Maybe rethink policy about posting pictures directly?

[BigT]

@SoulFrost

Agreed. Add images, and the next thing you know the Straight Dope is lolcat central.

Yay. We get the slippery slope fallacy in 2 replies.

[SoulFrost]

@BigT

Yay. We get the slippery slope fallacy in 2 replies.

Oh, take your nose out of that book and learn some literary techniques.

[xash]

@SoulFrost

Oh, take your nose out of that book and learn some literary techniques.

Someone’s feelin’ a bit SoulFrosty this morning

[SoulFrost]

:yawn: Mornin’.

Coffee?

[CarnalK]

@Polerius

We could have an images-allowed forum, so people who prefer the text-only aesthetic, can avoid that forum.

Or, we could allow images in all forums but have a tag like “[images]” in the title, so people who prefer the text-only aesthetic can avoid them (similar to polls having the "Poll: " tag in their title)

I remember before polls were introduced, people were predicting the end of the world, since they would totally change the SDMB/Overwork the mods/Overstress the server/whatever. They have now been implemented and life on the SDMB goes on as usual.

If images were allowed, with the above recommendation of having a tag in the title, people who hate pictures can simply avoid them, and life would go on as usual.

All those suggestion take for granted that posting pictures would be the main point of the thread or forum. I doubt that covers most of the situatations where people feel like posting a picture.

@KlondikeGeoff

As the policy of not posting pictures directly was based on the fact that it would slow down things, is this still really the case? Many other forums let readers do that. It is really a pain and time consuming to go to a photo host, upload a picture, copy the link, go back to SDMB, start a thread and go through the process of putting in the link.

Since the SDMB is not going to be hosting the pictures, you’re going to have to go through that exact same process except with an image tag instead of a url tag. I don’t think any of the message boards you’ve seen allowing images actually hosts the images either but even if they did, you’d still have to upload it to them so your painful and time consuming procedure is still there as well.

[Quartz]

Yes, please let’s keep the SDMB text-only.

[Translucent_Daydream]

I vote to keep it text only since we can already link to pictures already. I like that part of the Dope. I also like the fact that I can pay a small fee not to see ads and I hope it stays that way.

[Spoons]

Another vote for text-only. I can surf a text-only SDMB at work; I doubt that I could do the same if it had pictures; some of which might be acceptable in other settings, but NSF my W.

[Khendrask]

I enjoy the text-only aspect here. Directly embedded images will eventually spiral out of control or require even more moderator time to review.

I find it refreshing to have zero images here by default. On other boards I’m on, I have just about every avatar (and sig image) perma-blocked with a Firefox addin.

I vote keep the board as is.

[Electric_Warrior]

Please, please, please keep the board text-only. It’s part of what appeals to me about the SDMB.

[ZenBeam]

wierdaaron’s GreaseMonkey script has a feature where links to images (and other pages, too) have a little square next to them. Hover over the square, and the image appears, hovering over the page. I really like this capability, since I don’t have to leave the thread to see the image.

If that ever gets generally released, that could be a good solution (well, for Firefox users anyway…). An alternative would a separate, simpler GreaseMonkey script just for images. Maybe with the user option to expand all images without having to hover, if that’s possible.

I’m pretty sure this involves no changes by the SDMB, or load on their servers, and wouldn’t affect anyone who doesn’t use GreaseMonkey.

[srzss05]

@CarnalK

Since the SDMB is not going to be hosting the pictures, you’re going to have to go through that exact same process except with an image tag instead of a url tag. I don’t think any of the message boards you’ve seen allowing images actually hosts the images either but even if they did, you’d still have to upload it to them so your painful and time consuming procedure is still there as well.

Wrong. I just did it this afternoon to another message board, and they were hosted on the same site as the board. It is painfully easy to do so, as there is an attachment button that searches for the files on your hard drive, then automatically uploads them with a link embedded in the post. Far easier in case you don’t, for example, have a photobucket account. The site limits abuse by having a maximum storage size per user, and the files are either links or thumbnails.

As I said, I wouldn’t use the feature here myself (and all this “voting” is useless), but I can see other people may want to do so.

[srzss05]

@Khendrask

I find it refreshing to have zero images here by default. On other boards I’m on, I have just about every avatar (and sig image) perma-blocked with a Firefox addin.

You should be able to do so from your user page. On GB, I have all avatars/images/sigs turned off, and I can do so on other boards that don’t use vBulletin as well. I am using IE8, without any addons at at (except IE7Pro for the adblocker)

[Wakinyan]

No images, no avatars, no nothing, only text. Please.

[CarnalK]

@srzss05

Wrong. I just did it this afternoon to another message board, and they were hosted on the same site as the board. It is painfully easy to do so, as there is an attachment button that searches for the files on your hard drive, then automatically uploads them with a link embedded in the post. Far easier in case you don’t, for example, have a photobucket account. The site limits abuse by having a maximum storage size per user, and the files are either links or thumbnails.

Fair enough but I doubt most sites do it that way and I’d bet my last dollar that the SDMB is never going to be given picture storage space on the servers.

[JimOfAllTrades]

I’m another vote for no pictures in threads. Links are fine, but scrolling down a thread with pictures inline is incredibly annoying.

Avatars I also don’t like, but could put up with if they were small and non-animated.

[CarnalK]

@RJKUgly

Avatars I <snip> could put up with if they were small and non-animated.

I vote for Avatars too!

[fubbleskag]

charge $5/year for avatars, please.

[TBG]

@ZenBeam

wierdaaron’s GreaseMonkey script has a feature where links to images (and other pages, too) have a little square next to them. Hover over the square, and the image appears, hovering over the page. I really like this capability, since I don’t have to leave the thread to see the image.

If that ever gets generally released, that could be a good solution (well, for Firefox users anyway…). An alternative would a separate, simpler GreaseMonkey script just for images. Maybe with the user option to expand all images without having to hover, if that’s possible.

I’m pretty sure this involves no changes by the SDMB, or load on their servers, and wouldn’t affect anyone who doesn’t use GreaseMonkey.

Just getting the Text to Image add on for FireFox would be easier than using a Greasemonkey script

I don’t use it (count me in as part of the “keep it all text” crowd), but plenty of people do at another board I go to that doesn’t allow images.

Yes, you need FireFox to run it, if someone chooses to run some other browser, good for you, I don’t need to hear about it though.

[Yookeroo]

@SoulFrost

Oh, take your nose out of that book and learn some literary techniques.

Well, it would be nice if you explained how adding inline images would lead to “lolcat central”.

Am I the only one who finds the reverence for text-only almost fetishistic?