Uploading Images to AskMe

January 26, 2006 3:53 PM

Gramcracker used an image to answer a question in AskMe! It's not an animal relieving itself, it's neither humorous nor snarky, it's just an entirely useful and informative visual aide! Is this a first?
posted by leapingsheep to MetaFilter-Related at 3:53 PM (28 comments total)

I believe it is not a first, but I'm not about to do the research.
posted by cortex at 3:56 PM on January 26, 2006

here's one that got best answer.
posted by puke & cry at 4:00 PM on January 26, 2006

I was thinking of blocking the image tag this week. It's two or three years too late, but it's good to see that once in a while it can be actually useful. I've deleted dozens of HUGE MAN TITTY images just this week alone.

Of course, both good answers could have just linked to the images themselves and people would have still gotten it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:06 PM on January 26, 2006

Why couldn't the question have been answered by googling?
posted by Joeforking at 4:07 PM on January 26, 2006

Not the first, nope.
posted by Rothko at 4:16 PM on January 26, 2006

/me votes in favor of blocking the image tag. A 1:1000 signal to noise ratio isn't worth the bother.
posted by Triode at 4:20 PM on January 26, 2006

or you could just turn off images on your browser or via a greasemonkey script.
posted by keswick at 4:25 PM on January 26, 2006

yeah, douche.
posted by puke & cry at 4:25 PM on January 26, 2006

I got a "best answer" for this.
posted by timeistight at 4:26 PM on January 26, 2006

puke & cry: i knew my comment was missing something.
posted by keswick at 4:28 PM on January 26, 2006

I was thinking of blocking the image tag this week.

Maybe a Metachat-esque user preference toggle, to show images inline or re-render the html to show all inline images as links?

I haven't seen an image in a very long time that added anything to a thread other than 'LOOK AT ME', but it sucks to have to drain the pool because a few people pee in it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:49 PM on January 26, 2006

It's funny. Many people here think that images are abused. However, when you look across the internet at sites which allow images and are not themselves some sort of highly structured site, the image tag is highly abused. Here, people use it for jokes and sometimes abuse it, but the bulk of the images are really funny or telling in some way, rather than insulting. I understand the burden it places on you and Jess for editing out the abuses, but half of what makes this place tick is the humor. You have a highly thoughtful and intelligent crowd with a great sense of humor and valuable insights. The group produces interesting discussions, thoughtful insights, funny jokes, and frankly some of the best yet frequently humorous insights into weighty issues. Don't clamp their hands. It stifles the expression, the creativity. It's your site, but also your investment. Tend to it's strengths and trim rather than raze.
posted by caddis at 5:15 PM on January 26, 2006

Get your stinking hands of my huge man titties, you damn dirty ape!
posted by loquacious at 5:20 PM on January 26, 2006

This was a great answer to a question of mine.
posted by googly at 5:20 PM on January 26, 2006

I used it once to illustrate different kinds of chef's knives. I was going to use it yesterday to illustrate the moon's orbit, but the image had a transparent background and Matt's blocked the "style" attribute on img tags...
posted by nicwolff at 5:25 PM on January 26, 2006

I'd like to think this image was appropriate, sort of.
posted by puke & cry at 5:53 PM on January 26, 2006

I think images can be great in AskMe and hope 1) they don't go away there at least, 2) stupid images (like the one in the question about mental retardation in the animal kingdom) continue to get deleted, and 3) one-day timeouts start being given to folks who post noise/garbage/joke answers.

Two out of three would be ok.
posted by mediareport at 6:52 PM on January 26, 2006

I would plead for the poor abused img tag to remain, because I learned stuff in this thread today (thanks Rothko and RichardP!) that I've read in text that never made sense until I saw those images. How I missed those threads I don't know, so thanks for pointing them out, Rothko and googly!
posted by Lynsey at 8:01 PM on January 26, 2006

Oh, and excuse me, thanks to gramcracker, also, for a succinct and helpful answer. Sometimes a picture is worth 1000 words, I guess is what I'm trying to say.
posted by Lynsey at 8:05 PM on January 26, 2006

I posted this one because it shows the gadget, and how/where it is installed.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:17 PM on January 26, 2006

I confess: I've stooped to use a (nasty or silly) image on occasion, but I'm fully aware that many hate their use. So I have one concern: posted images are often way too big. People can use the "width=xxx" tag to adjust the size of their posted image. (For example, this post's pic has a width of 200.)
posted by rob511 at 9:37 PM on January 26, 2006

Those are all just so useful. I just really like it. I must admit that I enjoy silly images, but my eyes have been stung more than once by that which should remain unseen.
posted by leapingsheep at 2:40 AM on January 27, 2006

As long as we're talking about photos, people should be reminded of a couple of things:

1) If you include an inline image from another web site (or even link directly to the image, instead of to the page it's on), that site is getting all the hits (bandwidth drain), and usually no credit or link that might possibly make it worthwhile.

2) If you post a photo from another web site, say "funnypic.jpg", and the site owner notices that this has happened, they may just upload say, goatse.jpg, rename it "funnypic.jpg" and what you will now see on the page here is not a "STFU NOOB!" image, but a photo of a gaping asshole.

3) Even if you put height and width declarations in your html to make it appear smaller, if the image you link to is some bigass size and like 800k, it's still going to take just as long for it download to the page. It appears as a 200 x 200-pixel image, but the page is rendering the real size, and it will take a long time to load.

You can avoid all of these things by using a free photo hosting service. I use photobucket.com for stuff like this. You can upload images from your hard drive, or from a url, and you can resize them, all in your browser.
posted by taz at 3:21 AM on January 27, 2006

(Caveat - I am very pro-helpful images esp. in AskMe...all the examples above are great)

But, if Matt wanted to diabled the img tag to staunch the Man Titties, couldn't the same helpful effect be acheived by just including a link to the image...rather than making it inline?

Like a link to:
http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/Pilsinl/142.gif

or [See image]

or something?

It does take the image out of the "flow" of the answer, but only by a click. I dunno. I like them inline, too, of course.
posted by tpl1212 at 3:23 AM on January 27, 2006

stavrosthewonderchicken writes "Maybe a Metachat-esque user preference toggle, to show images inline or re-render the html to show all inline images as links?

"I haven't seen an image in a very long time that added anything to a thread other than 'LOOK AT ME', but it sucks to have to drain the pool because a few people pee in it."

That's the best answer I've seen yet. Keep the tag, and let users decide if the images are useful. Those who dislike the images shan't be bothered again. A perfect little compromise with a tiny amount of coding.
posted by moonbird at 6:12 AM on January 27, 2006

(or even link directly to the image, instead of to the page it's on), that site is getting all the hits (bandwidth drain), and usually no credit or link that might possibly make it worthwhile.

I'm with you on not including images from other sites inline here, taz, but I think linking directly to an image rather then the page it's on is perfectly fine. The URL of the site is visible to anyone who looks up a few centimeters, which is more than enough credit to justify the direct link, especially if the image comes from a long page with lots of other images.

I completely fail to see the ethical dilemma there.
posted by mediareport at 8:25 AM on January 27, 2006

I also fail to see a problem. This is the wwweb -- words and pictures. I thought there was prohibition on front-page images, but no problem inside a thread. (But of course, posting a too-large picture indicates a certain degree of ineptitude.)

And I have also received a best answer with an image.
posted by Rash at 9:10 AM on January 27, 2006

Images were an integral part of one of my AskMe questions.

And I really don't think they're generally abused here. And often, they are teh funny.
posted by weston at 10:36 AM on January 27, 2006