Would my suggestion (that I mentioned upthread) work? Though I suppose that’s more a question for Polerius as I don’t know anything about writing a Greasemonkey script.
ISTM the only thing that would fall on your hands would be emailing everyone to ask them to opt-in and then adding some sort of marker to each person’s page if they chose to opt in (or if they don’t, which ever way is easier).
Opt-in to what? Arnold isn’t the one doing anything with their pictures. This isn’t officially linked to the SDMB Portrait Gallery in any way.
I’m just flabbergasted that anyone would have an issue with it. It’s exactly like when Joey pulls up the gallery to put a face with a name. Same pictures. The only difference is that now a computer program is pulling it up for you.
Some have more than one image in the gallery, so it might be better if, on any one image, they could select “Use this as my SDMB avatar”. And if none were selected, none would be used.
This would require a collaboration between Polerius and **Arnold Winkelried, **and not an entirely insignificant amount of coding I’m sure, but it could be done.
Tying a SDMB image gallery into an SDMB avatar gallery is creating a possibly unintended situation for those who would upload an image for one or the other but not both.
Its a matter of courtesy to provide a way to opt out from one or the other. (also Arnold could pull the plug on the gallery if people exercised their “right” to drive traffic to his server and use the images in ways he didn’t intend)
What do you mean “for one or the other”? As I’ve said, they’re the same thing. It’s the difference between pressing CTR+C and right-clicking then selecting Copy.
sometimes I wonder how some people even get on the internet in the first place.
OK, for us non-coder geeks, how the heck is this different from what weirdaaron did (not that I ever implemented that, either)?
I guess I’m not making the case with the argument that it’s courteous to do so, so how about in practical terms? What if I wanted one image on the SDMB Image gallery, and a different image to be my Avatar using this script? There has to be a way to say “don’t use this picture as my Avatar, use this one”. Since that ability is required anyway, respecting someone’s preference on the question if they chose to select none of them would just be courteous. And since both efforts are unpaid volunteer works donated by their hosts they have every ability to simply stop providing those works if their wishes are ignored.
With GM scripts, among those who participate in the avatar thing, every post in every thread is driving traffic to web space that is being donated to you to **Arnold. **Web sites don’t have to allow direct image access. Many don’t. You can easily set up a web server so that images can only be displayed on your own pages, not directly referenced from other sites. If you aren’t aware of this, while it is possible to do, using images hosted on other people’s sites in order to use their bandwidth instead of yours is considered to be a sleazy thing to do and most webmasters will stop it when they see it in their logs.
Maybe a good etiquette would be that each user specifies which avatar they want. Even someone with a photo in the gallery might want to use a more abstract avatar instead of their photo.
So, either people provide the gallery a url link that points to their desired avatar (and this url can be posted in the text accompanying each person’s photo), or maybe a preferable way would be for people to post a link to their desired avatar within their SDMB profile.
For example, in my profile here on the SDMB, I just added the text
SDMB Avatar: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/1859-Martinique.web.jpg
This way, we know for sure that the person with that username is the one who is requesting that avatar, and also, this enables people to request avatars even if they don’t have a picture in the SDMB gallery.
I think it would be nicer not to use it without their consent, because the last time it was mentioned, some people said “I would prefer that you not use my picture this way.” Just because you personally don’t see a problem with it doesn’t mean that the people who have pictures at the gallery feel the same way.
I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. It’s exactly as if every time Crazyhorse made a post I looked up a picture of a duck on Google. And then you tell me that you want me to look up a picture of a rabbit instead. What’s it to you what picture I look up whenever I see a post by you?
First of all, remember that YOU’RE the one who brought up the SDMB Portrait Gallery- the OP suggested that people post pictures in a communal avatar thread. Second of all, Arnold hasn’t said that a few people being linked to his site would be an issue. In fact, he’s here saying he approves on the condition that people have to opt-in. Third of all, I can go to the SDMB Portrait Gallery, save those images and use them without having to sap his bandwidth at all.
This is waaayy simpler: It has a single purpose - avatars. As I recall, weirdaaron’s did a lot of different things (also, I don’t remember if that allowed avatars).
If someone wanted to take the trouble to gather avatars from posters, I would have no problem hosting the images at mystic. i.e. in a folder called avatars. I don’t care that much about avatars so I wouldn’t want to be in the business of handling the e-mails, confirming they’re from the right user, etc. But if someone sends me a .ZIP file containing the avatars I can host them at my site.
Personally, I think we should just scrap the whole idea and let ACM tape all the pictures to his monitor, I rather like that idea.
But back to the discussion, ISTM the easiest way would be to get a new host (maybe a photobucket/flickr page) and use that to hold the images. Someone could maintain that that page and sending your avatar to that person would imply consent that you’re okay with this. Keep in mind ‘the whole world’ doesn’t get to see these pictures, just the people with the GM script. Perhaps the PB/Flickr page would be private except to SDMB users, or users that also uploaded an avatar, or users with a certain amount of posts (1000+) or some other rule that we decide on so it isn’t open to everyone. Of course if it’s avatars in general instead of user photos, it probably doesn’t much matter who gets to see it.
I know you were making a funny, but to be clear, I have no intention of using this script. I have little to no interest in seeing the faces of the hundred or so users who have pictures uploaded whenever they make a post. I just think the reasoning behind the complaint people have with this type of system is bogus.
We don’t know people’s email addresses, so we wouldn’t be able to confirm which SDMB username they are for, so the best way to handle this would be for people to do one of the following
[ol]
[li]Post the URL in this thread[/li][li]Put the URL in their SDMB profile[/li][li]PM me with the URL[/li][/ol]
If the avatar you want doesn’t have a URL, just upload it to imgur.com (or any other image sharing site) and give us the link.
OTOH, that’s what I though at first as well, but then I when I thought about it I could see what people where saying. And for that I would have no problem with setting up a new site and having people re-send in their pics/avatars or if Arnold’s site was used, having everyone opt-in. And creating some way to deal with that. Having not programmed since high school (and never doing anything on the web) it seems like it shouldn’t take much more then a simple If/Then type statement to deal with a flag or lack thereof on each person page.
Of course, Arnold’s site was specifically set up so people reading this board could put a face with a name, you (not you specifically) sent in your picture knowing people would do that and how many people are going to use this script, 10, 20, maybe 50? It’s not that it’s going to be 200 or 1000.
When I suggested a possible link between the SDMB gallery and this GM script, it was in hope there might be a centralized place to have the images and semi-automated way to have them appear as avatars without duplicating the administrative work of authenticating the users, etc.
My thinking was that since the images posted at the Image Gallery were already from authenticated users, if those users could just check a box that said “make this my avatar for those who view them” it might allow everything to be centralized with minimum overhead for the generous hosts.
People may want to change their avatar every 2 days and that way they could just check the box on a different image they posted to the gallery, and the new image would just appear for users of the script with no modification. But if they need to post a new URL in this thread and their profile, all the script users would still need to see that, and then go change their GM scripts.
I just realized - couldn’t the GM script get the URL right from the user profile? Anyone could host their own image wherever they want, but by just adding the url to their profile the GM script could show their current avatar with no user modification or updating of a list of URLs.
This should be possible, but it would be much slower for the script to parse the user profiles each time to extract urls vs just getting the list of urls from one location.
I think that as long as people start putting the avatar urls in their profiles, we can find a way to make this work one way or another.