Thinkpads Forum

Well; it was stickied in the "READ ME FIRST FAQ then post" Forum, which should be read first according to the title. I agree that "Large" is a vague definition, but it shouldn't be an issue as long as some form of a warning is put in the subject line. For a long time, I was one dialup until I got my res hall connection; the most annoying thing was clicking something and being lead off into the land of "large stuff" and waiting several minutes for the page to load.

LtTPfan wrote:It's also rather vague, referring only to "large" images. What is a large image?

It's not vague to me. No warning in the subject line for dialup users = Delete on sight. You absolutely have to post an image instead of a link? There's a forum for that - use it.

I sympathize, but LtTPfan has a point.

"Large" is not specific. A 1024x768 image is large to me, but not large to someone with a 1600x1200 display. The forum rules also don't say anything about this:

http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=14339

It would be better to figure out what size (in kilobytes) of picture or thumbnail is easy for everyone to see. I am going to guess that something in the neighborhood of 5-10 kilobytes is not onerous.

I think it may be time to amend the rules - say: "Embedded pictures using the [img] tags are restricted to x kilobytes. Failure to adhere to this policy will result in the [img] being deleted without notice" or something like that.

nonny wrote:

LtTPfan wrote:It's also rather vague, referring only to "large" images. What is a large image?

It's not vague to me. No warning in the subject line for dialup users = Delete on sight. You absolutely have to post an image instead of a link? There's a forum for that - use it.

here i think less is more..
i.e. less regulation and more personal responsibility..
each user should judge the size that a dialup user will not be happy with..

an image file that takes more than 30 seconds to download at dialup speeds is too large..

BillMorrow wrote:i.e. less regulation and more personal responsibility..
each user should judge the size that a dialup user will not be happy with..

And I disagree because people have no sense and no consideration for others who might be on a slower connection. I can't begin to count the number of posts that I've opened with huge pictures in them and no warning, and regardless of how many links I modified and notes from moderator I posted, they still kept coming. That's when I ran out of patience and adopted a delete-on-sight stance.

I would prefer to see the prohibition for pictures outside the pictures forum without a warning added back to the rules.

Or you can allow the graphics to overcome the content like this example -> http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=665540 I like howardforums and several other of the wireless forums, but they are annoying to read because there are no controls.

You don't want to know what I think.

I think that times change, and there comes a time when one should accept change. That are a lot of changes that affect me in all areas of life. Many of them I don't like, but there's not much I can do about it. I am a happier person if I don't let these changes get under my skin. Dialup is going the way of the dinosaur. Yes there are people that can't get anything else, but I do believe they are in the minority - at least in the U.S..

Most of the time I use a cellular connection (EDGE) to access this forum and many other sites. My speed varies from reasonable (200 Kbps) to slower than dial-up. I don't like waiting for a page to load any more than the next person, but that's the way it is.

I think that K. Eng has the right idea. Bill Morrow thinks that "each user should judge the size that a dialup user will not be happy with.." The problem with this approach is that many have been on Cable or DSL connections for a year or more. They probably don't remember accurately what loading an image on dialup is actually like. Many in the younger crowd may have never experienced dialup. I think guidelines are a good idea.

I lived with a dial-up connection for a long time (around 5 years); and I remember the speeds very well. So I feel little sympathy when I see a 800x600 or higher res pictures slapped into a post; everytime I see something like that I have to think of what happens when somebody on dialup clciks on it....Frustration no doubt; I used to take out the image tags and leave a note. I still take out the tags but, frankly, I am questioning the usefulness of putting notes there over and over again when it seems to be doing nothing to help.

How hard is it to actually describe a problem, does not take a lot of smarts, it seems things are going along quite well "without" pictures.

"Oh gosh I am having this problem with my t86 that is real bad and I just can't describe it, let's see here is ten pictures of my touchpad that appears to be crooked when I hold it up to the light a certain way"

I remember one post with pics about "bubbles appearing" on the big stickers on the bottom of the machine, "Oh gosh here is ten pictures of our new company thinkpads and if you hold them up to the light a certain way you can see bubbles, will the cause a system crash."

Kyocera wrote:How hard is it to actually describe a problem, does not take a lot of smarts, it seems things are going along quite well "without" pictures.

"Oh gosh I am having this problem with my t86 that is real bad and I just can't describe it, let's see here is ten pictures of my touchpad that appears to be crooked when I hold it up to the light a certain way"

I remember one post with pics about "bubbles appearing" on the big stickers on the bottom of the machine, "Oh gosh here is ten pictures of our new company thinkpads and if you hold them up to the light a certain way you can see bubbles, will the cause a system crash."

Good one, Kyocera. Bubbles on the bottom of the Thinkpad; System Crash...Oh boy.

Ok, I know that I am not a Mod, but I felt like I should chime in since I just had to deal with 4 days of using dial up. (granted it was 50.6kps)

I have to agree with Nonny. There should be something specific directly in the rules about not posting images WITHOUT a warning. I really don't think that asking people to put a warning in the subject line is such a bad thing to do....this way they still get the option of posting pictures of their "bubbles" and anyone with dialup can decide whether or not to go further with opening the thread. I think that this works for everyone.

Really, I mean adding a warning to the subject line is not that hard, especially if they can figure out how to include an image in the first place.

I DO think that we would have to make sure that the Rules of the Road indicate that the warning is needed, as opposed to a quick one liner in the "Welcome to the Forum" thread.

Having this added to the Rules of the Road would also help prevent as many users being ticked off when their pics disappear, thus less rants about their pictures disappearing.

Just my 2 cents.

ok, i added a line about photographs..
50k or less..

I'm still not a fan of the images rule.

While I do understand where people are coming from...

I do browse on a cell phone often (not this site), and many of these sites have threads with TONS of images. I do use a reformatting browser that uses a proxy that minces everything (including images) such that it's all smaller, though.

I have a problem with the "OMFG you just posted an image! *NUKED*" attitude that I see around here, though. It makes it seem like the moderators are somewhat elitist (even when they're not). (And, yes, I read the post mentioning the 50k rule. Still doesn't mean I like it this way.)

No other forum I've been on is like this.

Maybe there's a phpBB mod that could put something like [Images], or a little camera icon, at the beginning of a thread title on a thread with pics? I know ZeroForum supports that feature (thanks to many a thread on VWvortex that has a post that says "pic for views", and has a pic in there...) That way, the 56k warning would automatically be there, and people wouldn't have to worry about posting pics...

Another option is to just disable the [ img ] tag. If posting links works, why can't it work in the images forum? Or, possibly even a mod that allows users that WANT to see images to see images, and users that don't to see links instead?

bhtooefr wrote:I'm still not a fan of the images rule.

What's so awful about asking for a warning in the subject line before posting an image?

bhtooefr wrote:I have a problem with the "OMFG you just posted an image! *NUKED*" attitude that I see around here, though.

I'll have to ask for chapter and verse for an example of this "attitude". The instances I can recall where I've changed embedded images to links were where I felt the images were too large or weren't germane to a topic.

There's also the little matter of overhead on what is after all a FREE forum on a shared, donated server.

We do have a Forum for images where we invite members to post any photos they like of their Thinkpads.

Perhaps if and when the Forum becomes supported by subscriptions and/or advertising links, not something that will occur any time in the near future, we can have unlimited photos, avatars, etc., etc.

But until that time, in order to enjoy the "freedom" granted by our independence from IBM/Lenovo and the ability to freely discuss both the good and bad about our Thinkpads, we have to follow a few simple rules.

Regards,

James

bhtooefr wrote:Maybe there's a phpBB mod that could put something like [Images], or a little camera icon, at the beginning of a thread title on a thread with pics? I know ZeroForum supports that feature (thanks to many a thread on VWvortex that has a post that says "pic for views", and has a pic in there...) That way, the 56k warning would automatically be there, and people wouldn't have to worry about posting pics...

Did I hear you just volunteer to research this and figure out how to implement and support it?

JHEM wrote:I'll have to ask for chapter and verse for an example of this "attitude". The instances I can recall where I've changed embedded images to links were where I felt the images were too large or weren't germane to a topic.

And that's not the "attitude" that I'm referring to.

I do believe it's nonny's edits that I'm referring to...

This is an example: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.ph ... 546#119546

nonny wrote:Did I hear you just volunteer to research this and figure out how to implement and support it?

I won't support it myself, but I'll research it.

And, here's something to look at: http://www.phpbbhacks.com/viewhack.php?id=1820

Not only does it say that there are images, but it says how many images there are. Perfect for 56kers.

bhtooefr wrote:

nonny wrote:Did I hear you just volunteer to research this and figure out how to implement and support it?

I won't support it myself, but I'll research it.

And, here's something to look at: http://www.phpbbhacks.com/viewhack.php?id=1820

Not only does it say that there are images, but it says how many images there are. Perfect for 56kers. ;)

Looks interesting. I don't have a clue how to implement it nor do I have the time to figure it out. Ball's in your court. Talk to Bill.

I'll go ahead and post the link to the info here:

http://www.phpbbhacks.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12211

You'd download the hack from the link I had posted previously, and follow the directions in THIS link to interpret the directions in the file that you downloaded.

One would have to have enough access to the SERVER to write to the directories used for the phpBB install, not just admin access to the forum.