Please bring back the img tag. November 16, 2006 8:17 AM Subscribe
Please bring back the img tag.
We'll bring carrot-banana beer.
I cannot support this revolution.
posted by cortex at 8:21 AM on November 16, 2006
I cannot support this revolution.
posted by cortex at 8:21 AM on November 16, 2006
Yes, please! I have too much money in my bank account and need to have it transferred out to a random stranger via a scripting exploit.
posted by tkolar at 8:21 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by tkolar at 8:21 AM on November 16, 2006
Wasn't it all h4xy or something?
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:29 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:29 AM on November 16, 2006
Haven't you all figured it out yet? Images were an issue that quite bitterly divided us all, and that put Number One in a bind. But if there's a potential SECURITY THREAT, then Matt has a reason to get rid of it, and his problems are over!
posted by evilcolonel at 8:29 AM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by evilcolonel at 8:29 AM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
I prefer a nice grapefruit grolsch.
But if the would-be stranger would transfer my debts out the same way, I could be up for a little img.
posted by dreamsign at 8:30 AM on November 16, 2006
But if the would-be stranger would transfer my debts out the same way, I could be up for a little img.
posted by dreamsign at 8:30 AM on November 16, 2006
I've been posting links to my Photobucket account - and that seems to work just fine. Sure, it takes an extra click, but after all, it's for the children.
posted by NationalKato at 8:30 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by NationalKato at 8:30 AM on November 16, 2006
No, no, no, no. Mostly it was used for silly stupid crap, which if great the first 30 times and then goes to hell i.e. it was rarely the best of the web.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:30 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:30 AM on November 16, 2006
Brandon Blatcher writes "it was rarely the best of the web."
Since it wasn't used for front page posts, this criteria is not at issue.
posted by OmieWise at 8:32 AM on November 16, 2006
Since it wasn't used for front page posts, this criteria is not at issue.
posted by OmieWise at 8:32 AM on November 16, 2006
Please come up with a fix for the security issues before asking to bring back the img tag again.
posted by crunchland at 8:33 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by crunchland at 8:33 AM on November 16, 2006
god without images my SCHTICK IS NOTHING PLEASE OH PLEASE MA YOU'RE RUINING MY REP YOU'RE ONLY SIXTEEN YOU DON'T HAVE A REP YET
whoa that took a wrong turn.
posted by fishfucker at 8:34 AM on November 16, 2006
whoa that took a wrong turn.
posted by fishfucker at 8:34 AM on November 16, 2006
Oh, that is such an unbiased comment, crunchland. I totally cannot hear the handrubbing glee.
Please bring it back.
posted by dame at 8:36 AM on November 16, 2006
Please bring it back.
posted by dame at 8:36 AM on November 16, 2006
The cacophony of displeasure that arises because a chatty askme thread gets deleted is small compared to what we'd have to endure if he did away with inline images from the crybabies who cling to them.
posted by crunchland at 8:39 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by crunchland at 8:39 AM on November 16, 2006
Dude, we went over this before. A good proportion of the people who want it beck rarely if ever use the damn tag. Why do you hate silliness?
posted by dame at 8:40 AM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by dame at 8:40 AM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
It might have been cute, fuzzy and your best friend when you were down and had no other recourse... but now look at it, the inherent danger puts you on edge and it could snap viciously at any moment.
Face it, mathowie took it out back and put it down like Ol' Yeller. You'll just have to learn to live with that, son... it was for the best.
posted by prostyle at 8:41 AM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
Face it, mathowie took it out back and put it down like Ol' Yeller. You'll just have to learn to live with that, son... it was for the best.
posted by prostyle at 8:41 AM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
Dude.
We did go over this before. We went over it last week and the week before. Can't we just link to those threads and pretend we did it this week?
posted by crunchland at 8:41 AM on November 16, 2006
We did go over this before. We went over it last week and the week before. Can't we just link to those threads and pretend we did it this week?
posted by crunchland at 8:41 AM on November 16, 2006
I too would like to see it back, and I've never used it myself and am unlikely ever to use it. But the images can really make a thread.
posted by languagehat at 8:52 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by languagehat at 8:52 AM on November 16, 2006
Why do you hate silliness?
And why don't we have an animal mascot?
Preferably something cute with endlessly amusing stools.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:53 AM on November 16, 2006
And why don't we have an animal mascot?
Preferably something cute with endlessly amusing stools.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:53 AM on November 16, 2006
What does "." mean?
posted by Smart Dalek at 8:53 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by Smart Dalek at 8:53 AM on November 16, 2006
Go to hell, hacker scum.
posted by punishinglemur at 8:55 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by punishinglemur at 8:55 AM on November 16, 2006
Yes, please. The discussion may have been done before, but each week the place gets more lifeless.
posted by yhbc at 9:00 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by yhbc at 9:00 AM on November 16, 2006
Smart Dalek, It's called a 'period' or 'full stop'. It's typically used to end a sentence. It's also useful in math where it is known as a 'decimal point'. Lot's more information here.
posted by quin at 9:02 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by quin at 9:02 AM on November 16, 2006
Animal mascots aren't silly. Do I have to make a chart?
posted by dame at 9:07 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by dame at 9:07 AM on November 16, 2006
Welcome to the new, more serious MetaFilter.
The bad news: jessamyn wants a Taser.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:19 AM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
The bad news: jessamyn wants a Taser.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:19 AM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
I would like to see this chart. Hopefully it includes tits and boobies. And Tasers.
posted by loquacious at 9:20 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by loquacious at 9:20 AM on November 16, 2006
each week the place gets more lifeless.
Oh, quit being so melodramatic. If you think the life of metafilter resides in an ability to display a picture of a squirrel playing the harmonica, than that really says crap about what you think about Metafilter.
I'll say it again. Find a way to make Matt feel secure about allowing images, and he'll give them back. Until then, take your onanistic ass over to Fark.
posted by crunchland at 9:22 AM on November 16, 2006
Oh, quit being so melodramatic. If you think the life of metafilter resides in an ability to display a picture of a squirrel playing the harmonica, than that really says crap about what you think about Metafilter.
I'll say it again. Find a way to make Matt feel secure about allowing images, and he'll give them back. Until then, take your onanistic ass over to Fark.
posted by crunchland at 9:22 AM on November 16, 2006
"...take your onanistic ass over to Fark"
Hey now, there's no need to insult Fark here.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:26 AM on November 16, 2006
Hey now, there's no need to insult Fark here.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:26 AM on November 16, 2006
CRAZYCAT.JPG
posted by blue_beetle at 9:31 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 9:31 AM on November 16, 2006
.......................__ ............
......<ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL>.
........................| |...........
................... __\||/____......
.\\...............|'-|--| .\\....\.....
..\ \_...........|--|---|..\\ ....\....
../ L \____,/-------\___\___\
.|LOL|-------------O----- ----,\..
..\ L /______,---'-----------, /...
../ /.............\_________ ,/....
.//.............____//___ __\\__/.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:37 AM on November 16, 2006
How did you put that little box there, blue_beetle?
Oh yea, and
FLAGGED - I ALREADY SAW THIS STUPID SHOW
posted by Mister_A at 9:39 AM on November 16, 2006
Oh yea, and
FLAGGED - I ALREADY SAW THIS STUPID SHOW
posted by Mister_A at 9:39 AM on November 16, 2006
blue_beetle: I keep clicking the button and nothing happens, dammit.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:40 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:40 AM on November 16, 2006
I too would like to see the chart.
posted by arcticwoman at 9:43 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by arcticwoman at 9:43 AM on November 16, 2006
god without images my SCHTICK IS NOTHING PLEASE OH PLEASE MA YOU'RE RUINING MY REP YOU'RE ONLY SIXTEEN YOU DON'T HAVE A REP YET
ZOMG YOU'RE TOTALLY RITE IM ACTUALLY 16 AND I TOTALLY CARE ABOUT MY REP 'CAUSE I HATE ALL THAT DUMB TEXT AM I RITE LOL
Oh, quit being so melodramatic. If you think the life of metafilter resides in an ability to display a picture of a squirrel playing the harmonica, than that really says crap about what you think about Metafilter.
If you really think that that is all we care about, well, sorry, but you're delusional, reductivist or simplistic - or all of the above. As much of a fan as I am of the Crunchland MethodTM you're obviously insane or you have an inexplicable burning sensation in your junk which is causing irrational irritability.
I'd attempt to lighten your mood with an amusingly diversionary picture of a squirrel playing the harmonica while humping an invisible bicycle-riding cat, but I can't.
However:
Find a way to make Matt feel secure about allowing images, and he'll give them back.
This we can all agree upon. We need a solution, not more whinging. Whinging is easy.
posted by loquacious at 9:44 AM on November 16, 2006
ZOMG YOU'RE TOTALLY RITE IM ACTUALLY 16 AND I TOTALLY CARE ABOUT MY REP 'CAUSE I HATE ALL THAT DUMB TEXT AM I RITE LOL
Oh, quit being so melodramatic. If you think the life of metafilter resides in an ability to display a picture of a squirrel playing the harmonica, than that really says crap about what you think about Metafilter.
If you really think that that is all we care about, well, sorry, but you're delusional, reductivist or simplistic - or all of the above. As much of a fan as I am of the Crunchland MethodTM you're obviously insane or you have an inexplicable burning sensation in your junk which is causing irrational irritability.
I'd attempt to lighten your mood with an amusingly diversionary picture of a squirrel playing the harmonica while humping an invisible bicycle-riding cat, but I can't.
However:
Find a way to make Matt feel secure about allowing images, and he'll give them back.
This we can all agree upon. We need a solution, not more whinging. Whinging is easy.
posted by loquacious at 9:44 AM on November 16, 2006
CHART! CHART! CHART!
posted by loquacious at 9:44 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by loquacious at 9:44 AM on November 16, 2006
Well, I'd really like to post a chart, but I can't. The IMG tag seems to not work. And now you'll never know where boobies fall on the scale of silliness. It's a tragedy.
posted by dame at 9:52 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by dame at 9:52 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:56 AM on November 16, 2006
This conversation would be so much cuter with pictures. I bet it would be adorable.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:58 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:58 AM on November 16, 2006
FREE IMG!!
(That said, on a somewhat related note, even I've become annoyed at people supporting/disparaging the tag in unrelated threads.)
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:59 AM on November 16, 2006
(That said, on a somewhat related note, even I've become annoyed at people supporting/disparaging the tag in unrelated threads.)
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:59 AM on November 16, 2006
I'd like to see the img tag back, but I'd also like to see newsfilter posts hunted down with extreme prejudice. I don't expect either to happen.
posted by keswick at 10:00 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by keswick at 10:00 AM on November 16, 2006
ZOMG YOU'RE TOTALLY RITE IM ACTUALLY 16 AND I TOTALLY CARE ABOUT MY REP 'CAUSE I HATE ALL THAT DUMB TEXT AM I RITE LOL
damn, and now i'm not quite sure whether you realize you're living in a willenium or not.
posted by fishfucker at 10:02 AM on November 16, 2006
Please bring back the img tag.
Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.
posted by jazzkat11 at 10:03 AM on November 16, 2006
Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.
posted by jazzkat11 at 10:03 AM on November 16, 2006
Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.
Honor and shame from no condition rise; act well your part, there all the honor lies.
For interro's part, he's totally awesome.
posted by cortex at 10:09 AM on November 16, 2006
Honor and shame from no condition rise; act well your part, there all the honor lies.
For interro's part, he's totally awesome.
posted by cortex at 10:09 AM on November 16, 2006
The last time we beat this horse, somebody posted a Greasemonkey script that activated inline images. So...problem solved.
That's what happens whenever somebody requests a killfile feature, right? Folks point to Greasemonkey and say, "If you want a killfile, use Firefox and install this script." Well, here you go. Same solution.
posted by cribcage at 10:11 AM on November 16, 2006
That's what happens whenever somebody requests a killfile feature, right? Folks point to Greasemonkey and say, "If you want a killfile, use Firefox and install this script." Well, here you go. Same solution.
posted by cribcage at 10:11 AM on November 16, 2006
Yes, please! I have too much money in my bank account and need to have it transferred out to a random stranger via a scripting exploit.
...he says archly as he hands his visa card to a teenaged girl at olive garden who disappears with it for ten minutes.
posted by quonsar at 10:15 AM on November 16, 2006
...he says archly as he hands his visa card to a teenaged girl at olive garden who disappears with it for ten minutes.
posted by quonsar at 10:15 AM on November 16, 2006
Can someone explain why white-listing a few sites (like photobucket, flickr etc.) would or wouldn't work?
I don't do any banking with photobucket.
posted by vacapinta at 10:18 AM on November 16, 2006
I don't do any banking with photobucket.
posted by vacapinta at 10:18 AM on November 16, 2006
Why do you hate silliness?
I love clever silliness. I hate boring, repetitive, unthinking "silliness". More to the point, I hate unthinking, uncreative derails from the same five people after every metatalk thread gets past the fifty comment barrier.
Metafilter is also criminally slow for me the past little while, and the decreased load time has been wonderful.
If Matt ever decides to bring back the image tag, I hope he implements Das Chicken's new coding so that I can turn them off. Best of both worlds, I suppose.
Jesus, why am I talking about this again. I'm such a fucking pedant! /leaves in a huff
posted by The God Complex at 10:19 AM on November 16, 2006
I love clever silliness. I hate boring, repetitive, unthinking "silliness". More to the point, I hate unthinking, uncreative derails from the same five people after every metatalk thread gets past the fifty comment barrier.
Metafilter is also criminally slow for me the past little while, and the decreased load time has been wonderful.
If Matt ever decides to bring back the image tag, I hope he implements Das Chicken's new coding so that I can turn them off. Best of both worlds, I suppose.
Jesus, why am I talking about this again. I'm such a fucking pedant! /leaves in a huff
posted by The God Complex at 10:19 AM on November 16, 2006
I'm pretty sure clever and silly don't reside in the same universe. They are both awesome, but you know . . .
posted by dame at 10:26 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by dame at 10:26 AM on November 16, 2006
(Futurama was/is both silly and clever, often at the exact same time).
posted by The God Complex at 10:31 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by The God Complex at 10:31 AM on November 16, 2006
Futurama sucked horse cock. And still does. Maybe that's why. (Then again, I love The Decemberists and the IMG tag, so who knows what's wrong with me.)
posted by dame at 10:34 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by dame at 10:34 AM on November 16, 2006
Futurama sucked horse cock.
I think that was only Bender. Something about 80proof equine jizz.
But back to the boobies. Yeah, they are kind of silly, though not nearly as much as cock.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:43 AM on November 16, 2006
I think that was only Bender. Something about 80proof equine jizz.
But back to the boobies. Yeah, they are kind of silly, though not nearly as much as cock.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:43 AM on November 16, 2006
You know what would make a cock even sillier? Dressing it up and adding googly eyes. But my boyfriend always gets mad when I ask if I can.
posted by dame at 10:45 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by dame at 10:45 AM on November 16, 2006
A fix to the cross site scripting vulnerability would possibly be to rewrite the URL to go through a proxy that strips cookies. That would mean mefi would need the bandwidth to show the images, but it would be simpler than hosting them on images.metafilter.com or whatever.
Anyone see any security flaws with this?
posted by aubilenon at 10:56 AM on November 16, 2006
Anyone see any security flaws with this?
posted by aubilenon at 10:56 AM on November 16, 2006
You know what would make it silliest of all? Dressing it up, adding googly eyes, and sticking it in a chicken.
Man, I wish we had an image of that.
posted by scrump at 10:57 AM on November 16, 2006
Man, I wish we had an image of that.
posted by scrump at 10:57 AM on November 16, 2006
Hope me!
posted by Ceiling Cat at 10:58 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by Ceiling Cat at 10:58 AM on November 16, 2006
I miss images too and I rarely post images. I hope we get them back someday. That being said, I think it would be nice to have them optional to please the folks who don't want 'em or who have slow connections
posted by madamjujujive at 10:59 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by madamjujujive at 10:59 AM on November 16, 2006
First they come for the img tag, then the event attributes .. where's it end?! Your precious HREF??
posted by shownomercy at 11:10 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by shownomercy at 11:10 AM on November 16, 2006
I think all our posts should be in the form of a button, until the image tag comes back. Wouldn't that be annoying? I certainly think so. But, on second thought, I don't really want to get banned for silly antics. What do you think?
posted by blue_beetle at 11:20 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 11:20 AM on November 16, 2006
You know what would make a cock even sillier? Dressing it up and adding googly eyes. But my boyfriend always gets mad when I ask if I can.
Madam, where he fails you, I am at your service.
No super glue is allowed, though. Pictures are fine, silly hats are fine, but super glue is right out.
posted by loquacious at 11:22 AM on November 16, 2006
Madam, where he fails you, I am at your service.
No super glue is allowed, though. Pictures are fine, silly hats are fine, but super glue is right out.
posted by loquacious at 11:22 AM on November 16, 2006
I want something, but I'm not going to do anything constructive or volunteer to help achieve it.
I'm just going to ask for it.
Repeatedly.
And if I don't hear what I want, I'm gonna roll out the ol' "You've changed, man. You used to be cool!"
Because I want something.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:26 AM on November 16, 2006
I'm just going to ask for it.
Repeatedly.
And if I don't hear what I want, I'm gonna roll out the ol' "You've changed, man. You used to be cool!"
Because I want something.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:26 AM on November 16, 2006
OK. So, maybe I'm oversimplifying the problem here, but Matt seems to have put forward a couple of concerns, all of which somehow relate to CSRF.
In the general case: ZOMG, image tags can have stuff in them that can steal your moneys from teh bank accounts! Well, yes, they can, but Metafilter != the internets, and those same scripts could be lurking anywhere, on any website you've ever visited. Such is life, and if you're really that worried about it, you'll disable cookies, Javacript, and every other possible vector for attack, because there is NO GENERALIZED DEFENSE AGAINST THIS. Nothing. If you open a page that a malicious person has access to, you've opened yourself to the possibility that he's put in an invisible <img> in there that's emailed him the contents of every session cookie you've got, and it's the responsibility of the sites who are relying on session or browser cookies for authentication do enact security measures. Images here are but a drop in the bucket, and enforcing the issue here when it's rampant elsewhere is a bit myopic.
So, the solution is a whitelist. Hack up a little hardcoded regexp that you run against every input in every field, which only allows photobucket or sites where individual users have no ability to insert server-side scripts, and then block out anything that tries to reference anything else in an SRC attribute. You can even block out references to metafilter.com and its subdomains, if you want to stop the cutesy 'look how many people favorited my comment!' nonsense. So long as you've restricted it to GET requests (by blocking Javascript and by limiting URLs to domains that are known not to allow any server-side nonsense) that hit known domains and files with known extensions (limit to .png, .gif, .jpg), you've plugged the hole, and we can have ceiling cat back.
posted by Mayor West at 11:26 AM on November 16, 2006
In the general case: ZOMG, image tags can have stuff in them that can steal your moneys from teh bank accounts! Well, yes, they can, but Metafilter != the internets, and those same scripts could be lurking anywhere, on any website you've ever visited. Such is life, and if you're really that worried about it, you'll disable cookies, Javacript, and every other possible vector for attack, because there is NO GENERALIZED DEFENSE AGAINST THIS. Nothing. If you open a page that a malicious person has access to, you've opened yourself to the possibility that he's put in an invisible <img> in there that's emailed him the contents of every session cookie you've got, and it's the responsibility of the sites who are relying on session or browser cookies for authentication do enact security measures. Images here are but a drop in the bucket, and enforcing the issue here when it's rampant elsewhere is a bit myopic.
So, the solution is a whitelist. Hack up a little hardcoded regexp that you run against every input in every field, which only allows photobucket or sites where individual users have no ability to insert server-side scripts, and then block out anything that tries to reference anything else in an SRC attribute. You can even block out references to metafilter.com and its subdomains, if you want to stop the cutesy 'look how many people favorited my comment!' nonsense. So long as you've restricted it to GET requests (by blocking Javascript and by limiting URLs to domains that are known not to allow any server-side nonsense) that hit known domains and files with known extensions (limit to .png, .gif, .jpg), you've plugged the hole, and we can have ceiling cat back.
posted by Mayor West at 11:26 AM on November 16, 2006
Anyone see any security flaws with this?
Security? No. But once you get MeFi having to host all the images, then images become a more direct drain on resources instead of just taking up a lot of admin time keeping them in check. People flagged images like the bejesus and I don't want to trot out the "few bad apples" mantra, but in this case it's pretty much true. For every astute illustrative image in AskMe, there were probably hundreds of crapfloods, 1.5 MB animated GIFs and NSFW stuff (either accidental or purposeful) that needed attention.
I enjoy the MeFi +images world myself, as a casual reader, but I can see why mathowie isn't in much of a hurry to bring them back they're an admin nightmare, even without the security concerns. I'd like to see more active adoption of a greasemonkey script that allows you to show linked images inline, that seems to be a better use of everyone's time and then the people who are clamorning for images can have them and the people that don't want them don't have to have them. It strikes me that at least sometimes it's not people saying "I want images because I like to look at them" but "I want images so I can make other people look at them" and that seems to be a less compelling reason to try to bring them back.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:30 AM on November 16, 2006
Security? No. But once you get MeFi having to host all the images, then images become a more direct drain on resources instead of just taking up a lot of admin time keeping them in check. People flagged images like the bejesus and I don't want to trot out the "few bad apples" mantra, but in this case it's pretty much true. For every astute illustrative image in AskMe, there were probably hundreds of crapfloods, 1.5 MB animated GIFs and NSFW stuff (either accidental or purposeful) that needed attention.
I enjoy the MeFi +images world myself, as a casual reader, but I can see why mathowie isn't in much of a hurry to bring them back they're an admin nightmare, even without the security concerns. I'd like to see more active adoption of a greasemonkey script that allows you to show linked images inline, that seems to be a better use of everyone's time and then the people who are clamorning for images can have them and the people that don't want them don't have to have them. It strikes me that at least sometimes it's not people saying "I want images because I like to look at them" but "I want images so I can make other people look at them" and that seems to be a less compelling reason to try to bring them back.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:30 AM on November 16, 2006
Madam, where he fails you, I am at your service.
Sweet. Are you going back to OC for xmas? Because I am.
I'd like to see more active adoption of a greasemonkey script that allows you to show linked images inline, that seems to be a better use of everyone's time and then the people who are clamorning for images can have them and the people that don't want them don't have to have them.
With all due respect, that only works if you have control over your browser--and some people don't. Why not make it like MetaChat, which is real choice? Also, I know shit about how th'Internets work, but it seems that people have, in every IMG thread, given reasons why the secuirity excuse is wrong or how to fix it. And Matt has done shit. If he really isn't putting it back because he hates it, fine, but at least own up and live with people wanting it back, most of whom rarely if ever post images.
posted by dame at 11:36 AM on November 16, 2006
Sweet. Are you going back to OC for xmas? Because I am.
I'd like to see more active adoption of a greasemonkey script that allows you to show linked images inline, that seems to be a better use of everyone's time and then the people who are clamorning for images can have them and the people that don't want them don't have to have them.
With all due respect, that only works if you have control over your browser--and some people don't. Why not make it like MetaChat, which is real choice? Also, I know shit about how th'Internets work, but it seems that people have, in every IMG thread, given reasons why the secuirity excuse is wrong or how to fix it. And Matt has done shit. If he really isn't putting it back because he hates it, fine, but at least own up and live with people wanting it back, most of whom rarely if ever post images.
posted by dame at 11:36 AM on November 16, 2006
#jessamyn: I'd like to see more active adoption of a greasemonkey script that allows you to show linked images inline,
Such a script is easy to write, but 1) it doesn't solve any of the security problems, and 2) it prevents images from not being shown in line - e.g. NSFW link, CLICK ONLY IF YOU ENJOY NECROPHILIA!!!!.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 11:46 AM on November 16, 2006
Such a script is easy to write, but 1) it doesn't solve any of the security problems, and 2) it prevents images from not being shown in line - e.g. NSFW link, CLICK ONLY IF YOU ENJOY NECROPHILIA!!!!.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 11:46 AM on November 16, 2006
And why don't we have an animal mascot?
Preferably something cute with endlessly amusing stools.
Can I nominate Mango?
posted by youngergirl44 at 11:54 AM on November 16, 2006
Preferably something cute with endlessly amusing stools.
Can I nominate Mango?
posted by youngergirl44 at 11:54 AM on November 16, 2006
And Matt has done shit. If he really isn't putting it back because he hates it, fine, but at least own up and live with people wanting it back, most of whom rarely if ever post images.
I'm not sure how much or what sort of "owning up" you are looking for here. It's clear that the security issue is one part of this and the admin headache is the other. Matt has said, several times, "the images aren't coming back" and I guess everyone has to decide what to do about that. Threads like this are one part, working on a good greasemonkey script is another, pissing and moaning is yet another. I'd prefer them, but I'm pretty close to on the fence about it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:54 AM on November 16, 2006
I'm not sure how much or what sort of "owning up" you are looking for here. It's clear that the security issue is one part of this and the admin headache is the other. Matt has said, several times, "the images aren't coming back" and I guess everyone has to decide what to do about that. Threads like this are one part, working on a good greasemonkey script is another, pissing and moaning is yet another. I'd prefer them, but I'm pretty close to on the fence about it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:54 AM on November 16, 2006
The success of the war against images has resulted in an increase in the daily word ration. With more words, growth of unwieldy large threads has outpaced all expectations.
posted by econous at 11:56 AM on November 16, 2006
posted by econous at 11:56 AM on November 16, 2006
I have to admit that an image-free site makes the place a lot easier to manage and easy to read. I'm seeing more actual conversations in even the controversial threads. Some here see images as being the "life" of the place while over the past year they've seemed more like the "death" to me, since they were 99% noise being added to anyone trying to have a conversation. Once the first image popped out, serious conversations would be over and that is no longer the case.
I defended the use of images for years here, even when I was in the minority on early metatalk threads, because I still felt they had enough legit uses to outweigh the dumb uses. In the last year, things swung the other way for me, probably because we had a flagging system in place and now I had to look at every single image posted to the site, day in and day out, 24 hours a day. It got old real quick. As much as anyone uses the site, no one has to see more stuff than me and jessamyn and no one has to see every single disturbing or annoying gif like we do. I imagine to a casual user they were an occasional thing that was usually amusing, but we're more like the garbage collectors that had to clean up a few dozen a day. It definitely added to the time it takes to admin the site, to constantly have to check each and every gif for something offensive (and the animated ones require you to sit there and watch them to the end and then you have to ask yourself if the fifth O RLY? gif posted today should be removed and the other four should stay or not).
No one has proposed anything that would solve security problems aside from either a whitelist of approved servers or having everything go through this server with hosting of images. Both are problematic. Security is a really big deal to me because I don't ever want to wake up and hear that everyone's passwords have been compromised. If that day ever comes, I'm basically sunk. It wouldn't just be embarrassing, it would kill my livelihood. It's one of the downsides to relying on website income to pay your mortgage -- if you lose the website, you lose everything.
So in regards to solutions, if there was a hacker-safe way to turn on inline images and off, and people could set it to on, I'm not sure threads being filled with hotlinked URLs would be that interesting to people with the pref turned off. I'd be inclined to hide comments that had no text whatsoever aside from: http://example.com/ceilingcat.gif. People legitimately wanting to link to an image to illustrate a point would be inclined to say something about it and describe it, but people wanting to crapflood for yuk-yuks would just drop an image and move on.
That's my thinking on images at this point. They add tons of admin time and headaches, open up a security hole, and in my eyes, bring down the quality of interaction on the site (with regards to actual conversation, not for ALL CAPS DAY silly posts).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:58 AM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
I defended the use of images for years here, even when I was in the minority on early metatalk threads, because I still felt they had enough legit uses to outweigh the dumb uses. In the last year, things swung the other way for me, probably because we had a flagging system in place and now I had to look at every single image posted to the site, day in and day out, 24 hours a day. It got old real quick. As much as anyone uses the site, no one has to see more stuff than me and jessamyn and no one has to see every single disturbing or annoying gif like we do. I imagine to a casual user they were an occasional thing that was usually amusing, but we're more like the garbage collectors that had to clean up a few dozen a day. It definitely added to the time it takes to admin the site, to constantly have to check each and every gif for something offensive (and the animated ones require you to sit there and watch them to the end and then you have to ask yourself if the fifth O RLY? gif posted today should be removed and the other four should stay or not).
No one has proposed anything that would solve security problems aside from either a whitelist of approved servers or having everything go through this server with hosting of images. Both are problematic. Security is a really big deal to me because I don't ever want to wake up and hear that everyone's passwords have been compromised. If that day ever comes, I'm basically sunk. It wouldn't just be embarrassing, it would kill my livelihood. It's one of the downsides to relying on website income to pay your mortgage -- if you lose the website, you lose everything.
So in regards to solutions, if there was a hacker-safe way to turn on inline images and off, and people could set it to on, I'm not sure threads being filled with hotlinked URLs would be that interesting to people with the pref turned off. I'd be inclined to hide comments that had no text whatsoever aside from: http://example.com/ceilingcat.gif. People legitimately wanting to link to an image to illustrate a point would be inclined to say something about it and describe it, but people wanting to crapflood for yuk-yuks would just drop an image and move on.
That's my thinking on images at this point. They add tons of admin time and headaches, open up a security hole, and in my eyes, bring down the quality of interaction on the site (with regards to actual conversation, not for ALL CAPS DAY silly posts).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:58 AM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
images are for babies and retards. and old people.
posted by naxosaxur at 12:08 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by naxosaxur at 12:08 PM on November 16, 2006
Well, that blows. But at least it actually hints at spine. So thanks.
posted by dame at 12:10 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by dame at 12:10 PM on November 16, 2006
#http://example.com/ceilingcat.gif.: if there was a hacker-safe way to turn on inline images
A hacker safe methods for images is just to only allow those that contain no search parameters (i.e. the stuff after a "?").
Sure some sites might only serve images in the form
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 12:11 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
A hacker safe methods for images is just to only allow those that contain no search parameters (i.e. the stuff after a "?").
Sure some sites might only serve images in the form
http://foo.com/img?id=666 and such images would not be displayable.posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 12:11 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
Putting the security thing aside, for which I have no answer, maybe you could allow images on MeTa only. This would be a good use of the "steam valve" function that MeTa already serves pretty well.
posted by Mid at 12:16 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Mid at 12:16 PM on November 16, 2006
People legitimately wanting to link to an image to illustrate a point would be inclined to say something about it and describe it, but people wanting to crapflood for yuk-yuks would just drop an image and move on.
Ok, so, picture a standard white drywall ceiling. Now, near one corner, there a square hole cut out. And then there's this cat, sticking his head out of the hole, looking down on you.
And then beneath all that, there's a caption implying you masturbate.
posted by GuyZero at 12:16 PM on November 16, 2006 [3 favorites]
Ok, so, picture a standard white drywall ceiling. Now, near one corner, there a square hole cut out. And then there's this cat, sticking his head out of the hole, looking down on you.
And then beneath all that, there's a caption implying you masturbate.
posted by GuyZero at 12:16 PM on November 16, 2006 [3 favorites]
A hacker safe methods for images is just to only allow those that contain no search parameters
http://example.com/wtf/are/you/talking/about.gif
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:18 PM on November 16, 2006
http://example.com/wtf/are/you/talking/about.gif
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:18 PM on November 16, 2006
Matt has said, several times, "the images aren't coming back"
Somehow I missed this. My impression was that he said it was temporary (though his comment above seems to confirm it's gone for goodish). Well, I'm glad it's settled at least. Enjoy yourself, crunchland, stavros, et al.
Perhaps the "meantime" on the front page sidebar note about this should bestruck.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:18 PM on November 16, 2006
Somehow I missed this. My impression was that he said it was temporary (though his comment above seems to confirm it's gone for goodish). Well, I'm glad it's settled at least. Enjoy yourself, crunchland, stavros, et al.
Perhaps the "meantime" on the front page sidebar note about this should be
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:18 PM on November 16, 2006
What a crock of shit. Whatever makes the site fun and/or enjoyable to read has taken a back seat to whatever makes Matt rich. Hence, the dominance of NewsFilter and PoliticsFilter (GOTTA GET THOSE PAGEVIEWS) and the death of images. (ZOMG, MIGHT GET A VIRUS EVEN THOUGH THERE'S PICTURES ALL OVER THE INTERNET, INCLUDING THE ADS ON MEFI).
This is not the same site I joined.
posted by keswick at 12:27 PM on November 16, 2006
This is not the same site I joined.
posted by keswick at 12:27 PM on November 16, 2006
*cries*
posted by Ceiling Cat at 12:32 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Ceiling Cat at 12:32 PM on November 16, 2006
Were you this much of a dick when you joined?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:32 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:32 PM on November 16, 2006
Can we get a ban on posting lyrics in threads, while we're at it?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:34 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:34 PM on November 16, 2006
#Armitage Shanks
What are you talking about. The 'security issues' that caused Matt to turn off images was that he had the site coded such that a <img =http://www.metafilter.com/...> could simulate button clicks of a mefi page. There is no secret information on pages to be dynamically encoded into an external url, and even that is not possible cause people can't post the javascript to do the encoding.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 12:38 PM on November 16, 2006
What are you talking about. The 'security issues' that caused Matt to turn off images was that he had the site coded such that a <img =http://www.metafilter.com/...> could simulate button clicks of a mefi page. There is no secret information on pages to be dynamically encoded into an external url, and even that is not possible cause people can't post the javascript to do the encoding.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 12:38 PM on November 16, 2006
whatever makes Matt rich
Yeah, I heard Matt's crapping money. Heard he bought a Bentley the other day.
This is not the same site I joined.
Yup...when you joined there was no Projects, no Jobs, no Music. Maybe not even Ask yet. So cut him some goddamned slack.
posted by vito90 at 12:46 PM on November 16, 2006
Yeah, I heard Matt's crapping money. Heard he bought a Bentley the other day.
This is not the same site I joined.
Yup...when you joined there was no Projects, no Jobs, no Music. Maybe not even Ask yet. So cut him some goddamned slack.
posted by vito90 at 12:46 PM on November 16, 2006
Bite your tongue, monju!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:46 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:46 PM on November 16, 2006
This is not the same site I joined.
Me neither.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:47 PM on November 16, 2006
Me neither.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:47 PM on November 16, 2006
You've changed, MetaFilter.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:51 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:51 PM on November 16, 2006
Monkey Salted Nuts:
From one of the first pages you get when you search for "cross site image script hack" on Google.
Right, and as I say, the site you act against can be somewhere else
entirely. Here's what a CSRF attack might look like:
That's it. When your client requests /logo.gif -- exposing no cookies -- the
example.net server redirects you to a URL like the one you show, above. So
the end result us the same as if the attacker had embedded the more obvious
URL inside the IMG tag.
Let me break that down for you:
you *request* what you think is logo.gif, and then my MAGIC server says, "oh, hey, I'm going to redirect that to http://www.example.com/any_shit_i_want.cgi".
I'm assuming you're going to admit now that you were wrong, right?
posted by fishfucker at 12:51 PM on November 16, 2006
From one of the first pages you get when you search for "cross site image script hack" on Google.
Right, and as I say, the site you act against can be somewhere else
entirely. Here's what a CSRF attack might look like:
That's it. When your client requests /logo.gif -- exposing no cookies -- the
example.net server redirects you to a URL like the one you show, above. So
the end result us the same as if the attacker had embedded the more obvious
URL inside the IMG tag.
Let me break that down for you:
you *request* what you think is logo.gif, and then my MAGIC server says, "oh, hey, I'm going to redirect that to http://www.example.com/any_shit_i_want.cgi".
I'm assuming you're going to admit now that you were wrong, right?
posted by fishfucker at 12:51 PM on November 16, 2006
This is not the same site I joined.
You know, it's a wonderful thing mathowie can be compelled to act upon good grace for such charlatans, otherwise keswick might still be banned and we would have never received this pearl of wisdom. Fantastic.
posted by prostyle at 12:51 PM on November 16, 2006
You know, it's a wonderful thing mathowie can be compelled to act upon good grace for such charlatans, otherwise keswick might still be banned and we would have never received this pearl of wisdom. Fantastic.
posted by prostyle at 12:51 PM on November 16, 2006
\\//
⊂(@ @)⊃
—oOO— (_)— OOo—
Kilroy sez the
images aren't
coming back!
posted by taosbat at 12:57 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
⊂(@ @)⊃
—oOO— (_)— OOo—
Kilroy sez the
images aren't
coming back!
posted by taosbat at 12:57 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm glad interrobang was the one to bring this up, because one of the pleasures of the IMG tag I miss the most were his wonderful drawings of some kind of freak or another with a speech bubble of the most annoying comment in any given thread. It happened often enough for me to notice a pattern, but still infrequently enough that it was a lovely surprise to trup across. Also, each one had me in stitches. I miss those something awful. More than the puppy I never had growing up.
posted by piratebowling at 1:05 PM on November 16, 2006 [2 favorites]
posted by piratebowling at 1:05 PM on November 16, 2006 [2 favorites]
Well, that blows. But at least it actually hints at spine. So thanks.
I'm starting to think that the people getting up on their hindlegs and bitching ad nauseum for images are actually functionally illiterate. It would explain why in-line images are so important, and why, despite Matt explaining himself last week, and the week before, people are still being so fucking obtuse about this, and acting like he came down like Moses off the mountain and arbitrarily declared Thou Shalt Not Post Pictures. Are you people dictating your comments to your SO/cubicle mate/helper monkeys?
For someone who had a hissy fit over a percieved slight yesterday, you are quick to shit on other people, dame. Never seen a hipocrite as thin-skinned as you.
What a crock of shit. Whatever makes the site fun and/or enjoyable to readhas taken a back seat to whatever makes Matt rich is lessened everytime you make one of your lameass Misanthrope Jr. comments.
This is not the same site I joined.
Do you suppose your conduct and attitude may have somehow contributed in some minute way to that?
You shit on the floor and complain that the room smells.
What a putz.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:07 PM on November 16, 2006
I'm starting to think that the people getting up on their hindlegs and bitching ad nauseum for images are actually functionally illiterate. It would explain why in-line images are so important, and why, despite Matt explaining himself last week, and the week before, people are still being so fucking obtuse about this, and acting like he came down like Moses off the mountain and arbitrarily declared Thou Shalt Not Post Pictures. Are you people dictating your comments to your SO/cubicle mate/helper monkeys?
For someone who had a hissy fit over a percieved slight yesterday, you are quick to shit on other people, dame. Never seen a hipocrite as thin-skinned as you.
What a crock of shit. Whatever makes the site fun and/or enjoyable to read
This is not the same site I joined.
Do you suppose your conduct and attitude may have somehow contributed in some minute way to that?
You shit on the floor and complain that the room smells.
What a putz.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:07 PM on November 16, 2006
I'm glad interrobang was the one to bring this up, because one of the pleasures of the IMG tag I miss the most were his wonderful drawings of some kind of freak or another with a speech bubble of the most annoying comment in any given thread.
And if interrobang posted a comment that included a link to one of his wonderful drawings? You would be able to summon the energy to click on it, yes?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:10 PM on November 16, 2006
And if interrobang posted a comment that included a link to one of his wonderful drawings? You would be able to summon the energy to click on it, yes?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:10 PM on November 16, 2006
i'd like to see them back ... it's puzzling to me how other sites can have them and not have an issue
posted by pyramid termite at 1:16 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by pyramid termite at 1:16 PM on November 16, 2006
I call Treaty of Westphalia on this whole fucktarded thread.
posted by Mister_A at 1:16 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Mister_A at 1:16 PM on November 16, 2006
Whatever makes the site fun and/or enjoyable to read has taken a back seat to whatever makes Matt rich.
AskMeFi?
Projects?
JobFi?
MusicFi?
Yup, I don't enjoy any of that other stuff (actually, I frequent the green 3x MeTa and 5x the blue)
This is not the same site I joined.
And by definition, the site changes whenever someone makes a comment.
Get over yourself already.
posted by jmd82 at 1:17 PM on November 16, 2006
AskMeFi?
Projects?
JobFi?
MusicFi?
Yup, I don't enjoy any of that other stuff (actually, I frequent the green 3x MeTa and 5x the blue)
This is not the same site I joined.
And by definition, the site changes whenever someone makes a comment.
Get over yourself already.
posted by jmd82 at 1:17 PM on November 16, 2006
Well I guess I should mail Matt again and tell him I made the img tag work ;)
Also the script tag, which is really bad
posted by mock at 1:23 PM on November 16, 2006
Also the script tag, which is really bad
posted by mock at 1:23 PM on November 16, 2006
I just bribed Matt to not bring back images. Seeing as he has accepted the bribe, and no one else seems to be bribing him to bring them back, I'd say we're done here.
posted by WoWgmr72 at 1:30 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by WoWgmr72 at 1:30 PM on November 16, 2006
mock is god.
why, despite Matt explaining himself last week, and the week before,
Got any links for these? I was off the intarwebs last week, but think I would have seen the one the week before.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 1:31 PM on November 16, 2006
why, despite Matt explaining himself last week, and the week before,
Got any links for these? I was off the intarwebs last week, but think I would have seen the one the week before.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 1:31 PM on November 16, 2006
Mock: Yeah, Matt's HTML-filtering code for comments is really dodgy. I found a couple of problems with it a while ago, and Matt and I corresponded via email, but it doesn't seem to have improved. I imagine it's currently a bunch of regexes, which over time accumulate unmanageably. I'm sure MeFi has several regex gurus who would be able to come up with a consistent system, if asked.
posted by matthewr at 1:32 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by matthewr at 1:32 PM on November 16, 2006
I, for one, welcome our new image-less overlords with complete apathy.
(imagine a bored-looking cat picture here)
posted by phearlez at 1:33 PM on November 16, 2006
(imagine a bored-looking cat picture here)
posted by phearlez at 1:33 PM on November 16, 2006
HOw you make ceiling cat come back, eh? You must have a whole intertube in your mom's basement.
posted by Mister_A at 1:35 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Mister_A at 1:35 PM on November 16, 2006
I'm sorry, Alvy, saying I didn't like something was throwing a hissy fit? Even while admitting that it's silly that being accused of being stupid (as opposed to any other insult) gets to me. Uh, okay. I do note you certainly are quick to suggest people who disagree with you are illiterate. Is that a bit of projection there?
Like other people, all I had seen was Matt's wishy-washy "It might come back/it might not schtick." Now he said it won't for sure. Which blows, but is at least an answer.
In conclusion, fuck you, you subliterate moron.
posted by dame at 1:40 PM on November 16, 2006
Like other people, all I had seen was Matt's wishy-washy "It might come back/it might not schtick." Now he said it won't for sure. Which blows, but is at least an answer.
In conclusion, fuck you, you subliterate moron.
posted by dame at 1:40 PM on November 16, 2006
Oh snap! [Insert animated GIF of two squirrels boxing]
posted by Mister_A at 1:44 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Mister_A at 1:44 PM on November 16, 2006
The filtering has gotten quite a bit better, it's just I'm not smoking right now, so I'm kinda a little OCD. This one took me an hour to puzzle out from from when I first saw this thread, and required a little bit of cleverness as I can't use the word s r c anywhere.
posted by mock at 1:47 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by mock at 1:47 PM on November 16, 2006
A picture is worth a thousand words. And all the words are "fuck."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:49 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:49 PM on November 16, 2006
I'm sure MeFi has several regex gurus who would be able to come up with a consistent system, if asked.
If they were gurus they would tell you that trying to filter tag soup with regexes is pointless. You need a real parser.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:53 PM on November 16, 2006
If they were gurus they would tell you that trying to filter tag soup with regexes is pointless. You need a real parser.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:53 PM on November 16, 2006
mock and matthewr, I'm working on a library that forces all incoming comments to be xhtml valid, which would thwart pretty much any dodgy xss hack.
keswick, if you can craft a definition of news and politics related threads that anyone can read and judge their pending post against, and it's so clear and concise that no one would second guess it and wonder why their news or politics related thread was removed, I'd be happy to add it. Because right now, there's no way I could make a black & white, water-tight set of guidelines for discouraging and deleting political and news posts. I don't keep them around for the traffic, I keep them around because there's no easy way to say what should stay and what should go, as six years of metatalk have already covered.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:55 PM on November 16, 2006
keswick, if you can craft a definition of news and politics related threads that anyone can read and judge their pending post against, and it's so clear and concise that no one would second guess it and wonder why their news or politics related thread was removed, I'd be happy to add it. Because right now, there's no way I could make a black & white, water-tight set of guidelines for discouraging and deleting political and news posts. I don't keep them around for the traffic, I keep them around because there's no easy way to say what should stay and what should go, as six years of metatalk have already covered.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:55 PM on November 16, 2006
I'm finding Mr. A's [insert description of stupid gif] to be at least as funny as most of the img's that we've lost.
[insert GIF of smiley hampster on crucifix]
posted by Mid at 1:56 PM on November 16, 2006
[insert GIF of smiley hampster on crucifix]
posted by Mid at 1:56 PM on November 16, 2006
You need it spelled out for you in BIG BLOCK LETTERS that IMAGES PROBABLY AIN'T COMING BACK, and I'm the subliterate moron?
Oh, snap! indeed.
I do note you certainly are quick to suggest people who disagree with you are illiterate.
Wow, you do lack some reading comprehension skills there. People who disagree with me aren't illiterate.
People who need three MeTa posts to understand that in-line images as we know them probably aren't going to be returning to the blue anytime soon though kinda makes me wonder at times.
As for the projection thing... are you saying I'm writing inflammatory comments to compensate for my inability to read and write? 'Cause that'd be funny.
I'm actually indifferent to images. I've posted a couple myself and chuckled at a few. If they can be implemented in a way that will make Matt feel the site is secure and shut up the whiners hurrah, everbuddy's a winnah!
If not... well, I don't come here for images, I come here for links and discussion.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:59 PM on November 16, 2006
Oh, snap! indeed.
I do note you certainly are quick to suggest people who disagree with you are illiterate.
Wow, you do lack some reading comprehension skills there. People who disagree with me aren't illiterate.
People who need three MeTa posts to understand that in-line images as we know them probably aren't going to be returning to the blue anytime soon though kinda makes me wonder at times.
As for the projection thing... are you saying I'm writing inflammatory comments to compensate for my inability to read and write? 'Cause that'd be funny.
I'm actually indifferent to images. I've posted a couple myself and chuckled at a few. If they can be implemented in a way that will make Matt feel the site is secure and shut up the whiners hurrah, everbuddy's a winnah!
If not... well, I don't come here for images, I come here for links and discussion.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:59 PM on November 16, 2006
Hee. That's excellent.
Alvy, I'm going home now, and if the neighbors' internet is stil down, we'll have to play again in the next episode. Thanks MeTa for helping me survive another boring day at work.
posted by dame at 2:01 PM on November 16, 2006
Alvy, I'm going home now, and if the neighbors' internet is stil down, we'll have to play again in the next episode. Thanks MeTa for helping me survive another boring day at work.
posted by dame at 2:01 PM on November 16, 2006
Oops, we crossposted. Yeah, I need things spelled out in big letters, cause the last thing I saw said "hmmm" and then I said "I wish you would just be evil and say no, Matt," and Matt said, "Yeah, well I can't, but its unlikely." Plus the sidebar indicated it was temporary. So, uh, yeah.
posted by dame at 2:03 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by dame at 2:03 PM on November 16, 2006
your lameass Misanthrope Jr. comments
added to my lexical repertiore.
Thanks MeTa for helping me survive another boring day at work.
and thank all of you for ensuring that my days at work are never boring.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:07 PM on November 16, 2006
added to my lexical repertiore.
Thanks MeTa for helping me survive another boring day at work.
and thank all of you for ensuring that my days at work are never boring.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:07 PM on November 16, 2006
Matt, what about metachat's "images on/off" button? Your earlier response indicates you didn't see my comment suggesting that.
posted by Eideteker at 2:08 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Eideteker at 2:08 PM on November 16, 2006
keswick, if you can craft a definition of news and politics related threads that anyone can read and judge their pending post against, and it's so clear and concise that no one would second guess it and wonder why their news or politics related thread was removed, I'd be happy to add it.
Is this contest open to everyone?
posted by timeistight at 2:09 PM on November 16, 2006
Is this contest open to everyone?
posted by timeistight at 2:09 PM on November 16, 2006
XHTML is a good idea. Gotta watch the parser though, as sometimes it can have a looser or tighter definition than the browser's parser, which will get you trouble. Here's an example of something I used to beat an RSS aggregator that was checking for XML validity as well as attempting to scrub evil html.
As an aside, here is a neat little example of a sneaky way of getting javascript in well formed xhtml. I doubt you'll have a problem with it, but I haven't seen it documented anywhere else.
posted by mock at 2:11 PM on November 16, 2006
As an aside, here is a neat little example of a sneaky way of getting javascript in well formed xhtml. I doubt you'll have a problem with it, but I haven't seen it documented anywhere else.
posted by mock at 2:11 PM on November 16, 2006
Rhomboid: If they were gurus they would tell you that trying to filter tag soup with regexes is pointless. You need a real parser.
Very true, but I thought it unlikely that ColdFusion had a usable XHTML parsing solution, so regexes would be the best available choice. After I said that, Matt's comment above indicated that there is in fact a (perhaps external) way of parsing XHTML, à la PHP's DOM.
posted by matthewr at 2:13 PM on November 16, 2006
Very true, but I thought it unlikely that ColdFusion had a usable XHTML parsing solution, so regexes would be the best available choice. After I said that, Matt's comment above indicated that there is in fact a (perhaps external) way of parsing XHTML, à la PHP's DOM.
posted by matthewr at 2:13 PM on November 16, 2006
Eideteker: Matt, what about metachat's "images on/off" button?
That misses the point a bit. Images can harm Metafilter, not just the user. For example, someone (Rhomboid?) posted a comment in a previous thread which contained an image. The image's was the URL of the favoriting page on Metafilter, which caused everybody who viewed the thread to involuntarily favourite one of the other comments.
Someone could post an image where the pointed to a location on their own server. With a bit of redirection trickery, their server could make a request to Metafilter that looks like it came from the user themselves. I believe POST variables are vulnerable to this as well as GET variables, so conceivably someone one could post an 'image' to a thread which caused everyone who viewed it to post an FPP, or do something equally bad for the site.
I haven't kept up with all of the discussion about the technical aspects of this, but I believe you would just post an image, with the being
posted by matthewr at 2:24 PM on November 16, 2006
That misses the point a bit. Images can harm Metafilter, not just the user. For example, someone (Rhomboid?) posted a comment in a previous thread which contained an image. The image's was the URL of the favoriting page on Metafilter, which caused everybody who viewed the thread to involuntarily favourite one of the other comments.
Someone could post an image where the pointed to a location on their own server. With a bit of redirection trickery, their server could make a request to Metafilter that looks like it came from the user themselves. I believe POST variables are vulnerable to this as well as GET variables, so conceivably someone one could post an 'image' to a thread which caused everyone who viewed it to post an FPP, or do something equally bad for the site.
I haven't kept up with all of the discussion about the technical aspects of this, but I believe you would just post an image, with the being
mysite.com/evil.php. Then, on evil.php, you create HTTP POST headers and redirect to the Metafilter FPP posting page.posted by matthewr at 2:24 PM on November 16, 2006
To make GET into POST is a bit more complex than that, but easily doable with flash/actionscript. You can also do a redirect to other, non-http protocols. So given an older browser (2004) you can use GET redirected to FTP on port 80 which is actually a POST request disguised overlayed on the FTP url.
The solution to CSRF is a whitelist of safe image sites. Ideally said whitelist would allow the user to add and remove sites as necessary. The whitelist could be implemented kinda like my little img hack above, where I used javascript to rewrite the property on the img tag, but rather rewrite anchor tags into img tags if they match a given criterion.
posted by mock at 2:36 PM on November 16, 2006
The solution to CSRF is a whitelist of safe image sites. Ideally said whitelist would allow the user to add and remove sites as necessary. The whitelist could be implemented kinda like my little img hack above, where I used javascript to rewrite the property on the img tag, but rather rewrite anchor tags into img tags if they match a given criterion.
posted by mock at 2:36 PM on November 16, 2006
I like the greasemonkey solution.
But then again, i like monkeys.
posted by Freen at 2:51 PM on November 16, 2006
But then again, i like monkeys.
posted by Freen at 2:51 PM on November 16, 2006
I'm finding Mr. A's [insert description of stupid gif] to be at least as funny as most of the img's that we've lost.
Exactly what I was just thinking. I don't need the actual picture, the description is funnier.
FWIW, I started reading/participating in Meta only recently and I guess it was right after images went away. Occasionally, I read back through old threads that have them and yeah, sometimes they're funny but usually they just make it really hard for the easily distracted (me) to read the comments and derail conversation way more quickly.
I like the words.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 2:54 PM on November 16, 2006
Exactly what I was just thinking. I don't need the actual picture, the description is funnier.
FWIW, I started reading/participating in Meta only recently and I guess it was right after images went away. Occasionally, I read back through old threads that have them and yeah, sometimes they're funny but usually they just make it really hard for the easily distracted (me) to read the comments and derail conversation way more quickly.
I like the words.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 2:54 PM on November 16, 2006
The "GreaseMonkey solution" doesn't solve anything, unless it is in combination with a whitelist. Ideally, the whitelist ought to be on the server-side, but I suppose the GreaseMonkey script could contain a whitelist.
Mock: To make GET into POST is a bit more complex than that
I'd like to know more about the technical side of this; could you post a link to an explanation of how this is done?
posted by matthewr at 3:22 PM on November 16, 2006
Mock: To make GET into POST is a bit more complex than that
I'd like to know more about the technical side of this; could you post a link to an explanation of how this is done?
posted by matthewr at 3:22 PM on November 16, 2006
It's not so much turning a GET into a POST directly as it is getting the person to view a webpage which contains java/action that initiates a POST.
posted by Rhomboid at 3:29 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Rhomboid at 3:29 PM on November 16, 2006
Hmm interesting, I typed "j a v a s c r i p t / a c t i o n s c r i p t" above but the was filtered.
posted by Rhomboid at 3:30 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Rhomboid at 3:30 PM on November 16, 2006
Well, gosh, Matt. I think it's pretty obvious what is newsfilter and politicsfilter and anyone who claims otherwise is being disingenuous.
I'm sure the gang could bang out something that is a lot more clear and concise if that's what you want. You know, harnassing the power ofgroupthink collective intelligence and what not, so I'm going to start a MeTa thread so we can bang this out.
The problem isn't one of definition, it's one of enforcement.
posted by keswick at 3:38 PM on November 16, 2006
I'm sure the gang could bang out something that is a lot more clear and concise if that's what you want. You know, harnassing the power of
The problem isn't one of definition, it's one of enforcement.
posted by keswick at 3:38 PM on November 16, 2006
I call Treaty of Westphalia on this whole fucktarded thread.
Don't do it, man, just don't. Matt will nuke you, and you'll have to come back as a deformed mutant husk of your former self.
posted by Brave New Meatbomb at 3:46 PM on November 16, 2006
Don't do it, man, just don't. Matt will nuke you, and you'll have to come back as a deformed mutant husk of your former self.
posted by Brave New Meatbomb at 3:46 PM on November 16, 2006
Well, gosh, Matt. I think it's pretty obvious what is newsfilter and politicsfilter and anyone who claims otherwise is being disingenuous.
It's not black and white, douchebag.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:50 PM on November 16, 2006
It's not black and white, douchebag.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:50 PM on November 16, 2006
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/56336
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/56335
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/56319
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/56313
Okay, explain to me how these are good posts and "best of the web," without using the word "discussion."
It's OutrageFilter, and if I wanted that, I'd go to Kos.
posted by keswick at 3:55 PM on November 16, 2006
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/56335
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/56319
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/56313
Okay, explain to me how these are good posts and "best of the web," without using the word "discussion."
It's OutrageFilter, and if I wanted that, I'd go to Kos.
posted by keswick at 3:55 PM on November 16, 2006
Enjoy yourself, crunchland, stavros, et al.
Dude, I haven't even commented in this thread until now. At least I had the stones to try to come up with a solution amenable to all, rather than just whining and puling and soiling my nappies. So you know, fuck you.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:58 PM on November 16, 2006
Dude, I haven't even commented in this thread until now. At least I had the stones to try to come up with a solution amenable to all, rather than just whining and puling and soiling my nappies. So you know, fuck you.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:58 PM on November 16, 2006
Awesome keswick, you found four posts you don't like. That's terrific. Now how would you ever explain to someone in plain english exactly why they shouldn't be posted?
The enforcement angle that you think is a cakewalk is actually a total pain, because everyone that gets something deleted complains that their post was ok and unless it's really cut and dry and easily proved by some simple guidelines, and then even still we have to have arguments about it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:02 PM on November 16, 2006
The enforcement angle that you think is a cakewalk is actually a total pain, because everyone that gets something deleted complains that their post was ok and unless it's really cut and dry and easily proved by some simple guidelines, and then even still we have to have arguments about it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:02 PM on November 16, 2006
This is a vote for no tag. Not that this is a democracy, but hey...I live in Ohio, so I'm used to pretending.
posted by Kwine at 4:05 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Kwine at 4:05 PM on November 16, 2006
I'm perfectly happy without the images. Thanks, Matt.
posted by ColdChef at 4:08 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by ColdChef at 4:08 PM on November 16, 2006
Mathewr:
Some of the stuff on flash here
The well known ftp bounce attack
Url encoding arbitrary commands with ftp
posted by mock at 4:18 PM on November 16, 2006
Some of the stuff on flash here
The well known ftp bounce attack
Url encoding arbitrary commands with ftp
posted by mock at 4:18 PM on November 16, 2006
Douchebag?
Are trying to say that someone could argue that one of those posts keswick didn't link to (thanks, keswick) aren't news? It sure looks self-evident to me.
If you're trying to say, well, sometimes news is okay and sometimes it's not depending how interested we are in talking about it, then that's different, but all that's still news.
posted by timeistight at 4:22 PM on November 16, 2006
Are trying to say that someone could argue that one of those posts keswick didn't link to (thanks, keswick) aren't news? It sure looks self-evident to me.
If you're trying to say, well, sometimes news is okay and sometimes it's not depending how interested we are in talking about it, then that's different, but all that's still news.
posted by timeistight at 4:22 PM on November 16, 2006
no, I'm saying you can't define "politics" and "news" in a post. There doesn't exist a definition that I could compare any post to. Sure, there are zillions of obvious ones, but there are a million shades of grays in between.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:25 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:25 PM on November 16, 2006
It's not black and white, douchebag.
posted by mathowie at 3:50 PM PST on November 16
*puts black and whiye douchebag on Xmas wish list*
posted by Cranberry at 4:30 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by mathowie at 3:50 PM PST on November 16
*puts black and whiye douchebag on Xmas wish list*
posted by Cranberry at 4:30 PM on November 16, 2006
I guess we disagree then.
posted by timeistight at 4:31 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by timeistight at 4:31 PM on November 16, 2006
Metafilter: I guess we disagree then.
I've been wanting to do that for awhile.
posted by not that girl at 4:35 PM on November 16, 2006
I've been wanting to do that for awhile.
posted by not that girl at 4:35 PM on November 16, 2006
This is not the same site I joined.
You've changed, MetaFilter.
I think it's time we started seeing other people.
posted by crunchland at 4:36 PM on November 16, 2006
You've changed, MetaFilter.
I think it's time we started seeing other people.
posted by crunchland at 4:36 PM on November 16, 2006
It's not me, it's you.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:40 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:40 PM on November 16, 2006
prostyle: You know, it's a wonderful thing mathowie can be compelled to act upon good grace for such charlatans, otherwise keswick might still be banned and we would have never received this pearl of wisdom. Fantastic.
keswick: Shut up, you johnny-come-lately sycophant.
What an asshole response, proving exactly prostyle's point -- and the only thing that compels me to respond is that I noticed that I joined within about 3 weeks of you.
posted by advil at 5:03 PM on November 16, 2006
keswick: Shut up, you johnny-come-lately sycophant.
What an asshole response, proving exactly prostyle's point -- and the only thing that compels me to respond is that I noticed that I joined within about 3 weeks of you.
posted by advil at 5:03 PM on November 16, 2006
Capitalistic solution suggestion:
User pays Matt $5 per month for 5 megabytes of metafilter.com-hosted storage space, to which the user may upload images for display within posts or comments.
User stops paying, all image tags in comments revert to <a> tag with URL as anchortext and no more uploaded images accepted. Images still accessible through anchor.
User resumes paying, may upload and embed new images. (Images in old comments may or may not revert to active embedding -- up to Matt.)
Results:
People can embed images into posts/comments -- bandwidth costs are covered!
Images are hosted on local server -- no gaping security hole!
Matt might even make a little more money -- Matt has bigger happy!
Wow, you can't even say i-m-g anymore.
posted by xiojason at 5:25 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
User pays Matt $5 per month for 5 megabytes of metafilter.com-hosted storage space, to which the user may upload images for display within posts or comments.
User stops paying, all image tags in comments revert to <a> tag with URL as anchortext and no more uploaded images accepted. Images still accessible through anchor.
User resumes paying, may upload and embed new images. (Images in old comments may or may not revert to active embedding -- up to Matt.)
Results:
People can embed images into posts/comments -- bandwidth costs are covered!
Images are hosted on local server -- no gaping security hole!
Matt might even make a little more money -- Matt has bigger happy!
Wow, you can't even say i-m-g anymore.
posted by xiojason at 5:25 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
At most zoos you can see animals pissing in person. It's like old MetaFilter in 3D.
posted by evil holiday magic at 5:26 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by evil holiday magic at 5:26 PM on November 16, 2006
Whippersnappers!
Yeah, its never even occurred to me before this thread that someone who has been a member the length of time I have could get away with pulling the "I've been a member longer than you" card (not that I support the use of that card in general). I (and I'm assuming, keswick) joined during the 10-a-day scheme, which is not exactly "the old days" for metafilter (though it was before askmefi, as someone pointed out above).
posted by advil at 5:34 PM on November 16, 2006
Yeah, its never even occurred to me before this thread that someone who has been a member the length of time I have could get away with pulling the "I've been a member longer than you" card (not that I support the use of that card in general). I (and I'm assuming, keswick) joined during the 10-a-day scheme, which is not exactly "the old days" for metafilter (though it was before askmefi, as someone pointed out above).
posted by advil at 5:34 PM on November 16, 2006
The solution to CSRF is a whitelist of safe image sites.
Yep.
Put me in the "pro-" camp as well. Yes, there were plenty of n00bs that would eagerly await the first image post to jump in with their stack of dumb images, but when used well, they could redeem a thread.
The problem with whitelisting sites like photobucket or imageshack is that the images will be gone in a month, which means posterity loses out on all the hilarity.
The obvious solution to this would be for Matt to offer a upload option for images, capped at a couple megs. He could even make a little money on the side from such an enterprise if he charged for the honor. And if someone posts something horrible, they get their upload account suspended, with no recourse for refund.
Now that's a win-win.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:51 PM on November 16, 2006
Yep.
Put me in the "pro-" camp as well. Yes, there were plenty of n00bs that would eagerly await the first image post to jump in with their stack of dumb images, but when used well, they could redeem a thread.
The problem with whitelisting sites like photobucket or imageshack is that the images will be gone in a month, which means posterity loses out on all the hilarity.
The obvious solution to this would be for Matt to offer a upload option for images, capped at a couple megs. He could even make a little money on the side from such an enterprise if he charged for the honor. And if someone posts something horrible, they get their upload account suspended, with no recourse for refund.
Now that's a win-win.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:51 PM on November 16, 2006
Shit! Completely, utterly missed that. Good idea, xiojason!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:11 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:11 PM on November 16, 2006
I'm in a parade waving a "ColdChef is a miserable little suckup" sign, but you can't see it because the tag is turned off.
posted by yhbc at 6:16 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by yhbc at 6:16 PM on November 16, 2006
To split some hairs:
The Macaca post isn't news, it's op-ed.
The Glenn Beck piece isn't news either, it's an assessment interview excerpt.
The other two are news, but if the UCLA story had been a single-link to the YouTube video, no one would be calling it newsfilter. (Of course, they'd be calling it names, just not the "N"-word.)
As for the topic of this post, I miss the images less each day, but should they ever return, I will be pleased. I use MetaFilter mostly for diversion, not production. Sometimes I find things here that are quite useful, but for the most part, the posts and comments are interesting and entertaining, rather than strictly useful. To me the images made it marginally more entertaining. If they can be made safe, it would be nice to have them back. I would be happy to pay for it, even though I would probably never post any myself, because I know there are folks here who would easily make it worth my money (weapons-grade pandemonium springs to mind, and fandango_matt, except for the elephant).
posted by owhydididoit at 6:17 PM on November 16, 2006
The Macaca post isn't news, it's op-ed.
The Glenn Beck piece isn't news either, it's an assessment interview excerpt.
The other two are news, but if the UCLA story had been a single-link to the YouTube video, no one would be calling it newsfilter. (Of course, they'd be calling it names, just not the "N"-word.)
As for the topic of this post, I miss the images less each day, but should they ever return, I will be pleased. I use MetaFilter mostly for diversion, not production. Sometimes I find things here that are quite useful, but for the most part, the posts and comments are interesting and entertaining, rather than strictly useful. To me the images made it marginally more entertaining. If they can be made safe, it would be nice to have them back. I would be happy to pay for it, even though I would probably never post any myself, because I know there are folks here who would easily make it worth my money (weapons-grade pandemonium springs to mind, and fandango_matt, except for the elephant).
posted by owhydididoit at 6:17 PM on November 16, 2006
I think the idea of a whitelist is abominable. I can't stand sites like photobucket, they have restrictions on image size and bandwidth, and I often see that stupid "image removed" crap because of this. Same with flickr, I hate that site like something fierce. I have my own server, thankyouverymuch, and the notion of using some shitty free site just because it's on a whitelist would make me want to hurl. If the end goal is to stomp out images all together, then that would have the same effect.
I think the whole security card is just a thinly veiled excuse to say no more images. There are literally thousands of other forums that have not disabled images and the world has not come to an end. Matt already switched from GET to POST within 24h of the first incident, and if it was really a matter of security he could implement a formkeys feature (slashdot has had this for about 7 years now) that would virtually make it impossible to game while still allow arbitrary images from any site. Now of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't sites out there still with problems, but that's for their webmasters to deal with, and certainly has nothing to do with matt or metafilter.
posted by Rhomboid at 6:20 PM on November 16, 2006
I think the whole security card is just a thinly veiled excuse to say no more images. There are literally thousands of other forums that have not disabled images and the world has not come to an end. Matt already switched from GET to POST within 24h of the first incident, and if it was really a matter of security he could implement a formkeys feature (slashdot has had this for about 7 years now) that would virtually make it impossible to game while still allow arbitrary images from any site. Now of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't sites out there still with problems, but that's for their webmasters to deal with, and certainly has nothing to do with matt or metafilter.
posted by Rhomboid at 6:20 PM on November 16, 2006
Dude, ... fuck you.
No, you hadn't commented in this thread. You've just been bitching about images for years. You're going to try and deny that? You're going to pull out "fuck you" at the mere mention of your name? And then call me a whiner?
Fuck it. This place used to be about free exhange. Now just its rule after fucking rule, and a bunch people calling each other douchebag.
*vacations*
posted by If I Had An Anus at 6:25 PM on November 16, 2006
No, you hadn't commented in this thread. You've just been bitching about images for years. You're going to try and deny that? You're going to pull out "fuck you" at the mere mention of your name? And then call me a whiner?
Fuck it. This place used to be about free exhange. Now just its rule after fucking rule, and a bunch people calling each other douchebag.
*vacations*
posted by If I Had An Anus at 6:25 PM on November 16, 2006
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:36 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:36 PM on November 16, 2006
I miss the image tag. However, if the ad hominem attacking and infighting, general bitchiness and mindless crap were to go away, that would be quite pleasant.
posted by theora55 at 6:40 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by theora55 at 6:40 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
Oh come on, theora55. I've been so good -- I haven't had a good dustup with anybody in like year or two!
But you're right. And it's never been images per se that I have been opposed to, it's been their abuse -- the mindless crap as you call it, the giffy crapflood, the devaluation of the word -- that has annoyed me, something that Matt noticed too, apparently.
As far as Anus goes, well, I 'fuck you'ed you because, despite the fact that I spent hours trying to find a solution that would make everybody happy, you decided, even though I hadn't taken part in this thread, to mischaracterize my position on the whole teapot tempest, assuming, I guess, that I'd eventually see it and be... chastened, maybe. I don't know.
Enjoy your vacation. As so many have said before: it's just a website, man.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:54 PM on November 16, 2006
But you're right. And it's never been images per se that I have been opposed to, it's been their abuse -- the mindless crap as you call it, the giffy crapflood, the devaluation of the word -- that has annoyed me, something that Matt noticed too, apparently.
As far as Anus goes, well, I 'fuck you'ed you because, despite the fact that I spent hours trying to find a solution that would make everybody happy, you decided, even though I hadn't taken part in this thread, to mischaracterize my position on the whole teapot tempest, assuming, I guess, that I'd eventually see it and be... chastened, maybe. I don't know.
Enjoy your vacation. As so many have said before: it's just a website, man.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:54 PM on November 16, 2006
Just so I'm clear... As one who participated heavily in some of the "this post sucks, have some images until it's deleted"-fests I can certainly say that I miss the IMG tag but I am perfectly fine with having it gone forever if the reason is administrative burden, as Matt said upthread. That's fair, I can accept that, end of story. It's people trotting out the security thing as rationale that I have a problem with, even though Matt long ago fixed the major component of the problem by switching to POST, and the remaining 99.9% can be sealed with formkeys, if necessary. Note that this is orthogonal to the issue of regex sanitizing of tags and script/tag/attribute injection; that is a separate matter and needs to be thoroughly dealt with as well.
posted by Rhomboid at 7:12 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Rhomboid at 7:12 PM on November 16, 2006
Enjoy yourself, crunchland, stavros, et al.
Not that I need to explain anything to anyone, but for the record, I'd already found a solution for the image tag issue before Matt pulled it. I set up a style sheet for the site that limited all the images to a 16x16 dot that I could look at if I wanted to when I hovered my cursor over it. Image-spam on Metafilter was, and is, a non-issue for me, even if I did lament the whole mouth-breather aspects. Were the security concerns dealt with tomorrow, and the image tag restored, I wouldn't bat an eyelash.
posted by crunchland at 7:36 PM on November 16, 2006
Not that I need to explain anything to anyone, but for the record, I'd already found a solution for the image tag issue before Matt pulled it. I set up a style sheet for the site that limited all the images to a 16x16 dot that I could look at if I wanted to when I hovered my cursor over it. Image-spam on Metafilter was, and is, a non-issue for me, even if I did lament the whole mouth-breather aspects. Were the security concerns dealt with tomorrow, and the image tag restored, I wouldn't bat an eyelash.
posted by crunchland at 7:36 PM on November 16, 2006
it ain't regex. it's huge blocks of if-then-else.
posted by quonsar at 7:41 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by quonsar at 7:41 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
stavros, I wasn't aware of that thread. It does change things a bit.
crunchland, that's swell for you.
Toodles, all.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:07 PM on November 16, 2006
crunchland, that's swell for you.
Toodles, all.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:07 PM on November 16, 2006
This makes me think of Dave Langford's BLIT stories, where someone has found a visual hack that can literally destroy your brain. The internet is eventually restricted to just text.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:12 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Chrysostom at 7:12 AM on November 17, 2006
Thanks MeTa for helping me survive another boring day at work.
and thank all of you for ensuring that my days at work are never boring.
Yeah, well, we can switch jobs if you want. You can have my boring one and I'll make deletions and let people bitch at me.
posted by dame at 7:36 AM on November 17, 2006
and thank all of you for ensuring that my days at work are never boring.
Yeah, well, we can switch jobs if you want. You can have my boring one and I'll make deletions and let people bitch at me.
posted by dame at 7:36 AM on November 17, 2006
Text and images, used together, are food for the mind and a feast for the eyes. Used alone, neither are quite satisfying. Shouldn't MetaFilter be able to display both?
posted by cenoxo at 4:24 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by cenoxo at 4:24 PM on November 17, 2006
No.
posted by evil holiday magic at 6:31 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by evil holiday magic at 6:31 PM on November 17, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Hey, Monkeyfilter and MetaChat still have it. We could all go over there en masse. We'll bring carrot-banana beer.
posted by loquacious at 8:20 AM on November 16, 2006