hide inline images option

August 30, 2005 9:55 AM

Could we please get a "Hide inline images" option in our preferences?
posted by riffola to Feature Requests at 9:55 AM (35 comments total)

Not really, I'd have to do a search and replace on every comment, taking out "img src" when I see it (for a subset of users).

An easier thing would be to get rid of the image tag if people have been abusing it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:59 AM on August 30, 2005

Ok, well I guess we can discuss about the merits of leaving the image tag on.

In my opinion and experience, apart from the Sept 11th thread, there's rarely been a need for inline images. In fact even then a link to the image would've sufficed.
posted by riffola at 10:02 AM on August 30, 2005

LOLLERCOASTER!
posted by furtive at 10:08 AM on August 30, 2005

Not really, I'd have to do a search and replace on every comment, taking out "img src" when I see it (for a subset of users).

Well you wouldn't have to do it MANUALLY Matt. :) You make it sound so laborious.
posted by glenwood at 10:13 AM on August 30, 2005

well, it is more processing when displaying pages.

Why doesn't some enterprising youngster here make a greasemonkey script to strip them? I bet it's like 15 minutes work.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:18 AM on August 30, 2005

Rather then a greasmonkey script, I bet you could write some javascript that would strip them out of the DOM post-download. (Just like live-preview. Sort of)

No more server processing, and no need to download browser addons.
posted by delmoi at 10:22 AM on August 30, 2005

You could tell your browser to block images. Most of the images are inane but there have been times when they've been useful.
posted by substrate at 10:24 AM on August 30, 2005

Firefox:

Tools > Options > Web Features > Load Images: Exceptions => metafilter.com: Block
posted by gramschmidt at 10:27 AM on August 30, 2005

dodgygeezer makes a very strong argument for keeping inline images. I agree with him.
posted by brownpau at 10:34 AM on August 30, 2005

:( It was deleted.
posted by brownpau at 10:34 AM on August 30, 2005

Why couldn't images be blocked with CSS? Just add it to the user's custom stylesheet:

.comments img { display: none; }
posted by mcwetboy at 10:35 AM on August 30, 2005

Matt - The free and spontaneous nature of this forum, as limited as that now is, continues to bother me. People keep doing stuff and posting things. Please fix this immediately. Thank you.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:36 AM on August 30, 2005

the sooner you all go away, the sooner I can get some work done, dammit.
posted by crunchland at 10:43 AM on August 30, 2005

Metachat has an option to hide images, whether or not you're logged in. Not sure how it works, though. I think it's magic.
posted by iconomy at 10:53 AM on August 30, 2005

the magic metachat option is pretty excellent.
posted by jessamyn at 11:02 AM on August 30, 2005

Why couldn't images be blocked with CSS? Just add it to the user's custom stylesheet:

.comments img { display: none; }

I have that in the stylesheet I use for Metafilter. There's a downside, though: I spend way too much time wondering why people are posting empty comments that other people find to be 'awesome' or 'just wow'.
posted by jack_mo at 11:18 AM on August 30, 2005

dodgygeezer makes a very strong argument for keeping inline images. I agree with him

dodgygeezer is a guy?
posted by matteo at 11:19 AM on August 30, 2005

Hey, sorry to ask, but why would you want to do that? Bandwidth on your side?
posted by dabradfo at 12:23 PM on August 30, 2005

It's just annoying and unfunny.
posted by riffola at 12:39 PM on August 30, 2005

Screw that. What we need is an option to turn off everything EXCEPT for images.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:44 PM on August 30, 2005

MetaTalk - It's just annoying and unfunny.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:57 PM on August 30, 2005

I think you can probably use some super-fancy CSS2 to replace the images with "(image removed)" or some such. Maybe something like

img:before { content: "there was an image here"; display: block; }
img { display:none; }

? Mostly talking out my ear here.
posted by gleuschk at 1:13 PM on August 30, 2005

Hm, well, it doesn't work like I thought it would.
posted by gleuschk at 1:17 PM on August 30, 2005

I decided to be an enterprising youngster and make a Greasemonkey script. Thanks to gramschmidt for exposing a bug before the script was even done.
posted by Plutor at 1:19 PM on August 30, 2005

Inline image removed: data:image/gif,%FF%D...14%0A%0F%FF%D9%0D%0A

Thanks Plutor!
posted by riffola at 1:37 PM on August 30, 2005

thanks youngster!
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:39 PM on August 30, 2005

Hiding inline images, while tempting, might make an unsuspecting user stumble into a trap.
posted by stet at 2:08 PM on August 30, 2005

beautiful, plutor. thanks.
posted by crunchland at 2:15 PM on August 30, 2005

gramschmidt: Inline image! Ha!

I thought it was clever...
posted by spaghetti at 2:34 PM on August 30, 2005

Metachat has an option to hide images, whether or not you're logged in. Not sure how it works, though. I think it's magic.

posted by darukaru at 5:32 PM on August 30, 2005

Lolocaust!
posted by Balisong at 6:40 PM on August 30, 2005

Pluto, this is great. I especially like the substitution of the URL for the image.

Thanks.
posted by oddman at 7:14 PM on August 30, 2005

errr... Plutor. sorry.
posted by oddman at 7:15 PM on August 30, 2005

Just whip up some code adding a certain class to images posted by users, and then if a user checks 'don't show images', they get a link to the image instead of the image itself. Not really that hard, unless regex makes you cry :'(
posted by angry modem at 10:18 PM on August 30, 2005

The images are kinda getting out of hand lately, and not often worth the price of entry to the thread. Which is free.

Still, I'd hate to see [img]s blocked altogether.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:05 PM on August 30, 2005