I would like to make a browser addon/user script that integrates poster portraits from Arnold Winkelried’s SDMB Gallery into threads so that little pictures will show up next to each poster’s name. I’ve run this by Arnold and he’s ok with it; now I want to run it by you all to see what you think If you’re ok with it, I will propose it to the SDMB at large (probably in MPSIMS). Here’s an example of what it might look like:
Things to keep in mind:
[ul]
[li]Only posters who’ve voluntarily submitted their portraits to Arnold’s gallery will have their pictures show up, so this isn’t violating anyone’s privacy.[/li][li]Only posters who voluntarily install this addon will see others’ portraits, so the SDMB will look exactly the same for most visitors.[/li][li]The code is all client-side and written by me and the content and photo bandwidth is all provided by Arnold. The SDMB won’t have to do or spend anything expect give us approval.[/li][li]The addon (simple as it is) will be free and open-source. There is no profit involved; I just thought it’d be neat to be able to connect faces to posts on a more immediate basis.[/li][li]I’ve made a prototype and it does work. It’s a very simple idea, really, that provides poster portraits to those who’d like 'em and won’t affect those who don’t.[/li][/ul]
That sounds awesome, Reply. Perhaps you can make an extension to wierdaaron’s greasemonkey script (if he allows you to, I suppose). Work on the script has stopped some time ago, but IIRC all coding was by wierdaaron and graphics by CMYK. It would be nice to have one, single sdmb-altering script, IMO.
I’m afraid I don’t really have time (or sufficient skill) to maintain something of that complexity, but this thing will only take a few lines. wierdaaron (or anyone else) would be more than welcome to take my code and add it to theirs – or code the same thing better, etc.
I did something like this with profile pictures, using jQuery and Greasemoney. It doesn’t have the problem of the picture running into the text, and is modeled after how vBulletin normally does it. It’s not much, but perhaps you can get something out of it. I haven’t checked it in a while, but I did leave out the resize code that I know didn’t work.
//jQuery compressed code removed to take up less space. Just Google jQuery for it, if you really need it.
//fetch timestamp for vB "dateline" funtion
function fetch_unix_timestamp() {
return parseInt(new Date().getTime().toString().substring(0, 10))
}
//main script
$("a.bigusername").each(function () { //check each poster
var uid = $(this).attr("href").split("=")[1]; //get their userid number
var timestamp = fetch_unix_timestamp(); //get new timestamp for URL
//write to document
$("a.bigusername").each(function () { //check each poster
var uid = $(this).attr("href").split("=")[1]; //get their userid number
var timestamp = fetch_unix_timestamp(); //get new timestamp for URL
//num++; //variable to keep images ids different
//write to document
//OLD
var img = 'http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/image.php?u='
+ uid + '&dateline=' + timestamp + '&type=profile';
$(this).parent().parent().parent().prepend('<td><img height="100px" src="' + img
+ '" border="0"></td>');
//NEW
//var img = 'http://www.nouilles.info/illustrations/sdmb_portraits/' + uid + '_idx.jpg'
//if (uid == '79433') var img = 'http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/image.php?u='
// + uid +'&dateline=' + timestamp + '&type=profile';
//$(this).parent().parent().parent().prepend('<td><div style="width: 100px; height: 100px;"><img id="img'
// + num + '" src="' + img + '" border="0"></div></td>');
});
I just recently asked Arnold to add my picture to that gallery. I did it on a whim, on the small chance that somebody might want, for a defined reason, to look it up.
I added my picture to a specific place on a specific website. I’m not particularly impressed that somebody is going to take that image and use it somewhere else. Put bluntly, I dont want my picture plastered over the SDMB, no matter who may or may not be able to see it.
If this goes ahead, I suggest you make it very clear to everybody on that gallery what you are doing, and more importantly, give them the opportunity to opt out. Although I just got my picture added, I think I will now be asking Arnold to delete the pictures again, and it may be that I am not alone in thinking that.
And on preview, seeing that Bigt is apparently already doing this, I will definately be asking Arnold to delete my pictures.
One more thing: It’s possible that certain posters will have an avatar here on the SDMB without having a pic on Arnold’s site. If the SDMB would like it, it’s also possible to have that “official” avatar show up… but I have a feeling there’s a reason avatars are disabled here in the first place?
I’m glad you’re pointing this out sooner rather than later. I was wondering when the first such concern would come
On one hand, it’s a public gallery available to the whole world. There should be no realistic expectation of privacy.
On the other hand, even when users ought to have no expectation of privacy, they still do, and any changes to that perception can be seen as a trespass. I understand this (even if I don’t agree with it).
Here’s my thinking (feedback welcome): The pictures are limited to users who have a defined reason for looking it up – that reason being “I want to see posters’ faces in my threads” – and this script doesn’t do anything they can’t do themselves with a few clicks. It does not expose portraits to the casual Google-referred reader or anyone else who does not specifically choose to install the script. Again, it doesn’t expose anything that wasn’t already public; it just makes the lookup process easier. The most likely (perhaps the only) audience for this are SDMB regulars who want to see what their peers look like, i.e., the same group you posted a picture for in the first place.
Nonetheless, I have absolutely no qualms with providing an opt-out mechanism. Would that be enough, though?
I briefly considered even making it all opt-in, but then this would be near useless if only because of the logistical hurdle involved in contacting 374 posters and getting their permissions.
And to play Devil’s Advocate for a moment: In my own tests, seeing faces definitely changes the “feel” of the SDMB such that I would probably not keep this turned on for myself. It can be surprising – jarring, even – to see how different somebody actually looks from what I imagined based on their posts. This definitely makes it easier (unfortunately) to judge posters based on their appearances first and their post quality second, and in that sense it may take a bit away from the intellectual atmosphere of the SDMB. On the other hand, I know that this has already forced me to reconsider many of my unconscious stereotypes, blatantly exposing how wrong my first impressions can be.
Anyway, another variation I was considering is having this be a per-page toggle (meaning you’d have to click a button for every thread you want this turned on in) or even a per-user hover (meaning you’d only see somebody’s picture if you moused over their name). Would either of those be more acceptable/appropriate?
I think that is a very good point, but BigT doesn’t use the pictures from Arnold’s site, I think. It sounds like he is using the profile pictures that some posters have posted under their personal profile, i.e. on the dope itself. Perhaps that would be a better idea, reply. At least a profile picture could be seen as the posters consent to being “seen” here on the boards.
I actually originally had it set up where it would try for an avatar, and then go his site. But so many pictures had hard to see faces at smaller resolutions, that I went back and fixed it.
The problem with using avatars here is that only Members can have them. If you lose your membership, they’re still there, but you can’t change them.
My original plan was to set up some separate site for avatars, not so much so that everyone could have one, but so that the plugin wouldn’t call the server.
Arnold did offer to host the avatars, but he said I’d have to actually handle people sending in pictures, and I didn’t think I could be counted on to do that (due to illness). Maybe Reply might like to do that (if Arnold is still up for it.)
What if you use a Google Docs spreadsheet to tabulate everyone in **Arnold’**s gallery, and add a flag for people who have opted IN to be accessed via Reply’s script.
The Google Doc would have username, picture URL and yes/no flag. Initially Arnold could set this up with everyone’s flag set to NO.
The Doc wouldn’t be public for edit, just available to a few admins. This is how weirdaaron’s script works with badges. They are served up by a Google Doc.
This would take some query load off Arnold’s server. It would also give the ability to host pictures elsewhere for people who don’t want to be a part of Arnold’s gallery but do want their pictures here.
I’m not a big fan of avatars. If someone wants to write a browser add-on to show avatars for users, I would participate in the project only if it involved minimal or no work on my part. e.g. Reply’s script involves no work on my part at all.
In case you go with this idea, I can set up the original document, but I wouldn’t want to be in charge of maintaining it.
I guess my feeling is similar to what Reply said. No one is going to see my picture here who couldn’t simply go to Arnold’s website if they wanted to see it anyway. I’m not bothered by it. I think the idea is interesting, and would opt in if it comes to fruition. And I’m not trying to downplay anyone else’s feelings about privacy – just expressing my own.
I think that posters would become a lot more memorable to me if I had a face to go with their posts. I’ve looked at the gallery on a few occasions in the past, and you’re all a good-looking group, but there isn’t a single poster (outside of the ones I’ve met in person) whose face comes to mind when I read a post of theirs.
You say that the portrait gallery is public, and that anybody can take images from there? That I have no right to privacy? Well damn sure if that had been stated beforehand then I would not have submitted a picture to it. It is presented as a gallery, not a clearing house.
I don’t particularly want my picture being passed about on the internet. I certainly dont want people reading my posts, glancing at my picture as if we are best buddies and they have a wallet photo of me. I’m anonymous. Thats how I want it.
My perception was that the gallery was a method whereby those who were interested could go and see what we looked like. If somebody wanted to know what “bucketybuck” looked like, go to this site and see for yourself.
For me that is very different than having my picture right there, front and centre beside all of my posts. Its very different to somebody deciding they are just going to take that photo and use it, no matter where the fuck they use it.
Consider one thing. I bet many of those who submitted pictures did so thinking that yes, the pictures were up for all to see, but that very few people would actually go looking at them. That they would just be pictures in a sea of pictures. That ninety-nine percent of people reading these boards would still have no idea what they looked like. That, they were ok with. A nice middle ground.
Now you have decided that, with the adding of a simple script, people can circumvent that. Now we can all see the pictures of people we previously wouldnt have bothered searching out.
This isnt a confidence thing. Hell, anybody can have my Facebook address and drool over me all day if they want. I’m not sure I can even articulate why this leaves such a nasty taste in my mouth, but it does, and I find that the more I try to explain it the more angry I get.
If you’re ok with it, I will propose it to the SDMB at large (probably in MPSIMS). Here’s an example of what it might look like:
