*So you know what to do *- say no more, nudge nudge, wink wink.
I have updated the script to pull in the photos from the gallery, but I won’t post it until we hear from the mods.
What’s the verdict?
I think several people, in a previous thread, have expressed uneasiness with using their photos from the gallery as avatars, and would ask Arnold Winkelried (the gallery maintainer) to be removed from the gallery if this were implemented.
Since we wouldn’t want to reduce the number of people in the photo gallery, I think we shouldn’t use people’s photos without their consent. JMHO
(In addition, photos usually make bad avatars anyway, especially if they include multiple people and/or taken from far away, as several in the gallery are)
What Polerius says is correct. I thought I had already said this in the thread, but I am asking people not to use gallery photos for any avatar/Greasemonkey type script.
For the purposes of my original question (which I now apologize for even bringing up) this was settled back on post #40 of this thread.
The mods here at least could probably enforce a request not to post lists of URL’s here from the portrait gallery. But beyond that, these posts are correct in that there is little to stop someone from individually linking to those images whether it is for displaying avatars or anything else. (Other than an honor system / common courtesy which I have to guess you probably can’t count on).
It might be worth considering some of the available ways to prevent image hotlinkingto the portrait gallery. That would solve this or any other issue arising from direct-linking to the images.
Here’s a fun little thing I whipped up: A CGI which takes a numerical userid as a parameter and redirects to that SDMB user’s avatar URL, as found in the user’s profile (it first checks for an “SDMB Avatar: <url>” entry like here, and if not, it returns the standard SDMB profile pic URL, which ends up being a 1x1 pixel white image if the user has no profile pic or if you’re not logged in.
You can use it blindly for an <img> tag like this:
<img src="http://splitter.august20th.com/sdmbav.rb?userid=79856">
(for the nerds: it grabs and parses profile pages on-demand, caching the found urls in a database. It won’t re-snarf a profile page if it’s gotten it within the past hour.)
Would you like to similarly request that people not look at the gallery on their iPhones but it’s okay if they use Android? Or No Internet Explorer, but Firefox and Chrome are okay? Because it’s just as meaningful a distinction.
No, I am not making that request.
If people in the gallery want to use their gallery photo as an avatar, I have no problem with them doing that. So I don’t plan on preventing it.
Hush your mouth! This is serious stuff!
(I always find it amusing when people get pissed about sweet FA).
Cool!
If you plan on keeping this CGI script in place for the foreseeable future, I can update the avatar script to use this method of showing avatars.
No, just the functional equivalent. Using a script would mean only that the users’ browsers would pull up those pictures, just without the users having to specifically go the gallery page themselves. You’ve “requested” that people not look at the pictures unless they go to the page directly, because it’s somehow… rude? Inappropriate? something… to let a script do the work for us.
It’s like objecting to someone using a bookmark for your page and demanding that they type the URL in directly every time because you’re uncomfortable with them saving that information locally for themselves.
I think some of the people objecting to this are missing the point of what it actually does.
Built-in avatar systems in message boards allow each individual user to decide what avatar everyone else will see next to his or her posts. If I choose to have a picture of a wombat, you will all see a picture of a wombat.
This script allows each person to choose whatever avatar they want for each other person. Cicero might choose to use a picture of an ass for me. I would never know that’s what he picked, nor would anyone else (unless he announced it). That wouldn’t stop Nzinga, Seated deciding my picture should be the one from the SDMB gallery, Arnold deciding my picture should be a pretty flower, and tumbleddown deciding I should look like Madonna with jackboots and a Hitler mustache. Only you see the avatars you’ve chosen. You have no idea what others have chosen for you. You won’t even know who’s loaded this script. And people who don’t load the script see no avatars at all.
THE USUAL DISCLAIMER: My statements in no way imply official endorsement (or lack thereof) of this script by the SDMB, Chicago Reader, or Creative Loafing. Use it at your own risk.
When I put my picture in the SDMB Portrait Gallery, I didn’t know people were going to look at it on Sundays. I will have it removed immediately.
Yeah, I’ll leave it up there indefinitely. I doubt it’ll cause much impact on the server. PM me if you have any problems with it. I did notice a bunch of errors in the log this morning and fixed a bug in it.
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:72, topic:598062”]
I think some of the people objecting to this are missing the point of what it actually does.
Built-in avatar systems in message boards allow each individual user to decide what avatar everyone else will see next to his or her posts. If I choose to have a picture of a wombat, you will all see a picture of a wombat.
[/quote]
Well originally the question was about maintaining and publishing a list of the URL’s here, not individuals choosing whatever links they want in their own copies of the script, so I think it was within the gallery owners rights to say ‘please don’t do that’, although complying with that request would be a matter of courtesy not technical or legal reasons.
As far as individuals adding lines to their own copies of the script, the internet is the limit. They could go load the image in their browser directly anytime they want - there is absolutely no difference.
But imagine if a discussion was going on some other message board, “where can I find a good avatar and how can I host it somewhere?” And they decided they love the avatars SDMB users have, they are already hosted here for free, and they are just going to maintain and publish a list of links to SDMB profiles. Their users can select any avatar they see in a profile here, and link to it in their own profiles on different boards all over the internet. Each time anyone, anywhere, views any post by any of those users, on any of the boards they are on, forever after, it drives a hit to the SDMB servers to serve them the avatar. Those users see no SDMB pages or content. Anyone who wants to can already do that now but if it were published as a list in an organized effort to encourage people to do so, the PTB here might feel compelled to say “please don’t do that” or block access to the images from outside pages.
At any rate this parser from **ntucker **looks like the break we’ve been waiting for. If we can keep the URLs in our profiles and get them dynamically with GM that eliminates any reason to try to tie it into the portrait gallery in the first place. If individuals choose to do so in their own copies of the script that’s up to them.
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:72, topic:598062”]
tumbleddown deciding I should look like Madonna with jackboots and a Hitler mustache.
[/quote]
No no, it’s Katy Perry in a Napoleon hat and a straitjacket. Except on Arbor Day, when it’s Prince in a purple g-string.
Damnit, I’m out of brain bleach. I have to run to the store…
Did development of this script ever go any further?
:dubious:
I appreciate your prompt action in this matter.