WANT .img

July 18, 2009 8:24 PM

Can have .img? We'll pay

It has been suggested (we are currently in the midst of the Vancouver mefi10 meetup) that people should be able to pay a nominal fee (say $1.00) to allow them to post an image in a thread - as a "filter" but also as an income source. Can has?

Even if not permanent, perhaps a short term fundraiser, or limited to certain specified threads.

posted by birdsquared to Feature Requests at 8:24 PM (89 comments total)

I'm going to guess that no dollar amount you're willing to pay will match the increased overhead.
posted by Deathalicious at 8:25 PM on July 18, 2009

DO WANT
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:26 PM on July 18, 2009 [1 favorite]

As someone who can't make it to a meetup, I'm looking forward to more drunken requests throughout the night.
posted by Midnight Rambler at 8:28 PM on July 18, 2009 [20 favorites]

It wasn't about the bandwidth was it, because Metafilter's not hosting your flickr page. What was it, anyway? I forgot/am too lazy to google it.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:30 PM on July 18, 2009

Some kind of security issue, maybe? I can't remember either.
posted by iconomy at 8:33 PM on July 18, 2009

This page on XSS amply shows that whitelisting tags is the only safe way to allow people to post HTML. And considering that it's nearly impossible to do a complete filter on all possible exploits, it's best to block 'em all if you can.

Worst of all is the <img> + 302 Redirect attack.
posted by Deathalicious at 8:46 PM on July 18, 2009

I'm glad the .img tag is gone from Mefi theads, personally. I don't need to see elephants peeing and people having sex with chickens.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:50 PM on July 18, 2009 [11 favorites]

Am I the only one who views the no images rule as a feature, not a bug?
posted by winna at 8:53 PM on July 18, 2009 [36 favorites]

I remember seeing a goatse in a thread one time. Matt could charge one billion dollars for the privilege to post images in a thread and I'm afraid that Bill Gates will get drunk enough one night and post a goatse in a thread. *shudder*
posted by NoMich at 8:56 PM on July 18, 2009 [5 favorites]

Dude, I saw goatse *twice* just doing research for the quiz these past few days.

Even so, I have no dog in this fight, and no real position one way or the other.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 9:03 PM on July 18, 2009

I'm glad the .img tag is gone from Mefi theads, personally. I don't need to see elephants peeing and people having sex with chickens.

Well I agree with you about 50%.
posted by Midnight Rambler at 9:04 PM on July 18, 2009 [2 favorites]

I, too, am one of the silent masses who are glad that they can read Metafilter without the threat of seeing imagines of peeing anything.
posted by Ms. Saint at 9:35 PM on July 18, 2009

winna, I think it's very much a feature. It improved Metafilter markedly when it went in. Pictures tend to be low signal-to-noise ratio, and it's perfectly possible to link to them, just not inline them. If they really matter, you can link -- inlining is noise. Turning them off was an excellent idea, and continues to be, purely on a functional basis. Any security improvements are pleasant, but ancillary.

I do think, though, that enabling them in the Happy Birthday thread would have been really cool.
posted by Malor at 9:35 PM on July 18, 2009

I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but I really like the absence of images. It makes the longer comment threads easier to read, I can view metafilter on mobile browsers easier, and it's generally less cluttered.

Also, I know people who balk at the idea that you can't post images, they frequent 4-chan, I would like to keep them there.
posted by hellojed at 10:05 PM on July 18, 2009 [4 favorites]

"Imagines."

I just want to say I was out in the sun all day in 109 degree heat. So instead of it being embarrassing that I said "imagines" instead of "images," it's actually quite impressive I'm managing to be coherent at all.
posted by Ms. Saint at 10:12 PM on July 18, 2009

Fuck all of y'all. Inline images were great.

You know why? Because, by and large, the community KNEW they were an in-your-face kind of thing, and they were relatively rare. They only became a "problem" when a thread was (rightfully) identifed for deletion.

I miss the image tags orgies. I miss the mass running-about-with-your-hands-in-the-air feeling when they developed. I also miss the feeling when there's one, perfect, image that sums up an argument/point/nuance perfectly, which no amount of verbosity would have done, and which is not repeated in a thread, because, hey, that point's been made, why bother doing it again?

This is a website of words. We are, again, by and large, a membership of our words. But we were able to use images effectively at times as well, and now we are not able to do so. To me, that deprecates us.
posted by yhbc at 10:18 PM on July 18, 2009 [14 favorites]

I miss images, but I hate cross-site scripting attacks that would inevitably come from them being externally hosted.

Still, an opt-in-to-see-them system with a $1 cover to post and requirement that the image be hosted on, say, Flickr or Imageshack...

Well, I'd use it.
posted by Ryvar at 10:20 PM on July 18, 2009

I'd love the [IMG] tag, and would use it sparingly if at all. I also think paying for it sounds stupid.
posted by dunkadunc at 10:38 PM on July 18, 2009

If they matter, yhbc, you can link to them.

You're complaining that you have to work harder to shit in a thread. Cry me a fucking river.
posted by Malor at 11:15 PM on July 18, 2009 [6 favorites]

I'm sad the .img tag is gone from Mefi theads, personally.
posted by 31d1 at 11:22 PM on July 18, 2009

I love not having images, personally. I mean, admittedly, sometimes they were funny. And they were mostly rare.

But I like being able to view mefi on my Blackberry. And I like to have at least one port in the storm of photoshopped lolcats that infest all the other sites.
posted by Netzapper at 11:51 PM on July 18, 2009

Am I the only one who views the no images rule as a feature, not a bug?

No, no you are not.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:54 PM on July 18, 2009 [5 favorites]

I liked the images. I miss them. Some were as clever as the some of the comments. But I understand the reasoning for banning them.
If you all would solemnly promise not to post pictures of cats or kitties, I might change my mind.
posted by Cranberry at 11:58 PM on July 18, 2009

Hi, let's not do that. If it's necessary, it can be linked to in the comment itself and interested parties can click through. We really don't need people embedding Hitler and Hindenburg pictures to make their inane "you know who else liked 'x'?" posts even more annoying.

Please and thank you.
posted by cgomez at 12:15 AM on July 19, 2009

Fuck all of y'all. Inline images were great.

They will stop being great as soon as they stop being were.

In short, no. I miss selective portions of the questionably-good old days of the <img> tag, but by and large we are a lot better off without it, and arguments that ignore the "by and large" part in favor of nostalgic exceptionalism really aren't a remotely good basis on which to base policy decisions.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:18 AM on July 19, 2009 [5 favorites]

Man, he almost sounds sober...
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:22 AM on July 19, 2009 [6 favorites]

I did suggest that birdsquared be given the use of the img tag, in light of his contribution of champagne to the Portland meetup, but alas no.

Thanks for the sparkly, birdsquared!
posted by gingerbeer at 12:33 AM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

I profoundly enjoy not having to see stupid/disturbing/juvenile/gross/misogynistic/banal shit the lowest common denominator thinks is funny. It's depressing and saps my energy, which is why I don't contribute to Fark, 4-chan, SomethingAwful, etc.

Who wants to spend time creating a thoughtful response in a thread you don't even want to open? Oh well.
posted by aquafortis at 12:34 AM on July 19, 2009

No img tag, please. Obnoxiousness with words is plenty easy on its own.

However, can we make the request for the return of the img tag an annual event? Like, once a year, someone will post the traditional Very Good Reasons for its reinstatement and the mods can issue the traditional Sorry, Still No. Then we can dance, dance, dance and start coming up with Very Good Reasons for next year! What fun!

Also, maybe we could get the argument about obit dots out of our systems that day as well.
posted by EatTheWeak at 12:37 AM on July 19, 2009

Man, he almost sounds sober...
posted by jessamyn

She doesn't ...
posted by wendell at 12:41 AM on July 19, 2009

At the SF meetup, a user there (i forget who) said HE was the one responsible for the img tag being banned, as he did a proof of concept exploit. Although I admired his skill in performing the exploit, I booed him, as I used to love the images people would throw at crappy posts.

But, in all fairness, the site's a LOT bigger now, and I could easily imagine it getting out of control, even if the exploit wasn't an issue.
posted by jasper411 at 12:45 AM on July 19, 2009

Man, he almost sounds sober...

I review my comments like ten fucking times when I'm hammered. Fun fact: I wrote that on the BUS.

And, to be clear, all that having been said: birdsquared, thank you very much for the champagne, it was a lovely gesture and we enjoyed it a great deal. That you ordered it from out of town really mystified our hostess, which was just like bonus-charming.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:47 AM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

We'll pay

I offered cortex my left nut just last night for a one-time-only <img> drop. He said no, of course, to my dismay and also to general disarray.
posted by carsonb at 1:46 AM on July 19, 2009

I do have fond memories for the animated gif of the bunny with pancakes on its head. It looked so nice against the semi-professional grey background of MetaTalk.
posted by kaibutsu at 2:31 AM on July 19, 2009

I'd like to say here that the presentation of this suggestion looks much more attractive at a meetup with a full pitcher of beer in front of you. We totally had it all worked out, but we forgot the diagrams.
posted by Zack_Replica at 2:56 AM on July 19, 2009

The img ban is one of the reasons MeFi has survived ten years.
posted by robcorr at 3:38 AM on July 19, 2009

I liked the ability to use inline images — I used to use them, almost exclusively on Ask Metafilter, for little explanatory diagrams (example). I miss being able to do that.
posted by RichardP at 4:02 AM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'm trying (and, thankfully, failing) to imagine what the most recent Palin thread would have looked like with inline images. Ugh.
posted by FelliniBlank at 5:15 AM on July 19, 2009

LOLCATS postdate the <img> ban.

This alone tells me that inline images now < inline images then.
posted by elfgirl at 5:18 AM on July 19, 2009 [2 favorites]

Why does cortex want carsonb's left nut?
posted by JeffK at 5:48 AM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

I used to use them, almost exclusively on Ask Metafilter, for little explanatory diagrams

This is the only use of images on the site that I'd consider valuable or useful (as much as I love Oolong).

I wonder, loathe as I am to create more work for the mods (too late!), if it would be possible to allow images in AskMe as long as any comment/post with them were moderated a la anonymous posts. It would mean a delay in your comment posting, but a truly useful image really does help some explanations. And, while it is possible to post a link to an image when trying to explain something, it does make it easier for most folks to understand if you can read the explanation and look at the diagram/image/graph whatever on the same page.

I ran into this recently in the thread on Pirate Bay that morphed into a discussion about movie pirating. I wanted to use the Five Forces model to help explain the effect of new distribution systems into an industry, but decided that trying to explain Porter's model without visual aids to someone who'd never heard of it before was going to be too complicated. This is not to say I think imgs have a place on the front page, too--just that, from experience, there are some things that really need a visual reference.
posted by elfgirl at 6:21 AM on July 19, 2009

As a member of some other forums that allow inline images, I am ecstatic that they are not supported here.
posted by dfan at 6:52 AM on July 19, 2009

there are some things that really need a visual reference

Linking to images isn't a option?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:16 AM on July 19, 2009

Linking to images isn't a option?

This.

The only images on MeFi that I actually liked were the little cartoons that were actually designed to look like they belonged on the Blue (color matching and all). Other than that, I'd rather have the ability to not see what image you posted. Clicking a link is not a high price, and it's a lot less problematic than the image spam that actually used to happen.
posted by graymouser at 7:24 AM on July 19, 2009

Like a lot of people, I was a lurker before spending the $ for a membership. Someone (probably GaelFC) had linked to an AskMe, and I found the green fascinating. It stood to reason that if there was a community that could give smart, thoughtful and sometimes hilarious answers to almost any question, then the discussion on the blue must be incredible. And it was, but only between ceiling cats. I got irritated trying to weed out the interesting discussion between the images that I gave up on the blue for a while, and probably missed out on a lot. I finally joined when the images stopped.
Count me in with the feature-not-a-bug camp.
posted by dogmom at 7:31 AM on July 19, 2009

I offered cortex my left nut just last night for a one-time-only drop. He said no

What did you end up doing with it? Is it still available?
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 7:49 AM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

I got to post precisely one image before they were banned. Really, I figured the reasoning behind the ban was measured, thoughtful and to the betterment of the site, as such decisions have consistently been here, so I shrugged my shoulders and forgot about it.

I have a flickr account and gobs of .mac space, so hosting an image and posting a link to it has not been a problem for me. My flickr stats show that clicking through to view them hasn't ben a problem for Metafilter readers, either.

Think about the look and feel of Metafilter vs. just about any commercially successful website in the world -- what we have here is unique amongst such things -- the average website these days is

content ADS ADS ADS, MOVING FLASH ADS, SIDEBAR ADS, GOOGLE ADSENSE ADS, FLASH POP-UP THINGS BLOCKING THE CONTENT, CLICK HERE FOR ANOTHER TEN WORDS OF content AD NAUSEAM.

To see a website full of... words... is pleasantly anachronistic, and I'm amazed it's remained true to that, Miracle Whip ZING! notwithstanding.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:51 AM on July 19, 2009 [3 favorites]

I had no idea that there were still people who were offended by goatse.
posted by paisley henosis at 8:06 AM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

Hey, I've managed to go this long without seeing goatse. I'd sure like to keep it that way, thanks.
posted by EatTheWeak at 8:15 AM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

I got here post-img tag, is there any post on the site famous for images?
posted by America at 8:48 AM on July 19, 2009

Linking to images isn't a option?

As I tried to explain (badly, apparently), when an explanation benefits by using an image to support or illustrate, it's easier to understand when the image is right there with the text. At least for me, if I have to flip in between windows to look at a diagram and then back to the text, it's harder to understand than if I can just glance between the written explanation and the graphic illustration. It's the same reason that textbooks will almost always have associated graphics as close as possible on the page to the text that references it.

So, in the case of AskMe, a place to solicit, amongst other things, explanations of sometimes complex concepts, it makes sense to me that the ability to have a supporting image right there with the answer could make some types of answers more useful or helpful. YMMV, of course.
posted by elfgirl at 8:57 AM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

There's a greasemonkey script that helps with this. It displays most image links inline.
posted by theantikitty at 8:58 AM on July 19, 2009

Is it still available?

You betcha! One left nut, available in trade only for one (1) inline image of a pissing elephant posted to wendell's recent freak flag MeTa thread.
posted by carsonb at 9:37 AM on July 19, 2009

Fuck all of y'all. Inline images were great.

          ,     ,
         (\____/)
          (_oo_)
            (O)
          __||__    \)
       []/______\[] /
       / \______/ \/
      /    /__\
     (\   /____\


 wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut

posted by zennie at 10:26 AM on July 19, 2009

LOLCATS postdate the ban.
This is false.
I got here post-img tag, is there any post on the site famous for images?
The wiki has a list. Keep in mind that the majority of those occurred when it was clear that the post was going to be deleted. People still continue to party down in those kind of threads, they just do it with links or ascii art now.
posted by Rhomboid at 10:53 AM on July 19, 2009

Yea, image tag. I would pay to have the image tag back.

Also, I would not post pictures of people having intercourse with food, as other have done in the past.
posted by 517 at 11:25 AM on July 19, 2009

LOLCATS postdate the ban.
This is false.

Yeah, I was going to say mostly postdates, but I didn't.

So, uh, so there.

My kingdom for an img tag!
posted by elfgirl at 11:39 AM on July 19, 2009

theantikitty beat me to the inline script thingamajig; your explanation was fine, elfgirl, I just doubt that an AskMe exception to the no-pic rule for folks who need visualizations and text on the same page would be worth the inevitable abuses and/or gray case whinefests that'd ensue.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:50 AM on July 19, 2009

I remain neutral on the subject - I was asked to post the request because I was the one with the laptop at the meeting. I would like to point out that in the same way that people are suggesting that links are equivalent, I suppose the rejoinder would be that if you want to, you can turn off your browser's support for inline images, requiring you to click on them to see.

Second - one of the idea's proponents - sleslie - was much more intent on the .img files being accompanied by payment. I suppose that this payment could be waived in circumstances such as described by elfgirl - where the image enhances communication of an idea. But for all others, the payment to MetaFilter would accompany the sending of the image to a mod (and thus be recompense for the added workload, mayhap), and so goatse, or I don't know, a man fucking a chicken, would not get through - depending on the mod, I suppose...

Third - when I called to place the champagne order I said I was calling about the large group of people that was going to be gathering there and the waitress asked "Matt?" as though that's who she thought was calling, so that was fun.

Fourth - when I posted this thread, I got the MeMail from Mathowie about it - and it was the first time I have posted after this new feature was implemented, so I had no expectation of a posting confirmation email - and I was amazed that Matt had emailed from his meetup to our meetup. Alas, it was not such, but it was still momentarily exciting.
posted by birdsquared at 11:50 AM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

paisley henosis writes "I had no idea that there were still people who were offended by goatse."

I'd bet most users, even here, still find it offensive even if they aren't shocked by it anymore.
posted by Mitheral at 2:26 PM on July 19, 2009

Has anyone seen the new animated gif, where Sarah Palin / tubeworm pokes out of goatse's bum and winks at the viewer?

No? Well could someone please make that then?
posted by Meatbomb at 4:48 PM on July 19, 2009

I'm another person in the clear minority: I like MeFi with images. And I equally like MeFi without images. Getting rid of images was neither an improvement nor a deterioration, just a change.
posted by Bugbread at 4:57 PM on July 19, 2009

I would like to point out that in the same way that people are suggesting that links are equivalent, I suppose the rejoinder would be that if you want to, you can turn off your browser's support for inline images, requiring you to click on them to see.

I don't think people are suggesting that links are equivalent. Only that they're sufficient for most purposes.

However, turning off inline images in my browser affects all sites across the web, as well as breaking just about every page layout on the planet--remember that plenty of people use images as layout elements. So saying that if you don't want to see goatse on mefi, turn off inline images is a little like saying that if you don't like being punched in the face, you should cut off your head.
posted by Netzapper at 5:29 PM on July 19, 2009

I like MeFi without images. That should basically settle this argument.
posted by srrh at 5:39 PM on July 19, 2009 [3 favorites]

If you wish to not see any inline images in comments, just add the following to Stylish:

@-moz-document domain("metafilter.com") {
  div.comments img { display:none !important }
}

posted by Rhomboid at 6:00 PM on July 19, 2009

You don't have to turn off inline images for every site if you have Firefox.
Just go to the website, right-click on an image and select "Block images from xxxx.com. You can undo this easily through the Tools menu.
I could show you screencaps of how to do this if, you know, I could post images.
posted by vapidave at 6:48 PM on July 19, 2009

But inline images are hosted on a large number of external sites, so it would be tedious to have to click on each one in a thread with hundreds of images. Moreover, a good deal of them are hosted on imageshack or tinypic or imagebucket (et cetera) and if you block images from those sites you'll break a lot of other unrelated sites.
posted by Rhomboid at 7:21 PM on July 19, 2009

I don't think people are suggesting that links are equivalent. Only that they're sufficient for most purposes.

They're sufficient for everything but thread-shitting, and we don't need to make that any easier.
posted by Malor at 7:59 PM on July 19, 2009

The obvious answer is to have a dedicated host (images.metafilter.com), through which we all submit images and have them reused for communist lulz.

(Obvious, but with obvious reasons why the holy four will put the kibosh on it.)
posted by klangklangston at 8:07 PM on July 19, 2009

the holy four (klangklangston)

So, which of the five mods is the unholy one, then?
posted by ocherdraco at 8:13 PM on July 19, 2009

But inline images are hosted on a large number of external sites...
posted by Rhomboid at 9:21 PM on July 19 [+] [!]

Good point, the problem could solved by hosting images on metafilter.
posted by vapidave at 9:23 PM on July 19, 2009

Why do people always ask this silly question? Images aren't banned because we're curmudgeons. Asking for images back isn't like asking for a cookie at bedtime. Images are banned because they're a thoroughly documented security threat. Allowing people to post images if they pay a fee would be like letting people bring their gun on the airplane as long as they pay a little more for their ticket. It doesn't get rid of the root problem, which is that it's a great way to hurt people.

Honestly, my idea? I think people should have to pay every time they post a thread begging for images back. It gets a little old.
posted by koeselitz at 9:49 PM on July 19, 2009 [1 favorite]

And, gee, I mean, I don't really want images back all the time, but wouldn't it be great if they just allowed them for this one particular thread? Because, as everybody know, it's no big deal if your computer gets taken control of and someone's able to remotely execute commands just once...
posted by koeselitz at 9:56 PM on July 19, 2009

Honestly, my idea? I think people should have to pay every time they post a thread begging for images back. It gets a little old.

I'd pay a fee to favorite this twice.
posted by EatTheWeak at 10:16 PM on July 19, 2009

"So, which of the five mods is the unholy one, then?"

Vacapinta stalks the night.
posted by klangklangston at 11:01 PM on July 19, 2009 [4 favorites]

I loved me a good image infested thread-shit fiesta, but it would have been hard to explain to my boss, when he walked up behind me, why I'm looking at:

• Some guy's gaping asshole
• Another guy laying pipe in a dead chicken
• The gif of one dog fucking another dog and then puking and then eating the puke.

These things are frowned upon in Fortune 500 culture and was the reason that, for quite a while, I couldn't safely look at MeFi at work. Now I don't look at MeFi at work because I have a different job where I have to, you know, work.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:58 AM on July 20, 2009

your explanation was fine, elfgirl, I just doubt that an AskMe exception to the no-pic rule for folks who need visualizations and text on the same page would be worth the inevitable abuses and/or gray case whinefests that'd ensue.

...thus my initial suggestion that any comments containing images be subjected to moderation a la anonymous posts.

Just to be clear, I'm NOT in favor of allowing images back on MeFi (other than cortex's occasional Fuck you, I can haz images! comments). I can see where they might be useful in very limited situations, though, and my comment was mostly rebuttal of the They're never useful line of argument.

To conclude: img = usefulness < exploitability , but usefulness ≠ 0
posted by elfgirl at 5:39 AM on July 20, 2009

The only thing I miss about the loss of the IMG tag are those comics whatshisface used to draw making fun of peoples comments.

Otherwise it was all elephants taking dumps, all day every day.
posted by chunking express at 7:06 AM on July 20, 2009

The work would be non-trivial, but could it be implemented in a way that satisfies the greatest number of people?

1. Allow images.
2. Allow users to specify in their profile whether or not they want to see images.
3. Default this setting to "No" for all users.

Images become opt-in. No one has their MeFi experience changed by images unless they choose to. If someone with images OFF sees a thread that looks like a cool image party they can turn images ON to read that thread and then turn them off again to avoid SURPRISEGOATSE.

Not a perfect solution by any stretch, but not a bad compromise.
posted by DWRoelands at 11:53 AM on July 20, 2009

Any solution, imperfect or otherwise, would need to account for xss attacks. It's not just a problem of gaping, fiery red, basketball-birthing assholes and cockflag animations, there's a real security issue too.
posted by carsonb at 12:03 PM on July 20, 2009

I got here post-img tag, is there any post on the site famous for images?
The wiki has a list. Keep in mind that the majority of those occurred when it was clear that the post was going to be deleted.

Oh jesus, those are horrid. I can see why they are gone.
posted by America at 1:41 PM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]

DWRoelands: The work would be non-trivial, but could it be implemented in a way that satisfies the greatest number of people?

1. Allow images.
2. Allow users to specify in their profile whether or not they want to see images.
3. Default this setting to "No" for all users.

Images become opt-in. No one has their MeFi experience changed by images unless they choose to. If someone with images OFF sees a thread that looks like a cool image party they can turn images ON to read that thread and then turn them off again to avoid SURPRISEGOATSE.

Not a perfect solution by any stretch, but not a bad compromise.

4. Every delighted but clueless user who doesn't understand the security threat or doesn't read the warning on the signup page (read: 94% of Metafilter) is suddenly subjected to 302 and 304 redirect attacks every time they visit Metafilter!
5. The more cautious 5% turn images on briefly on threads they want to see, just to be safe, and only have their computer taken control of that one time!
6. The remaining 100 of us here whose computers still actually work suddenly have almost nothing to do, but the one-per-week limit on AskMe questions is suddenly lifted and we each end up asking five questions every day!

Gah. Okay, for the billionth time: Images aren't banned because of Goatse. Images are banned because remotely-linked images are a security threat.
posted by koeselitz at 2:31 PM on July 20, 2009

Gah. Okay, for the billionth time: Images aren't banned because of Goatse. Images are banned because remotely-linked images are a security threat.

Well, metafilter could host the images (as with Music).

This would come after TravelFilter and the three-minute edit window.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 4:26 PM on July 20, 2009

Keep in mind any solution that involves some MeFites potentially looking at gaping assholes while me and cortex definitely have to look at them is unlikely to win mod approval.

And no, I did not post that chicken photo, you have me confused with someone else.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:41 PM on July 20, 2009 [2 favorites]

Jessamyn, may I suggest bookmarking or linking to this on your profile for easy access?
It would probably save yourself some time.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:44 PM on July 20, 2009

Keep in mind any solution that involves some MeFites potentially looking at gaping assholes while me and cortex definitely have to look at them is unlikely to win mod approval.

joke> Maybe there could be a 6th moderator - the picture filter mod - paid for by the fee, someone with no visual "Gahh! I need to wash my eyeballs" reflex /joke>

And no, I did not post that chicken photo, you have me confused with someone else.

jessamyn - I apologize for the implication - I was going on the basis of the MeTaQuiz answer, not any personal knowledge of same.
posted by birdsquared at 7:19 AM on July 21, 2009

Jessamyn, may I suggest bookmarking or linking to this on your profile for easy access?

thank you, I have done so.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:36 AM on July 21, 2009

elfgirl's need for in-line images is easily solved by.. wait for it.. not having your web browser maximized to take the full screen space! By opening an image in another window, and strategically hovering one window over the other, you may -- if you dare -- simulate what it may be like to have inline images on the blue.
posted by mikeh at 2:35 PM on July 21, 2009

simulate what it may be like to have inline images on the blue.

Except I was talking about the green. And reiterated that I wasn't in support of images on Me*, of any color.

But, yeah, good idea otherwise.
posted by elfgirl at 2:45 PM on July 21, 2009