Images in Threads December 20, 2001 7:21 PM   Subscribe

Could we cool it with pasting images in threads? It used to happen once in a blue moon, which was okay - now it happens almost daily. If we want wacky photoshop graphics I think there's lots of other sites for that.
posted by owillis to Etiquette/Policy at 7:21 PM (28 comments total)

Agreed. I had the same thought recently, but didn't want to be the one that people ragged on for starting a thread about it, though. Matt has actually mentioned that it != good recently, as well.

Thanks for taking the bullet, Oliver!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:10 PM on December 20, 2001

So why do I suspect it was this MetaTalk thread that finally drove you over the edge, owillis?

Anyway, to stick my neck out a minute here, I actually like images within threads. Within reason. I admit I don't really need to see pictures of Patsy Cline with a flapjack on her head, but I thought it was kind of neat to see the plush Cthulhu skallas mentioned, or the picture of METAFILTER brand photographic chemistry filters. Sure, we could just follow a link to those pictures, I guess, but why?

I recall in the past, too, seeing charts, diagrams, maps, and other relevant infographics on MetaFilter, in threads that I'm much too lazy to do any further searching to find --and I'd hate to see those go away, too, just to get rid of Fark-style humor graphics. (Although obviously, I don't mind having those once in a while, either.)
posted by webmutant at 9:06 PM on December 20, 2001

I like the images.
posted by kv at 10:35 PM on December 20, 2001

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand, and I do mean a thousand, words --that said, I have thought I, myself, have overdone it.

But it's fun sometimes and something, when well done, that adds a certain flavor. That said, I hope to reduce my percentage of such by a factor of ten (ideal) to a third ( absolutely).

It does take a lot of space--but then so does drivel and long winded ninety paragraph Chomsky bashing and such, where it's like debating politics with your dad: No one converts anyone else and it gets so tiresome to read longwinded 'logical' and oh so patronizing rebuttals.
posted by y2karl at 10:38 PM on December 20, 2001

I like the images too, but I think owillis is doing a good thing in asking for a little restraint (as opposed to a ban). Some users seem to be adopting it as their personal brading device too, which is geting annoying.
posted by rodii at 10:40 PM on December 20, 2001

brading device? I don't disagree with what you said and take no offense even if you mean me--I just don't know the term.
posted by y2karl at 10:57 PM on December 20, 2001

the first time i saw it - kinda cute. later: not so much. now: damned annoying.
posted by patricking at 11:24 PM on December 20, 2001

If you really want images, why don't you just link to them instead of having them inline?
posted by owillis at 2:53 AM on December 21, 2001

People who post images need to remember that not everyone is using a browser that can display them correctly. 'Frinstance, Netscape 4.X lets them bleed over several subsequent posts, making them unreadable in many cases. I agree with owillis that people should simply post a link, not the image.
posted by MrBaliHai at 6:38 AM on December 21, 2001

If you really want images, why don't you just link to them instead of having them inline?

My guess (and I've thought this way before, sort of): You want everyone to see it, and there's a bigger chance of that happening if you put it inline. It's also more natural. You want to include an image, so you do. At MetaFilter, it's better to link to it. It might help to mark image links with the title attribute. Mark the link with "IMAGE" or "JPEG" or something if you're afraid people will pass the link over as being a document. The same thing would be nice for video. Also, it lets people know not to bother if it's a format they can't (or don't want to) view.

If you can't stand those damn images (and use Opera), it's simple to turn off image loading or only load cached images (hit G to cycle through).

People who post images need to remember that not everyone is using a browser that can display them correctly.

That's a bug in Netscape 4. A bug in a the newest version of a browser might be important enough to warrant restraint, but a bug in a crusty old browser like Netscape 4 is no reason to avoid images. Anyone using Netscape 4 is encouraged to disagree and call me names. As for text browsers, that's what the alt attribute is for.
posted by gleemax at 8:01 AM on December 21, 2001

If you really want images, why don't you just link to them instead of having them inline?

Because then the terrorists have won?
Why can't everyone post in one size font without bold andi talic?
Why can't people do exactly what I--all Vivaldi, all the time--want?
Restraint, yes, and Mr. Balihai's note noted--
but jeez, give it a rest already, Oliver, you made your point.
& as for address collecting--huh? You need a refill on that prescription...
posted by y2karl at 8:10 AM on December 21, 2001

Anyone using Netscape 4 is encouraged to disagree and call me names

Okay, Mr. Poopy Pants...

But seriously, I would love to upgrade to a newer browser, and I home. But at work, it's a different story. My desktop is ruled by the iron fist of IS weenies who mandate which browser I use. There are also some folks using Unix-flavored OS's that have less-than-optimal ports of Netscape. A minority, to be sure.
posted by MrBaliHai at 8:24 AM on December 21, 2001

Karl, not to pile on, but I've got to side with Owillis here. Besides the fact that he's been around much longer than you or I, he's just right. Use a link. Comparing not posting pics with posting all one font and without Bold or Italics is just nonsensical.
My opinion only, of course.
Also, it makes it difficult to ignore certain comments if you have a picture screaming out at you.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:05 AM on December 21, 2001

Where's the remorse? Where, I ask you?

(apologies for schtick-hijack, but I couldn't resist.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:24 AM on December 21, 2001

Like this, Kafakesque? Did you read my comments above that one or do I have to link to them, too? Moderation and restraint, fine, considerations about bandwidth taken, but I stand by my very first comment. Sometimes, there's a time and place for frivolity.

The great TV night thread, for example: It was a bit excessive but fun and people here enjoyed it. I should think that, once in a blue moon, that thing should be fine.

Or should it be all-Chomsky bashing and all Yahoo science stories and all software glitches all the time? As for fonts and type--it's one person's opinion, I was talking about,--he made his point, I took it seriously and responded so at first. He's one person, I respect his opinion, and I'm one person with one opinion and in a very cranky mood today because I have a terrible headache. Deal with it. But don't discuss. Please.

And I really do want All Vivaldi All The Time, don't think I'm joking... I want this place to look like a wedding invitation.
posted by y2karl at 2:21 PM on December 21, 2001

y2kari - is there any particular reason you're all hysterical about this? As I said, it happened once or twice before (I've even done it myself) but it started to become an every day thing, which can be a bit annoying. Same way as if it was Chomsky-day everyday. Anything in excess can be annoying - don't take it personal. Maybe think a little before writing in anger or whatnot.
posted by owillis at 5:25 PM on December 21, 2001

Karl: not "brading," "branding," sorry.
posted by rodii at 6:17 PM on December 21, 2001

I didn't think I was that angry, owillis, but I'm sorry to have sounded rude--which I think I did, upon re-reading it--and, anyway, your point is valid. And, kafkaesque, the link to the link was the first one I found and not a direct statement to you. I still have a headache, though.
posted by y2karl at 6:35 PM on December 21, 2001

If you're referring to my half-second photoshop, I apologize. It's ironic that I'm saying that if you notice the topic of the thread I posted the image in.
posted by starduck at 8:51 PM on December 21, 2001

***mit efil lavterr***

So, from now on, if I should want to post an unforgettable, yet genuine image of FIFA's best footballer of the year, Figo, relaxing at home with his wife, this would be appropriate...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:48 PM on December 21, 2001

On second thought, owillis, I don't see where you get off telling me I'm hysterical--because I told you to give it a rest? You'd made your point, it was taken. You're the one. it seemed to me, that hopped back in to re-beat what was by then a consensual dead you said, anything in excess is annoying, especially when delivered in a preachy tone. There is a difference between annoyance and hysteria.
posted by y2karl at 11:54 PM on December 21, 2001

Ah, lord. Never mind. Jesus.
posted by owillis at 2:42 AM on December 22, 2001

Starduck, I think it was probably this one more than yours. It was stupid, but you weren't going to catch me saying the s word in that thread ;-)
posted by walrus at 2:50 AM on December 22, 2001

How truly Matt speaks. All hail inline images.
posted by Jairus at 11:59 AM on December 22, 2001

Jairus, you know you can do that just by formatting plain text, right?
posted by mattpfeff at 12:27 PM on December 22, 2001

mattpfeff: Yes, but if I do it this way, it's possible to edit the comments after the fact. By putting a 0-pixel gif in each of your posts, you could (if you were so inclined) retroactively modify your own posts, or falsify the posts of others.
posted by Jairus at 1:08 PM on December 22, 2001

The image sticks out like a sore thumb. I use Georgia, not Verdana.
posted by gleemax at 12:23 AM on December 23, 2001

And I use a smaller font....

...nice try, though.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:57 AM on December 23, 2001

« Older Preview does not match post   |   fixed a couple long-standing bugs Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments