post is started with an image as the primary content, then if you have images turned off that post is a waste to you. Same goes if an image is posted mid-thread and drives a bunch of discussion. You don't see it and you miss out on the conversation. It does change the nature of the forums going from text driven conversation to more visual.
2) Hot linking. We're a big forum. Hot linking and displaying an image from somebodies webserver can be major hit on their resources when a couple thousand views hit it. A link is much more forgiving.
Shawn
Lifer
- Apr 20, 2003
- 32,236
- 53
- 91
Originally posted by: vi edit
Originally posted by: mugs
How the hell could people object to having embedded pictures as an option that is disabled by default?
2 reasons.
1) If a post is started with an image as the primary content, then if you have images turned off that post is a waste to you. Same goes if an image is posted mid-thread and drives a bunch of discussion. You don't see it and you miss out on the conversation. It does change the nature of the forums going from text driven conversation to more visual.
2) Hot linking. We're a big forum. Hot linking and displaying an image from somebodies webserver can be major hit on their resources when a couple thousand views hit it. A link is much more forgiving.
that's true. once you see an image you don't need to keep reloading it every time you enter a thread. to be honest I am perfectly happy with holding down the CTRL key and clicking all the picture links. it's fast and works for me.
fustercluck
Diamond Member
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,402
- 0
- 71
Please no pictures
FuseTalk sucks, yay vBulletin. I hope it basically looks the same but actually works.
FuseTalk sucks, yay vBulletin. I hope it basically looks the same but actually works.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Your interpretation of my post was the opposite of what was intended, but Virge cleared up the ownership of the images, so disregard what I said anyway. I want woman2.gif or I'm going to start burning stuff down.
Originally posted by: vi edit
Originally posted by: mugs
How the hell could people object to having embedded pictures as an option that is disabled by default?
2 reasons.
1) If a post is started with an image as the primary content, then if you have images turned off that post is a waste to you. Same goes if an image is posted mid-thread and drives a bunch of discussion. You don't see it and you miss out on the conversation. It does change the nature of the forums going from text driven conversation to more visual.
As long as the tags could be replaced by the URL if you have images disabled, then it'd be no different from how it is now for people who want to disable images. We have a lot of threads already that are based on a single image or video.
[quote]
2) Hot linking. We're a big forum. Hot linking and displaying an image from somebodies webserver can be major hit on their resources when a couple thousand views hit it. A link is much more forgiving.[/quote]
That's an unfortunate side effect, but something that I don't think should enter into the decision. If a website can't handle hotlinking, then it's really up to them to prevent it (which is easy to do).
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
I've never understood the appeal of embedded pictures at all. Clicking links is so much better.
KT
KT
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
Originally posted by: vi edit
Originally posted by: mugs
How the hell could people object to having embedded pictures as an option that is disabled by default?
2 reasons.
1) If a post is started with an image as the primary content, then if you have images turned off that post is a waste to you. Same goes if an image is posted mid-thread and drives a bunch of discussion. You don't see it and you miss out on the conversation. It does change the nature of the forums going from text driven conversation to more visual.
2) Hot linking. We're a big forum. Hot linking and displaying an image from somebodies webserver can be major hit on their resources when a couple thousand views hit it. A link is much more forgiving.
Just to re-emphasize vi edit's point: If you have images disabled quite a lot of posts are going to show up as simply blank. Even if you don't wonder what you've missed in those posts, with mixed text/image posts you're not going to know you missed in the image. Now you respond to a post with half of the available knowledge, get flamed for not looking at the graph and every sixth thread turns into an argument about image snobs who should get with the times vs image spammers who should learn to read.
I would like some capacity for images in a non intrusive way in some threads, but I don't think we've hit on it yet.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
If you have images disabled in your browser, yes. If you had images disabled in vBulletin, I'd like to think vBulletin would replace the image with the URL.
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Originally posted by: mugs
Yep
KT
Were you being sarcastic? If not, could you explain?
Cdubneeddeal
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2003
- 7,473
- 3
- 81
Anubis
No Lifer
someone went even further and made a firefox addon called UNLINKER
its been posted about before and in this thread
Originally posted by: McCarthy
Originally posted by: vi edit
Originally posted by: mugs
How the hell could people object to having embedded pictures as an option that is disabled by default?
2 reasons.
1) If a post is started with an image as the primary content, then if you have images turned off that post is a waste to you. Same goes if an image is posted mid-thread and drives a bunch of discussion. You don't see it and you miss out on the conversation. It does change the nature of the forums going from text driven conversation to more visual.
2) Hot linking. We're a big forum. Hot linking and displaying an image from somebodies webserver can be major hit on their resources when a couple thousand views hit it. A link is much more forgiving.
Just to re-emphasize vi edit's point: If you have images disabled quite a lot of posts are going to show up as simply blank. Even if you don't wonder what you've missed in those posts, with mixed text/image posts you're not going to know you missed in the image. Now you respond to a post with half of the available knowledge, get flamed for not looking at the graph and every sixth thread turns into an argument about image snobs who should get with the times vs image spammers who should learn to read.
I would like some capacity for images in a non intrusive way in some threads, but I don't think we've hit on it yet.
The same things can happen here though. If someone posts a link to a picture or video there can be plenty of discussion that stems from it, and if you don't want to bother clicking the link to see what it's about, then you can't participate in that either.
So if by default pics and vids are turned off, how is this any different? You would (hopefully) just see a link like you normally would. I don't think this horde of picture/video threads that you guys fear is actually going to happen.
I do see how completely blank posts would be a problem, so I would like to know if there's a way to allow those who've turned pics/vids off (which it sounds like there would be quite a few) to just see the link rather than just a blank post. Also, I suppose this means that uploading pics directly to AT would not be allowed, which IMO is fine.
edit: also, Unlinker didn't work when I tried to install it in FF3.
Anubis
No Lifer
How do I get Unlinker?
Install Unlinker v1.2.5 Now »
If you're using Firefox 3 and use the link above, you'll need to change this setting before Unlinker will install.
Disable the "secure updates check": enter about:config into the address bar, right click on the page and create a new boolean value, name it extensions.checkUpdateSecurity and set it to false. If this makes no sense to you, please just use the AMO link below.
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
[/quote][/quote]Originally posted by: mugs
Your interpretation of my post was the opposite of what was intended, but Virge cleared up the ownership of the images, so disregard what I said anyway. I want woman2.gif or I'm going to start burning stuff down.
dude
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
Originally posted by: mugs
If you have images disabled in your browser, yes. If you had images disabled in vBulletin, I'd like to think vBulletin would replace the image with the URL.
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Originally posted by: mugs
Yep
KT
Were you being sarcastic? If not, could you explain?
Not sarcastic at all. Clicking the link leaves the option of viewing the picture completely up to the user, while having it embedded does not. If you disable images in the CP and it replaces the embedded picture with a link, then that's fine and I have no real gripe with it.
KT
Anubis
No Lifer
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Originally posted by: mugs
If you have images disabled in your browser, yes. If you had images disabled in vBulletin, I'd like to think vBulletin would replace the image with the URL.
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Originally posted by: mugs
Yep
KT
Were you being sarcastic? If not, could you explain?
Not sarcastic at all. Clicking the link leaves the option of viewing the picture completely up to the user, while having it embedded does not. If you disable images in the CP and it replaces the embedded picture with a link, then that's fine and I have no real gripe with it.
KT
the user still has the option to TURN ON the feature of leave it off, which is what was origionally stated in this thread, enable it but yet it be a user lvl decision to view them, just like Sigs are now
lets those that want them have them and those that dont still get to click
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
As a compromise, would it be possible to have images displayed as links by default, but have a button that would display all images in a given thread?
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
Originally posted by: Anubis
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Originally posted by: mugs
If you have images disabled in your browser, yes. If you had images disabled in vBulletin, I'd like to think vBulletin would replace the image with the URL.
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Originally posted by: mugs
Yep
KT
Were you being sarcastic? If not, could you explain?
Not sarcastic at all. Clicking the link leaves the option of viewing the picture completely up to the user, while having it embedded does not. If you disable images in the CP and it replaces the embedded picture with a link, then that's fine and I have no real gripe with it.
KT
the user still has the option to TURN ON the feature of leave it off, which is what was origionally stated in this thread, enable it but yet it be a user lvl decision to view them, just like Sigs are now
lets those that want them have them and those that dont still get to click
Yes, I know. My original statement was just a general one, in that I prefer a link to embedded pics, if disabling embedded pics in VB just replaces the pic with a link, then it's fine. Guess I'll go test that out...
KT
RandomFool
Diamond Member
As long as it's optional and defaults to off I'm fine with it. I'm more worried about the forum losing the clean layout it has now. A lot of people here seem to hate fusetalk but I've never had a problem with it except for the search that is.
Quiksilver
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2005
- 4,725
- 0
- 71
I would like to see pictures be enabled, but in only certain sections and when they are enabled anything over say 640X480 becomes a thumbnail to click and expand.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter