I’m a huge proponent of the ability to be able to do both and, although I realize that there are many fuddy duddies that don’t want that on the boards, I think it could help enrich the Doping in some fora. I know the capability is there, so who do we have to talk to to get it enabled?
If you get weirdaaron’s Greasemonkey script you can view direct-link images by mousing over them (most of them, it’s not perfect) and view YouTube videos without opening a new tab/window or leaving the site.
Keeps images out of posts for “fuddy duddies” but gives you instant image and video gratification.
Nice cheapshot at everyone that disagrees with you. Including those of us who have only dial up internet access at home, and have great difficulty with image heavy websites.
I hope it never happens.
Can’t you already post Youtube links?
Just like with avatars, image display can be disabled.
Image posts can be limited to certain forums, and could even be limited to a single “Photo Forum” (see giraffe boards).
The “Don’t be a jerk” rule would restrict excessive image posts.
If you have dial-up, you can stay away from photo-party threads, just like you can stay away from TMI threads if you are squeamish.
Personally, I don’t care either way. Clicking in a link to see a relevant photo is fine, and sometimes preferred. If I open a kitten thread, I can expect to see a dozen or more links to the kitten in question, but I really only need to see one or two of the pictures. I’d rather see a nice clean post and descriptive links, so I can pick the ones I want to look at (eg. Kitten with a ball, Kitten with a toy, Kitten sleeping, kitten with another cat, etc, etc). On the other hand, Some posts could benefit from a picture in the thread, such as all manner of “What is this thing? <link>” type threads. Every poster who opens that thread will click on the link, so it makes sense to have the image in the post.
Agreed. weirdaaron’s script is brilliant. It still needs to be tweaked a bit, I think, but the image and video viewing options are great. Does anyone know if he is still working on it? (or if he posts here anymore - I haven’t seen him around in a while).
My suggestion (and I believe I read an entire thread where the OP suggested this, sometime in the past couple of months) would be a single forum (like ATMB, GQ, GD, or Pit) that is devoted exclusively to pix. No words allowed. Submit the pic to the forum’s moderator via e-mail, with any explanation it needs, mod looks at it, decides on it’s appropriateness, and posts it, then sends you a link that can be used in the post you want it available in.
The reason I think something like that would be good is that it saves people like me who might want to reference a picture I took from having to open an account (with all the hassles that entails) on a picture sharing site, just to have it somewhere a link can be made to. If a forum like that existed, the mod could tell the poster “it’s already on the net, somewhere. Just link to it. We’re not posting it”, or “OK, it’s your pic, you don’t need to open an account at an image hosting site. We’ll host it here, since your post in GQ is the only place on the entire web that it’s relevant to.”
Just my $0.0139 worth…
Unforunately, that now puts the onus on The Reader to have enough space to host all these images, and on the mods to verify if the picture exists someplace else in cyberspace. That’s a lot to ask of a free service with volunteer mods.
Opening an account at someplace like Flickr takes a couple of minutes, and you only have to do it once.
Links to youtube are currently acceptable. I think what the OP means is embedded video. You still have to click to activate, but it is in the page, not on a separate page. The one benefit it gives is that youtube website blockers at work will block separate page loads, but don’t block embedded vids.
We used to have the ability to embed images in posts. It was abused. We don’t want that abuse. No really, we don’t. I have an image burned in my brain that I do not want. I can’t unsee it. Our current policy would have prevented it. Opening a thread with a title that is a common metaphor and idiom only to find someone post a literal depiction screws with your head, especially when that image is large, graphic, and sick.
It really is not hard to open a link to another site. I can understand the interest in having SD host images - “I don’t have to create an account somewhere else”. But SD doesn’t wish to do that.
The “Don’t be a jerk” rule can’t help me unsee that image. Sure, the offending image was quickly removed and the poster banned. I still can’t unsee the image.
I don’t see the big deal. Other sites, even ones with volunteer staff, manage fine.
And when people are saying “we used to have images” it must have been for about 2 days because the only thing I can find announcing their disabling is from back in 2000 with Duck Duck Goose saying they were disabled “a while ago”.
I don’t know how much goatse spam was a problem as all she mentions is:
Sounds like a good idea – but good luck getting the admins to go for that.
You shouldn’t be such a Negative Nancy. Be more of a Positive Percy.
I’ve been on plenty of other fora where images were able to be directly posted with tags and YouTube links were able to be embedded even with volunteer moderators.
We’ve got options for folks that are on dial-up. Check the box that disallows for that and you’re fine.
Quoting from Ed Zotti:
“We briefly permitted images in the early days of the board and decided it was an experiment we’d never repeat. While the vast majority of SDMB users are responsible and considerate of users, a handful aren’t. One instance of goatse is enough for a lifetime. We’ve had enough for several. And no, we don’t want to set up a system to review images in advance - we have lots of other things to do and this isn’t important to us. If you wish to post images, there are plenty of offboard sites for this to which you can easily link.”
That’s too bad to hear. Oh well. Our loss.