|
Title: No more signature images Post by: theymos on November 06, 2011, 08:39:25 PM Signature images are making too much of a mess, so adding them is now disabled for everyone. Existing ones have not been removed, but they will be removed next time you change anything on that profile page.
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: c_k on November 06, 2011, 08:59:48 PM Existing ones should be removed for fairness
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Serge on November 06, 2011, 09:22:57 PM i suggest instead of disabling them completely, making a rule to have max img button size 120x60 and those longer tiny ones
then if someone puts something bigger just clear their sig with link to sig rules page. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: theymos on November 06, 2011, 11:07:01 PM i suggest instead of disabling them completely, making a rule to have max img button size 120x60 and those longer tiny ones then if someone puts something bigger just clear their sig with link to sig rules page. This can't be enforced automatically, and it would be difficult to enforce through moderation. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: DeathAndTaxes on November 07, 2011, 05:04:29 AM Can a standardized image size be enforced via scripting. i.e. no matter what size image a user includes it will always be resized to x by y pixels.
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: theymos on November 07, 2011, 05:35:18 AM Can a standardized image size be enforced via scripting. i.e. no matter what size image a user includes it will always be resized to x by y pixels. It probably could be done, but I don't like the idea of images in signatures, anyway. The next forum software will eliminate all embedded images. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: BitcoinPorn on November 07, 2011, 09:35:15 AM This can't be enforced automatically, and it would be difficult to enforce through moderation. I believe a more false statement cannot be made. I guarantee as soon as people know the image size rules, you will never see more people ratting on other Bitcoin Forum users than ever. If no one is ratting, they truly do not mind the image size. I assure you though, someone will always notice. Been on forums before that had self regulation of this specific kind that worked. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: pooler on November 07, 2011, 11:52:00 AM That's too bad. :'(
I really liked dynamic userbars in signatures, like "I'm mining at deepbit.net with my 842.35 MH/s" They only took a few pixels and had that "live" feel to them. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: theymos on November 07, 2011, 07:34:19 PM I believe a more false statement cannot be made. I guarantee as soon as people know the image size rules, you will never see more people ratting on other Bitcoin Forum users than ever. If no one is ratting, they truly do not mind the image size. I assure you though, someone will always notice. Been on forums before that had self regulation of this specific kind that worked. I know that this is not true, since the policy has always been that the entire signature area can't be much larger than 468px x 60px. Yet almost every time I view a topic I see someone with larger signature images. Usually I don't feel like dealing with it, but I've probably removed fifty or more signatures that were too large. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: SgtSpike on November 07, 2011, 07:55:08 PM Solution:
- Set a DEFINED limit of pixels. "Can't be much larger than" 468x60 isn't a hard limit, thus people will press past it. Define the limit AS 468x60, and self-policing within the community will happen. There is no reason not to have a hard limit, and plenty of reasons to have one. - Ban anyone who does not follow the rules on it. If people know the consequences are severe, they will be much less likely to break said rules. Also, the next forum software will disable all image embedding? Whoa, talk about a step backwards! I guess some people really DO still want to be stuck in the 90's. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Turbor on November 07, 2011, 08:13:05 PM Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: BitcoinPorn on November 07, 2011, 10:43:31 PM since the policy has always been that the entire signature area can't be much larger than 468px x 60px. I honestly must have forgot about this, I didn't know there was constraints already. I kept seeing that intersango site's large header and thought that would be too large, but no one said anything. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: cablepair on November 07, 2011, 10:58:09 PM this kinda sucks, since I can't have my image in the signature bar than you can you please take that incredibly annoying and distasteful animated gif away from Bitcoin porn? :P
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Red Emerald on November 07, 2011, 11:06:12 PM That's too bad. :'( I really liked dynamic userbars in signatures, like "I'm mining at deepbit.net with my 842.35 MH/s" They only took a few pixels and had that "live" feel to them. Ditto. I just got to 50 posts, too :( Are images really that annoying? I don't really have a problem with them. I guess I have a good internet connection so they don't slow down page load really. Other people may not be so lucky. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: evolve on November 07, 2011, 11:13:35 PM I dont use signature banners, but I think its silly to disallow them. just my 2 btc.
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: payb.tc on November 07, 2011, 11:28:42 PM So we have banned signature bar images Now I can't help but notice you are trying to raise money for the forum buy selling advertising (which I totally support): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51013.0 and I can't help but think that maybe this signature bar thing has a little something to do with the fact that Signature Bar Images not only are Free Advertising but they are at times Superior Free Advertising to the kind you are trying to sell for the forum. And seriously all due respect to Thymos and the rest of the staff you guys do an awesome job here - but I have a hard time believing this decision was made purely because "the signature images are a mess" any thoughts? it's a little ridiculous... if you're so offended by signature images, go here instead: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=printpage;topic=51077.msg609387;topicseen#new i feel like it's one more reason to frequent other forums and try to escape this one. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: cablepair on November 07, 2011, 11:31:41 PM i removed my message - I knew I was going to offend someone - that was not my intention - so I retract.
But I still feel its a legitimate question to ask - and you have to admit signature bar images work as and are used as free advertising every day. Some Bitcoin businesses rely heavily on them. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: theymos on November 08, 2011, 12:12:43 AM I don't like embedded images. They usually clutter up the discussion without much benefit. This is especially true of signature images: they take up more screen space than a few paragraphs, but they provide almost no value.
If you replace your signature image with a short direct link to an image, it would be easy for someone to write a GreaseMonkey script that expands these images. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: imsaguy on November 08, 2011, 12:36:25 AM That's too bad. :'( I really liked dynamic userbars in signatures, like "I'm mining at deepbit.net with my 842.35 MH/s" They only took a few pixels and had that "live" feel to them. I couldn't care any less about where you are mining and at what rate. I especially don't want to see it every other message in a thread. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: SgtSpike on November 08, 2011, 12:42:48 AM I don't like embedded images. They usually clutter up the discussion without much benefit. This is especially true of signature images: they take up more screen space than a few paragraphs, but they provide almost no value. But have you asked the COMMUNITY what it likes? Or do you just not care?If you replace your signature image with a short direct link to an image, it would be easy for someone to write a GreaseMonkey script that expands these images. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: imsaguy on November 08, 2011, 12:46:47 AM I don't like embedded images. They usually clutter up the discussion without much benefit. This is especially true of signature images: they take up more screen space than a few paragraphs, but they provide almost no value. But have you asked the COMMUNITY what it likes? Or do you just not care?If you replace your signature image with a short direct link to an image, it would be easy for someone to write a GreaseMonkey script that expands these images. Really? People complained HARD about having a text ad under the first posting on each page. How are signature image ads not intrusive but a single text ad be something to complain about? Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Serge on November 08, 2011, 01:04:15 AM from business perspective sig buttons and banners are more valuable than avatars as long as there are some rules outlined.
i personally like idea where everyone can put small buttons for free and paying top advertisers allowed to put in their sigs wider banners people who don't like images can disable them in their forum profiles. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: imsaguy on November 08, 2011, 01:13:15 AM from business perspective sig buttons and banners are more valuable than avatars as long as there are some rules outlined. i personally like idea where everyone can put small buttons for free and paying top advertisers allowed to put in their sigs wider banners people who don't like images can disable them in their forum profiles. There is a difference between don't show signatures and don't show signature images though. AFAIK, a person can't turn off one without the other. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Serge on November 08, 2011, 01:17:13 AM There is a difference between don't show signatures and don't show signature images though. AFAIK, a person can't turn off one without the other. yeah, i forgot SMF can't do that :-/ Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: slush on November 08, 2011, 01:20:40 AM Hmm, I like the possibility to turning on/off images in signatures. Personally I'd like to leave it "on" as I'm finding useful information here.
Per user turning on/off images in signatures can be pretty easy, however needs some custom development. When somebody put image to his signature, some special html class should be given to HTML representation of this image. Then anybody can check on/off "Show images in signature" in his account settings, which will modify CSS style 'display' for this html class (that piece of css style can be placed inline to page source)... Just an idea how not to fed up many forum users... Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: evoorhees on November 08, 2011, 01:24:05 AM Theymos - Please retract this policy.
The signature graphics are a fundamental part of the community. They allow a means of visual expression in what is otherwise a dull text world. Some bars are ugly, some are cool, some are informative, some are annoying. Whatever... they are expression, and the forum is made better for it. Not to mention, the sig bars add tremendous ability for businesses in the bitcoin world to get some awareness. Personally, I really like finding out about new businesses and sites in the sig bar graphics. They help seed new ventures, and cross-pollinate ideas. Again, some are annoying or useless, but that's part of the package. Net-net, sig bar images make the forum better. Removing them is a very bad idea and damages what some of us here enjoy as a very strong and dynamic community. Please reconsider. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: SgtSpike on November 08, 2011, 01:28:33 AM I don't like embedded images. They usually clutter up the discussion without much benefit. This is especially true of signature images: they take up more screen space than a few paragraphs, but they provide almost no value. But have you asked the COMMUNITY what it likes? Or do you just not care?If you replace your signature image with a short direct link to an image, it would be easy for someone to write a GreaseMonkey script that expands these images. Really? People complained HARD about having a text ad under the first posting on each page. How are signature image ads not intrusive but a single text ad be something to complain about? I'd just like to see a vote on it, rather than theymos deciding that his personal preferences are what is best for everyone. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: slush on November 08, 2011, 01:29:53 AM Theymos - Please retract this policy. The signature graphics are a fundamental part of the community. They allow a means of visual expression in what is otherwise a dull text world. Some bars are ugly, some are cool, some are informative, some are annoying. Whatever... they are expression, and the forum is made better for it. Not to mention, the sig bars add tremendous ability for businesses in the bitcoin world to get some awareness. Personally, I really like finding out about new businesses and sites in the sig bar graphics. They help seed new ventures, and cross-pollinate ideas. Again, some are annoying or useless, but that's part of the package. Net-net, sig bar images make the forum better. Removing them is a very bad idea and damages what some of us here enjoy as a very strong and dynamic community. Please reconsider. I'm signing this. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Serge on November 08, 2011, 01:31:52 AM there is a great tool which will take you back to prehistoric times of internet development - http://lynx.browser.org/
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Serge on November 08, 2011, 01:32:47 AM Theymos - Please retract this policy. The signature graphics are a fundamental part of the community. They allow a means of visual expression in what is otherwise a dull text world. Some bars are ugly, some are cool, some are informative, some are annoying. Whatever... they are expression, and the forum is made better for it. Not to mention, the sig bars add tremendous ability for businesses in the bitcoin world to get some awareness. Personally, I really like finding out about new businesses and sites in the sig bar graphics. They help seed new ventures, and cross-pollinate ideas. Again, some are annoying or useless, but that's part of the package. Net-net, sig bar images make the forum better. Removing them is a very bad idea and damages what some of us here enjoy as a very strong and dynamic community. Please reconsider. I'm signing this. one more vote. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: BTCurious on November 08, 2011, 01:34:24 AM Although I'll stick to my MARqUEE novelty address, I do agree that images up to a certain size can be nice. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: cablepair on November 08, 2011, 01:35:50 AM So we have banned signature bar images
Now I can't help but notice you are trying to raise money for the forum buy selling advertising (which I totally support): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51013.0 and I can't help but think that maybe this signature bar thing has a little something to do with the fact that Signature Bar Images not only are Free Advertising but they are at times Superior Free Advertising to the kind you are trying to sell for the forum. And seriously all due respect to Thymos and the rest of the staff you guys do an awesome job here - but I have a hard time believing this decision was made purely because "the signature images are a mess" any thoughts? does anyone else think that this is a factor in this? Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Serge on November 08, 2011, 01:40:05 AM So we have banned signature bar images Now I can't help but notice you are trying to raise money for the forum buy selling advertising (which I totally support): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51013.0 and I can't help but think that maybe this signature bar thing has a little something to do with the fact that Signature Bar Images not only are Free Advertising but they are at times Superior Free Advertising to the kind you are trying to sell for the forum. And seriously all due respect to Thymos and the rest of the staff you guys do an awesome job here - but I have a hard time believing this decision was made purely because "the signature images are a mess" any thoughts? does anyone else think that this is a factor in this? you're probably right, if only advertising on forum is small text link between posts and on top, images take all the attention away. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: mjcmurfy on November 08, 2011, 01:42:03 AM Theymos - Please retract this policy. The signature graphics are a fundamental part of the community. They allow a means of visual expression in what is otherwise a dull text world. Some bars are ugly, some are cool, some are informative, some are annoying. Whatever... they are expression, and the forum is made better for it. Not to mention, the sig bars add tremendous ability for businesses in the bitcoin world to get some awareness. Personally, I really like finding out about new businesses and sites in the sig bar graphics. They help seed new ventures, and cross-pollinate ideas. Again, some are annoying or useless, but that's part of the package. Net-net, sig bar images make the forum better. Removing them is a very bad idea and damages what some of us here enjoy as a very strong and dynamic community. Please reconsider. Another +1 from me. This is a heavy-handed way of dealing with something that is at worst a minor annoyance on the odd occasion. Why not allow individuals to choose for themselves to display signature images or not? This is much better than a totalitarian ban, and I think you would find most people would leave them on. It's would be trivial to implement - slush has already suggested a way of doing it. And DEFINITELY do not ban embedded images within posts. That would be signing the death warrant of this forum. Who the hell wants to frequent a text-only forum that bans all forms of imagery? Last time I checked, this was not the Soviet Union. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: mjcmurfy on November 08, 2011, 01:42:34 AM So we have banned signature bar images Now I can't help but notice you are trying to raise money for the forum buy selling advertising (which I totally support): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51013.0 and I can't help but think that maybe this signature bar thing has a little something to do with the fact that Signature Bar Images not only are Free Advertising but they are at times Superior Free Advertising to the kind you are trying to sell for the forum. And seriously all due respect to Thymos and the rest of the staff you guys do an awesome job here - but I have a hard time believing this decision was made purely because "the signature images are a mess" any thoughts? does anyone else think that this is a factor in this? My thoughts EXACTLY cablepair! I didn't have the balls to suggest it - but since you brought it up... Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: slush on November 08, 2011, 01:48:21 AM I don't like embedded images. But can you imagine speculation subforum without any images? :-) Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: BTCurious on November 08, 2011, 01:53:16 AM I don't like embedded images. But can you imagine speculation subforum without any images? :-) I use this graph: _/\_ /\ _ \/ \/ It has been accurate so far. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Maged on November 08, 2011, 01:53:56 AM I believe a more false statement cannot be made. I guarantee as soon as people know the image size rules, you will never see more people ratting on other Bitcoin Forum users than ever. If no one is ratting, they truly do not mind the image size. I assure you though, someone will always notice. Been on forums before that had self regulation of this specific kind that worked. I know that this is not true, since the policy has always been that the entire signature area can't be much larger than 468px x 60px. Yet almost every time I view a topic I see someone with larger signature images. Usually I don't feel like dealing with it, but I've probably removed fifty or more signatures that were too large. .signature { max-width: 468px; max-height: 60px; } Problem solved. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: payb.tc on November 08, 2011, 03:03:35 AM Theymos - Please retract this policy. The signature graphics are a fundamental part of the community. They allow a means of visual expression in what is otherwise a dull text world. Some bars are ugly, some are cool, some are informative, some are annoying. Whatever... they are expression, and the forum is made better for it. Not to mention, the sig bars add tremendous ability for businesses in the bitcoin world to get some awareness. Personally, I really like finding out about new businesses and sites in the sig bar graphics. They help seed new ventures, and cross-pollinate ideas. Again, some are annoying or useless, but that's part of the package. Net-net, sig bar images make the forum better. Removing them is a very bad idea and damages what some of us here enjoy as a very strong and dynamic community. Please reconsider. I'm signing this. one more vote. another vote, with highlighting. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: SgtSpike on November 08, 2011, 03:31:29 AM I'd be happy to welcome more members to my forum if this goes through. :)
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: JonHind on November 08, 2011, 03:37:11 AM I also think this is harsh. Personally, I despise graphical sigs - but I just ignore them and scroll down. Why not just have a rule that the graphics cannot be greater than a certain dimension, and put in an 'annoying' clause in there to keep out epileptic inducing flashing eyesores.
Can signature rights be revoked on a user basis? If so, that could be the punishment for repeat offenders. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: theymos on November 08, 2011, 05:46:39 AM I'm not going to re-enable signature images again when it is planned to remove all embedded images in the future. There was only one complaint about that in the thread about forum software specifications. Why weren't you guys complaining when I posted that?
The advertising thing didn't even cross my mind as part of this decision. I don't receive any money from the forum, so I don't care that much about ad profitability... I honestly must have forgot about this, I didn't know there was constraints already. I kept seeing that intersango site's large header and thought that would be too large, but no one said anything. I removed that image from gejix's signature when he had it there. He sometimes adds it to intersango-related posts, but it contains some semi-relevant text, so I usually don't want to remove it. from business perspective sig buttons and banners are more valuable than avatars as long as there are some rules outlined. i personally like idea where everyone can put small buttons for free and paying top advertisers allowed to put in their sigs wider banners Not to mention, the sig bars add tremendous ability for businesses in the bitcoin world to get some awareness. Personally, I really like finding out about new businesses and sites in the sig bar graphics. They help seed new ventures, and cross-pollinate ideas. Again, some are annoying or useless, but that's part of the package. Ideas can be spread without annoying anyone by using text links in signatures. Or you can start a new topic about your idea. Maybe viewing signatures as ad space explains many of the low-quality posts: people just want to put their signature "advertisements" on as many pages as possible. I'd just like to see a vote on it, rather than theymos deciding that his personal preferences are what is best for everyone. My goal is to make the best Bitcoin forum possible, not to appeal to current users. I will of course consider all arguments against the policy. These are not arguments of any kind... I'm signing this. one more vote. My thoughts EXACTLY cablepair! I didn't have the balls to suggest it - but since you brought it up... another vote, with highlighting. Quote from: Serge people who don't like images can disable them in their forum profiles. SMF doesn't support this. If it did, I would definitely allow the option of showing signature images. Per user turning on/off images in signatures can be pretty easy, however needs some custom development. When somebody put image to his signature, some special html class should be given to HTML representation of this image. Then anybody can check on/off "Show images in signature" in his account settings, which will modify CSS style 'display' for this html class (that piece of css style can be placed inline to page source)... Then you'd still download the full image, which would waste bandwidth and still make users vulnerable to cookie stuffing attacks. The image would need to be completely removed or turned into a simple link. Oh really? .signature { max-width: 468px; max-height: 60px; } Like I said, I'm sure it is possible to limit sizes technologically. That still leaves other problems. Also, the next forum software will disable all image embedding? Whoa, talk about a step backwards! I guess some people really DO still want to be stuck in the 90's. The signature graphics are a fundamental part of the community. They allow a means of visual expression in what is otherwise a dull text world. Some bars are ugly, some are cool, some are informative, some are annoying. Whatever... they are expression, and the forum is made better for it. Net-net, sig bar images make the forum better. Removing them is a very bad idea and damages what some of us here enjoy as a very strong and dynamic community. And DEFINITELY do not ban embedded images within posts. That would be signing the death warrant of this forum. Who the hell wants to frequent a text-only forum that bans all forms of imagery? Last time I checked, this was not the Soviet Union. The purpose of this forum is to provide a place where ideas can be expressed and consumed with as much freedom as possible. I have determined that the best way of facilitating this goal is to disallow embedded images. Signature images are never useful in exchanging ideas. They never contribute anything to the discussion at hand. Maybe they help you understand the poster better, but understanding posters is not the point of most threads. Signature images are off-topic in almost every thread they appear in. This is often also true of embedded images in general. I would estimate that half of all images posted recently are totally off-topic, and perhaps only a tenth contribute significantly to the discussion. Many images are somewhat on-topic and useful, but they take up more space than they're worth. Text can also be off-topic (both in signatures and out), but text takes up much less space, and it's less distracting. There are also security problems: Images can be used to execute cookie stuffing and cross-site request forgery attacks; they use a lot of bandwidth; and they prevent bitcointalk.org's HTTPS from appearing totally "kosher" to browsers. These issues could be solved by hosting all images at bitcointalk.org, but this isn't worth the trouble. Yes, users can block images in their browsers. But it seems to me most correct to assume that users don't want something possibly unwanted than to assume they do want it. Posts are categorized so that readers have a choice in what they read. I want images to be placed, along with all other non-textual data, into a category that requires an extra choice on the part of readers. Most of my favorite forum-like things -- NNTP, BBSes, Kareha-style text boards, Reddit, Metafilter etc. -- do not traditionally allow embedded images, and they do just fine. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Serge on November 08, 2011, 06:18:16 AM fair enough
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: repentance on November 08, 2011, 06:24:22 AM Are images really that annoying? I don't really have a problem with them. I guess I have a good internet connection so they don't slow down page load really. Other people may not be so lucky. They're annoying as fuck when they take up most of the real estate in a post. Even more so if someone is making a lot of low content posts in a thread. I'm also in favour of a maximum number of lines for text signatures for the same reason. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: SgtSpike on November 08, 2011, 06:41:01 AM Hehe, if you say so, Theymos. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Gerken on November 08, 2011, 07:26:52 AM No images? Why not add in the ability to turn on/off signature images along with the other laundry list of features for your new forum software?
My signature was awesome just for the people freaking that the forums were still compromised when they saw my posts. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: theymos on November 08, 2011, 07:32:04 AM No images? Why not add in the ability to turn on/off signature images along with the other laundry list of features for your new forum software? It is in the list, under optional features: Quote - An option that expands [img] tags into embedded images. This must not be the default. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: payb.tc on November 08, 2011, 08:43:00 AM images may be off-topic, but they add colour, warmth and entertainment value that is hard to quantify.
without them, i imagine the forum a bland, boring, wall of text, and i will likely visit much less once i tie up a few loose ends. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Transisto on November 08, 2011, 09:45:45 AM Thank you,
Hope the animated gif are next. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: cbeast on November 08, 2011, 09:51:02 AM Thank you, Hope the animated gif are next. And what about those emoticons? heh Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: ineededausername on November 08, 2011, 01:36:46 PM I can't believe we're having this discussion. Why no embedded images?
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: mjcmurfy on November 08, 2011, 01:38:16 PM I don't know where to start with this.
Just because you don't like embedded images Theymos, does not mean that you get to speak for everyone on this forum. There are plenty of means by which all of the technical issues with externally hosted images you have mentioned can be addressed. There are ways of banning dynamic images, preventing cookie stuffing and preventing large unsightly images. The argument about images taking up online 'real estate' is the weakest I have heard - as if it were limited in some way or in short supply. The purpose of this forum is to provide a place where ideas can be expressed and consumed with as much freedom as possible. I have determined that the best way of facilitating this goal is to disallow embedded images. YOU have determined. With no consultation with the rest of the users on this forum. So the best way to ensure ideas can be expressed effectively is to unilaterally ban any form of imagery and limit people's means of communication to text only? This is broken logic. Signature images are never useful in exchanging ideas. They never contribute anything to the discussion at hand. Maybe they help you understand the poster better, but understanding posters is not the point of most threads. Signature images are off-topic in almost every thread they appear in. You say that they are never useful, but then go on to shoot your own argument in the foot. Sig images can help you get a better idea of who the person behind the text actually is, thus modifying your preconceptions of the poster and his post. The argument about them being off topic is moot. They were never supposed to be on-topic as they are not part of the thread itself. They are signatures. This is often also true of embedded images in general. I would estimate that half of all images posted recently are totally off-topic, and perhaps only a tenth contribute significantly to the discussion. Many images are somewhat on-topic and useful, but they take up more space than they're worth. Text can also be off-topic (both in signatures and out), but text takes up much less space, and it's less distracting. You are making huge assumptions. How can they take up more space than they are worth? There is no end to the amount of space that a thread can take up. How can you judge their worth anyway? And like you said, text can also be off topic. Why not ban all the text aswell? Oh, because it's smaller and less distracting! I see. We are not all that easily distracted. There are also security problems: Images can be used to execute cookie stuffing and cross-site request forgery attacks; they use a lot of bandwidth; and they prevent bitcointalk.org's HTTPS from appearing totally "kosher" to browsers. These issues could be solved by hosting all images at bitcointalk.org, but this isn't worth the trouble. Yes, hosting the images is not worth the trouble. Definitely don't do that. But there are many ways you can prevent the linking of dynamic images, and thus prevent cookie stuffing. They do NOT use up any of this server's bandwidth. Are you kidding me? The request is not sent from this server, it is sent from the users viewing the images - using up the bandwidth the image is hosted on, not bitcointalk's bandwidth. I never get HTTPs errors. Never. Using safari, firefox or chrome. Turn down the fidelity of your browser's error reporting if it's a problem for you. Yes, users can block images in their browsers. But it seems to me most correct to assume that users don't want something possibly unwanted than to assume they do want it. Posts are categorized so that readers have a choice in what they read. I want images to be placed, along with all other non-textual data, into a category that requires an extra choice on the part of readers. Why not hold a vote on the issue to find out how correct your assumptions are? I really don't mean any offense to you Theymos, or to any of the Admin or Mod team. I think you do a great job and I know from past experience of being a forum administrator that it is a thankless job. But this is silly, and I think most would agree that this seems like an over-reaction to something that is only a MILD annoyance at best. I think this is a terrible idea for the vitality of this community. If we want to ensure a platform for free expression, then people should be allowed to express themselves freely and not be restricted by totalitarian bans on imagery. If you are unwilling or incapable of addressing the technical issues, then you should hire someone to do it for you or step down in favor of someone who is capable. A text-only forum in 2011? I can't believe we are even having this discussion. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Matthew N. Wright on November 08, 2011, 01:52:36 PM Granted almost half the time I've posted images it has been to troll or make fun of something, but the other half have been screenshots, charts, and legitimate on-topic images.
These forums don't need to become 4chan just to allow photos, and what kind of an admin can't restrict sizes? I say we charge for photos and that will shut everyone up. Want an avatar? Pay a one time fee of 2BTC. Want a signature? Pay a one time fee of 2BTC. Disabling features doesn't keep people from anything but productive communication. Try limiting who posts them instead. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: imsaguy on November 08, 2011, 02:13:00 PM images may be off-topic, but they add colour, warmth and entertainment value that is hard to quantify. without them, i imagine the forum a bland, boring, wall of text, and i will likely visit much less once i tie up a few loose ends. This isn't Kindergarten. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: imsaguy on November 08, 2011, 02:14:28 PM Granted almost half the time I've posted images it has been to troll or make fun of something, but the other half have been screenshots, charts, and legitimate on-topic images. These forums don't need to become 4chan just to allow photos, and what kind of an admin can't restrict sizes? I say we charge for photos and that will shut everyone up. Want an avatar? Pay a one time fee of 2BTC. Want a signature? Pay a one time fee of 2BTC. Disabling features doesn't keep people from anything but productive communication. Try limiting who posts them instead. Screw the one time fee. Make it an ongoing fee. Then you'll see who truly wants/needs a signature image vs those that just like to show off their e-penis hashrate. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: DeathAndTaxes on November 08, 2011, 02:14:40 PM Exactly banning signatures is a form of censorship but then again this is a private board so while it is dubious it can be done. 99% of boards handle this by simply giving users an option to turn off signatures.
However banning all embedded imagines is just silly. There are plenty of good reasons to have images inline. I was explaining a video card mod to someone and both of us used images to help with the conversation. Yeah we could have used links but that is clunky and a step backward. The images directly enhanced the flow of information. The same is often done with charts and diagrams. There are a lot of technical aspects to Bitcoin which are better explained in visual form. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Serge on November 08, 2011, 04:09:50 PM the only thing that is not right with this thread is that some people have sig images and others can't have them.
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: evoorhees on November 08, 2011, 04:33:11 PM mjcmurphy- great response point by point. I second almost all of that.
Theymos - I tried to be polite in my first post about this, but it's clear that you've moved beyond considering this policy and are simply going to implement it. You're now in the stage of finding justifications for a policy that is unpopular in aggregate and especially among many Hero Members here. You said... Quote Yes, users can block images in their browsers. But it seems to me most correct to assume that users don't want something possibly unwanted than to assume they do want it. Posts are categorized so that readers have a choice in what they read. Fine. Fair point. So make sig images turned off by default, but let people turn them on if they choose! What you are proposing removes all choice entirely from the user. You are doing the very opposite of providing "freedom and choice" which you ironically use as justification for limiting those very things. And I didn't even realize that embedded images were going to be removed also?!?! Are you mad?!? That is even worse than sig images and would just totally make me blow my lid... and my lid is on very tight by default. I'm on this forum all the time. I love it - it's been hugely educational, entertaining, and wonderful for nurturing the many facets of the Bitcoin community. Now, I can deal with annoying images. I can deal with off-topic posts. I can deal with trolls and idiots and haters and the ignorant hordes. I can even deal with Nagle. But this diktat you propose is so misguided and detrimental that there's a reasonable likelihood it would compel me to start frequenting other forums, and may just leave this one entirely. Images are a fundamental part of the information that is conveyed between users. The fact that much of the information is garbage is only reflective of the fact that most of all information is garbage - written or visual. But even if 90% of images were, as you say, "worthless," it would still be a very bad decision to remove all images entirely. What we see that is garbage is known - but what we don't see that is valuable is unknown. If you remove images there is a great "unknown" cost... all the good information that otherwise would've been conveyed, yet nobody will ever know about it or account for it. You are deciding on an issue which is highly contentious - and on a subject which is not even a crucial problem! You're trying to fix something that isn't broken, and are very likely to break it by doing so. Your justifications, generally, boil down to personal preferences of your own but are being veiled behind "concern for the community." That's a foolish and disrespectful mistake to make. I hope you're making that mistake accidentally and that you will realize the folly of this. Again, please reconsider. For seriously. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: BadBear on November 08, 2011, 05:03:42 PM mjcmurphy- great response point by point. I second almost all of that. Theymos - I tried to be polite in my first post about this, but it's clear that you've moved beyond considering this policy and are simply going to implement it. You're now in the stage of finding justifications for a policy that is unpopular in aggregate and especially among many Hero Members here. You said... Quote Yes, users can block images in their browsers. But it seems to me most correct to assume that users don't want something possibly unwanted than to assume they do want it. Posts are categorized so that readers have a choice in what they read. Fine. Fair point. So make sig images turned off by default, but let people turn them on if they choose! What you are proposing removes all choice entirely from the user. You are doing the very opposite of providing "freedom and choice" which you ironically use as justification for limiting those very things. And I didn't even realize that embedded images were going to be removed also?!?! Are you mad?!? That is even worse than sig images and would just totally make me blow my lid... and my lid is on very tight by default. I'm on this forum all the time. I love it - it's been hugely educational, entertaining, and wonderful for nurturing the many facets of the Bitcoin community. Now, I can deal with annoying images. I can deal with off-topic posts. I can deal with trolls and idiots and haters and the ignorant hordes. I can even deal with Nagle. But this diktat you propose is so misguided and detrimental that there's a reasonable likelihood it would compel me to start frequenting other forums, and may just leave this one entirely. Images are a fundamental part of the information that is conveyed between users. The fact that much of the information is garbage is only reflective of the fact that most of all information is garbage - written or visual. But even if 90% of images were, as you say, "worthless," it would still be a very bad decision to remove all images entirely. What we see that is garbage is known - but what we don't see that is valuable is unknown. If you remove images there is a great "unknown" cost... all the good information that otherwise would've been conveyed, yet nobody will ever know about it or account for it. You are deciding on an issue which is highly contentious - and on a subject which is not even a crucial problem! You're trying to fix something that isn't broken, and are very likely to break it by doing so. Your justifications, generally, boil down to personal preferences of your own but are being veiled behind "concern for the community." That's a foolish and disrespectful mistake to make. I hope you're making that mistake accidentally and that you will realize the folly of this. Again, please reconsider. For seriously. https://i.imgur.com/IIYe0.gif (http://imgur.com/IIYe0) Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: ThomasV on November 08, 2011, 05:41:18 PM ... hum... posting this big animated gif does not really go in the direction of the post that you support :-) Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: mjcmurfy on November 08, 2011, 05:45:02 PM hum... posting this big animated gif does not really go in the direction of the post that you support :-) I think that was his point. Trolls will be trolls, whether they can post images or not. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Matthew N. Wright on November 08, 2011, 06:03:04 PM Unless theymos is willing to allow embedded javascript into posts, images are our last form of functionality.
Someone might not care about another user's mining stats, but what about an image that shows how many donations a charity has recieved? Anyway, I think the real reason theymos wants to block images is obvious. All I need to do to get someone's IP here is send them this Code: [img]http://ascii.host.org/images/counter.php?some_identifier[/img] And that will create an accesslog dump named "xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx-some_identifier.txt' in http://ascii.host.org/images/ allowing me to prove Atlas is Atlas when he says he's a 70 year old horse trader. Either that or he's trying to avoid executing commands like Code: [img]http://bitcointalk.org/deletepost/[/img] But that has pretty much been made difficult enough. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: DeathAndTaxes on November 08, 2011, 06:11:01 PM Those issues can be solved by local hosting and if bandwidth is an issue I wouldn't mind paying for it.
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: greyhawk on November 08, 2011, 06:27:08 PM I for one welcome this glorious return to ascii art
,| f\ . ,- / | | \_|f,,-/ |-. ,'-. ,-. `. (,-. ,-. Y f Yf Y | ,----. l 0 jl 0 j l f Oh Y ,,-`-' `-' Y l joy! j ,-'"""`-. ,--. I \ ,--' ( ) _,-' \ l // `-,.__,,'''". . / Y Y --='' ( . ,'\ | | `.__,-._,,-l"\ Y | | _ _ / / \ j j -l f f f f\ `-' f \ l 'j Y l \ Y_ _j /j Y . \ (___)/f | \ Y | | | | Y | l ` | | j j `--'| | /__/ | | (_ ) l j / |-. \ . / ( . . ` ) l`._ / \_\_\_/ \ "`----' / `._ f | `""-. | | | Y | __j l__j `-. ,'' ,' Y f f | .......`--------`----------'......... ========================== Welcome to the Bitcoin BBS ========================== * proudly presented by * * ThEyMo$ Inc. * ************************** Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: btc_artist on November 08, 2011, 06:31:58 PM Animated avatars are even more annoying than images in sigs.
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Matthew N. Wright on November 08, 2011, 06:42:59 PM Code: _____ _ _ ____ ____ Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: k on November 08, 2011, 07:01:22 PM I agree with mjcmurfy and evoorhees and others. This is a bad policy.
And the fact that people with existing images in their sigs can keep theirs while others cant have one just makes it much worse. If you are going to implement this policy no one should be allowed to have them. It reinforces the idea that bitcoin favours early adopters and is unjust. You need to rethink this. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: btc_artist on November 08, 2011, 07:12:06 PM I personally don't like signature images, but if they're small, I don't see a problem.
I think it's far more harmful to allow current images to remain while disallowing new images. Bottom line: Allow signature images-- if I don't like them, I can add a greasemonkey user script to hide them in literally 30 seconds. Code: .signature img {display: none;}Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: SgtSpike on November 08, 2011, 07:12:55 PM ...The purpose of this forum is to provide a place where ideas can be expressed and consumed with as much freedom as possible. ...Signature images are never useful in exchanging ideas. They never contribute anything to the discussion at hand.... Perfectly justified! We should aim to increase in the useful information density of this forum. People wishing to display off-topic pictures are encouraged to post to some other forum instead. ByteCoin In my mind, a forum is more useful when people can read through a guide with pictures without having to click on each image to display it individually. But I guess not everyone can look past the fractions-of-a-second lost when scrolling past an off-topic picture. ::) Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Turbor on November 08, 2011, 07:21:23 PM Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: btc_artist on November 08, 2011, 07:22:14 PM In my mind, a forum is more useful when people can read through a guide with pictures without having to click on each image to display it individually. But I guess not everyone can look past the fractions-of-a-second lost when scrolling past an off-topic picture. ::) Agreed. The cookie stuffing exploit is real enough, though. It would be easy enough to add some Javascript to detect whether or not the resource loaded in the img src url is actually an image, and if not, then all users who have Javascript enabled would get a huge warning (and mods could easily see them and delete). eg: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3499941/javascript-check-if-img-src-is-valid http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3744266/how-can-i-test-if-a-url-is-a-valid-image-in-javascript Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Serge on November 08, 2011, 07:24:35 PM here're more things to consider to disable:
emoticons icons css styles js as it is not real information and therefor completely worthless and offtopic, just taking extra space and bandwith Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: SgtSpike on November 08, 2011, 07:27:54 PM here're more things to consider to disable: Good point. All you need is tables in a database format. Minimalism at its best!emoticons icons css styles js as it is not real information and therefor completely worthless and offtopic, just taking extra space and bandwith Heck, remove the links too - those just take up space. If you want to get somewhere, just type in the URL. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: btc_artist on November 08, 2011, 07:29:11 PM here're more things to consider to disable: Good point. All you need is tables in a database format. Minimalism at its best!emoticons icons css styles js as it is not real information and therefor completely worthless and offtopic, just taking extra space and bandwith Heck, remove the links too - those just take up space. If you want to get somewhere, just type in the URL. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: SgtSpike on November 08, 2011, 07:29:42 PM here're more things to consider to disable: Good point. All you need is tables in a database format. Minimalism at its best!emoticons icons css styles js as it is not real information and therefor completely worthless and offtopic, just taking extra space and bandwith Heck, remove the links too - those just take up space. If you want to get somewhere, just type in the URL. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: DeathAndTaxes on November 08, 2011, 07:30:42 PM Ultimately one will need to ban avatars also. Avatar will be the standard promotional spot if others aren't available.
BTW. I am auctioning off my Avatar for 2 BTC for 30 days. A steal if you notice how many posts I make. Hurry with inability to use banners this space will go fast. Note: I am only semi-kidding. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Serge on November 08, 2011, 07:33:45 PM bring back command prompt! 8)
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: BitcoinPorn on November 08, 2011, 07:35:03 PM Animated avatars are the worst. Also, I love how strong of an opinion everyone has at the moment when this topic has come up so many times yet I don't think I have ever seen this much activity about it.
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: btc_artist on November 08, 2011, 07:36:50 PM Ultimately one will need to ban avatars also. Avatar will be the standard promotional spot if others aren't available. You're kidding, but that has been going on at webmaster/seo forums for years.BTW. I am auctioning off my Avatar for 2 BTC for 30 days. A steal if you notice how many posts I make. Hurry with inability to use banners this space will go fast. Note: I am only semi-kidding. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: btc_artist on November 08, 2011, 07:37:30 PM Animated avatars are the worst. Also, I love how strong of an opinion everyone has at the moment when this topic has come up so many times yet I don't think I have ever seen this much activity about it. pot, kettle.Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: BitcoinPorn on November 08, 2011, 07:46:33 PM Animated avatars are the worst. Also, I love how strong of an opinion everyone has at the moment when this topic has come up so many times yet I don't think I have ever seen this much activity about it. pot, kettle.There are many other forums available with many posting options https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin:Community_portal .. and a lot of those are not hosted on MagicalTux's servers, so no fear of the whole Mt Gox controls everything situation I sometimes read about. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: btc_artist on November 08, 2011, 08:11:55 PM Fair enough.
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: greyhawk on November 08, 2011, 09:13:04 PM here're more things to consider to disable: Good point. All you need is tables in a database format. Minimalism at its best!emoticons icons css styles js as it is not real information and therefor completely worthless and offtopic, just taking extra space and bandwith Heck, remove the links too - those just take up space. If you want to get somewhere, just type in the URL. Youknowwhatelsewecouldgetridof?Whitespace. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: payb.tc on November 08, 2011, 09:17:41 PM anyone else think it's funny this policy is coming from the owner of the most bland bitcoin site ever (blockexplorer.com)?
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: mjcmurfy on November 08, 2011, 09:34:34 PM Also, I love how strong of an opinion everyone has at the moment when this topic has come up so many times yet I don't think I have ever seen this much activity about it. This is the first time I have heard anything about banning embedded images. I thought it was just about banning signature images. That in and of itself isn't too big of a deal, so I never felt the need to say much about it. Most find them annoying, and there are legitimate reasons for wanting to get rid of them, but it doesn't bother me nearly as much as total banning of all embedded external images. That is an insane policy unless the admins are willing to go the extra expense and provide local image storage. ... just people whining about censorship and democracy issues on a privately owned forum. I don't want to be part of ANY forum that does not listen to the wishes of its members, privately owned or not. The ideology of bitcoin is one of the rejection of centralized power structures that are inflexible to the wishes of those they rule over. If this forum is not willing to do so, then most of us will just join one that listens to them and bye-bye forum. Democracy still functions correctly on the nets at least. I personally like this forum, so I want to ensure that the admins make the correct decisions and have a thriving community that continues into the future. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Maged on November 08, 2011, 09:34:53 PM Yes, hosting the images is not worth the trouble. Definitely don't do that. That is impossible. The only way you can prevent people from linking dynamic images without local hosting is by whitelisting image upload sites where you trust that it is impossible to upload dynamic images.But there are many ways you can prevent the linking of dynamic images, and thus prevent cookie stuffing. In my mind, a forum is more useful when people can read through a guide with pictures without having to click on each image to display it individually. But I guess not everyone can look past the fractions-of-a-second lost when scrolling past an off-topic picture. ::) Agreed. The cookie stuffing exploit is real enough, though. It would be easy enough to add some Javascript to detect whether or not the resource loaded in the img src url is actually an image, and if not, then all users who have Javascript enabled would get a huge warning (and mods could easily see them and delete). eg: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3499941/javascript-check-if-img-src-is-valid http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3744266/how-can-i-test-if-a-url-is-a-valid-image-in-javascript Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: btc_artist on November 08, 2011, 09:38:01 PM Yes, hosting the images is not worth the trouble. Definitely don't do that. That is impossible. The only way you can prevent people from linking dynamic images without local hosting is by whitelisting image upload sites where you trust that it is impossible to upload dynamic images.But there are many ways you can prevent the linking of dynamic images, and thus prevent cookie stuffing. In my mind, a forum is more useful when people can read through a guide with pictures without having to click on each image to display it individually. But I guess not everyone can look past the fractions-of-a-second lost when scrolling past an off-topic picture. ::) Agreed. The cookie stuffing exploit is real enough, though. It would be easy enough to add some Javascript to detect whether or not the resource loaded in the img src url is actually an image, and if not, then all users who have Javascript enabled would get a huge warning (and mods could easily see them and delete). eg: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3499941/javascript-check-if-img-src-is-valid http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3744266/how-can-i-test-if-a-url-is-a-valid-image-in-javascript Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Transisto on November 08, 2011, 11:55:17 PM Does not take a genius to figure out what's annoying and what isn't.
Smaller SIG and no animated avatar seems the best cut-off. Sorry btcPorn NOT OK http://gifsoup.com/view/479884/kiwi-a.gif(520 KB) !!! https://i.imgur.com/G5cGS.png http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/2710867040_9fe1213a05_o.gif http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1661445/D7.png http://00000.bplaced.net/bcd/Banner2SmallBorder.gif http://i.picasion.com/pic46/06eb4dda99dbe5d26e3a865c77972fb4.gif Borderline https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=4066;type=avatar OK http://btcstats.net/sig/WC9aPg2 http://www.bitcointorrentz.com/images/bct_button_117_30.png https://i.imgur.com/nU028.png Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: BitcoinPorn on November 09, 2011, 12:17:22 AM Does not take a genius to figure out what's annoying and what isn't. Smaller SIG and no animated avatar seems the best cut-off. Sorry btcPorn Don't be sorry to me, be sorry to yourself for not "voting" every time this topic has come up and even I am happy either with no sigs or regulated sigs. Hell, I am a fan of everyone signatures being EXACTLY the same in design.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=24367.0 back from June. I still stand by that would be a cool idea too. Fuck all other things in everyones signature, just a btc address. Animated avatar I could care less about, it is funny how two frames of animation that end up being less in size than one jpeg image most people use, but that is beside the point. Oh wait, no it isn't :p Always felt sig sizes should just be sort of standard ad sizes. 468x60 or something around that I think. Other people prefer sig bar size. I like those too. theymos, is the further discussion on this topic done or are you kind of reading through some of the posts here to catch any actual usable ideas? I don't want to be part of ANY forum that does not listen to the wishes of its members, privately owned or not. The ideology of bitcoin is one of the rejection of centralized power structures that are inflexible to the wishes of those they rule over. If this forum is not willing to do so, then most of us will just join one that listens to them and bye-bye forum. :D :D :D :D :D :D empty threats. No one leaves here for good. Even the ones that did still lurk lol Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: BitMagic on November 09, 2011, 12:49:16 AM Youknowwhatelsewecouldgetridof?Whitespace. W cld rmv ll vwls. tht mght b fn. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: imsaguy on November 09, 2011, 12:59:49 AM Youknowwhatelsewecouldgetridof?Whitespace. W cld rmv ll vwls. tht mght b fn. Trolling much? That always gets you what you want. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: BTCurious on November 09, 2011, 01:25:13 AM Youknowwhatelsewecouldgetridof?Whitespace. W cld rmv ll vwls. tht mght b fn. Trolling much? That always gets you what you want. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: mjcmurfy on November 09, 2011, 01:46:21 AM e eoe a ooa (lets remove all consonants)
I know I'm being facetious, but it's fun. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: BTCurious on November 09, 2011, 01:50:29 AM Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 01:58:38 AM www.no_more_stupid_links.wtf (http://www.no_more_stupid_links.wtf)
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: mjcmurfy on November 09, 2011, 02:41:39 AM I don't want to be part of ANY forum that does not listen to the wishes of its members, privately owned or not. The ideology of bitcoin is one of the rejection of centralized power structures that are inflexible to the wishes of those they rule over. If this forum is not willing to do so, then most of us will just join one that listens to them and bye-bye forum. :D :D :D :D :D :D empty threats. No one leaves here for good. Even the ones that did still lurk lol Not over the space of a few months, but time answers all questions. I want the admins here to get the answer right. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: theymos on November 09, 2011, 04:20:45 AM Quote from: mjcmurfy So the best way to ensure ideas can be expressed effectively is to ban any form of imagery and limit people's means of communication to text only? This is broken logic. You're not limited to text. You can easily include a direct link to an image, and readers can access the image with a single click. It's not a huge barrier. Quote from: mjcmurfy How can you judge their worth anyway? With links instead of embedded images, readers will judge the worth of images before clicking on them. Quote from: mjcmurfy But there are many ways you can prevent the linking of dynamic images, and thus prevent cookie stuffing. Either the forum needs to check and recheck images constantly, which is expensive, or client-side code needs to be used to prevent large images, which might not work for all users. I don't find either of these solutions acceptable. Quote from: mjcmurfy They do NOT use up any of this server's bandwidth. Are you kidding me? The request is not sent from this server, it is sent from the users viewing the images - using up the bandwidth the image is hosted on, not bitcointalk's bandwidth. Obviously I was talking about the bandwidth of readers... Quote from: mjcmurfy Turn down the fidelity of your browser's error reporting if it's a problem for you. All major browsers will do something different when viewing pages with mixed content. On Firefox and recent versions of IE the URL bar changes color. On older versions of IE a dialog box popped up on every such page. Quote from: mjcmurfy Why not hold a vote on the issue to find out how correct your assumptions are? I know that my security concerns are justified. A vote would determine only what the majority of current users want, which is not very important. It's easy for the majority to be wrong. These forums don't need to become 4chan just to allow photos, and what kind of an admin can't restrict sizes? I like 4chan. On 4chan, every image is hosted locally, so there are no security problems, and each image is the same, small size until you click on it. I want to do the same thing here, but without the thumbnail (since this is not an imageboard and images are not the central focus). Fine. Fair point. So make sig images turned off by default, but let people turn them on if they choose! What you are proposing removes all choice entirely from the user. You are doing the very opposite of providing "freedom and choice" which you ironically use as justification for limiting those very things. I'm fine with that: SMF doesn't support this. If it did, I would definitely allow the option of showing signature images. I'd add it now if I could figure out how to add a new user setting in a reasonable amount of time. Quote from: evoorhees If you remove images there is a great "unknown" cost... all the good information that otherwise would've been conveyed, yet nobody will ever know about it or account for it. I'm getting rid of embedded images. Not images entirely. If you like images, you can click the image links. This works very well on IRC, 4chan, and the other sites/systems I mentioned previously. Someone might not care about another user's mining stats, but what about an image that shows how many donations a charity has recieved? It would be far down on my list of things to do, but I wouldn't be opposed to having the server fetch a small text file every once in a while to display in signatures/posts. Bottom line: Allow signature images-- if I don't like them, I can add a greasemonkey user script to hide them in literally 30 seconds. Like I said before, I think it's a better policy to assume that people don't want images. You can write a GreaseMonkey script to expand all directly-linked images in a few minutes, too. here're more things to consider to disable: emoticons icons css styles js as it is not real information and therefor completely worthless and offtopic, just taking extra space and bandwith Emoticons probably will be eliminated with the next software. Images in the layout will be reduced. The other things are used to attractively structure data and create features. Even Bitcoin Block Explorer uses CSS and JavaScript. I find avatars to be useful in quickly identifying posters, so I'm almost never annoyed by those. You can also disable seeing them in your settings. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: ineededausername on November 09, 2011, 04:55:32 AM Hi theymos, thanks for the easily exploitable quote :)
SIGGED Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: theymos on November 09, 2011, 04:59:55 AM Hi theymos, thanks for the easily exploitable quote :) SIGGED I first found Bitcoin on 4chan, so I especially like 4chan. ;) Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: mjcmurfy on November 09, 2011, 05:24:37 AM Quote from: mjcmurfy So the best way to ensure ideas can be expressed effectively is to ban any form of imagery and limit people's means of communication to text only? This is broken logic. You're not limited to text. You can easily include a direct link to an image, and readers can access the image with a single click. It's not a huge barrier. Why not write a server side script that would allow users to input ad-hoc an external image link, it would then be tested for various properties (i.e. the size of the file, whether it is a valid image file, whether it is a dynamically generated image, whether it obeys the dimension restrictions) and if the image passed the criteria, permission would be given to the post parser to display the embedded image. If not, then the image would not be embedded. Either the forum needs to check and recheck images constantly, which is expensive, or client-side code needs to be used to prevent large images, which might not work for all users. I don't find either of these solutions acceptable. Validated images could potentially be replaced with something else later, necessitating continuous checking - granted, but you just need a database table that keeps track of validated images that the parser can re-query at runtime. If the image has been modified, the image 'hash' would be different and the image would have to be reverified manually by the poster else it would not be displayed, and no further checking would be done until the OP revalidated the image. You wouldn't have to do this image hash checking each time the thread is loaded, you could just set up a daily cron that would reverify a certain % of the embedded external images table. Maybe have it so that each image is checked once every 2 days or so, or spread it out slowly over a period of time. You could make it a quite efficient process that would not require that much by way of server resources. We have gotten pretty good at driving down the cost of hashing power, have we not? And it would seem that it would be better in terms of resource usage than actually storing the images, using up potentially huge amounts of disk space and a heckuva lot of bandwidth - simply to ensure their integrity. This way requires no additional disk space and much lower bandwidth costs as the server only has to download the image once every two days, instead of uploading it hundreds of times per day to individual users. Quote from: mjcmurfy They do NOT use up any of this server's bandwidth. Are you kidding me? The request is not sent from this server, it is sent from the users viewing the images - using up the bandwidth the image is hosted on, not bitcointalk's bandwidth. Obviously I was talking about the bandwidth of readers... Then why were you using it as justification for getting rid of embedded images? It is trivial in comparison to the cumulative bandwidth that delivering locally stored images would clock up. And why should the operators of the forum care about how much bandwidth a few images take up on the end-users side? If you watch a single youtube video, I'd imagine it would still account for more bandwidth use than a week's worth of surfing this forum. Quote from: mjcmurfy Why not hold a vote on the issue to find out how correct your assumptions are? I know that my security concerns are justified. A vote would determine only what the majority of current users want, which is not very important. It's easy for the majority to be wrong. Yes, they are of course justified. It is just the conclusions you are drawing that I have questions about. We don't need to crack this walnut with a sledgehammer. There are workarounds that can be put in place. Your lack of respect for what the users of the forum think is quite cynical and arrogant. At the end of the day, you have to keep your members on side, as they are the ones that produce all of the content and make this forum what it is. Telling them directly that what they think is not important is a highly presumptuous move for you. People remember statements like that. Yes it's easy for the majority to be wrong, but it's even easier for a single individual to be wrong. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: imsaguy on November 09, 2011, 06:46:33 AM Why not write a server side script that would allow users to input ad-hoc an external image link, it would then be tested for various properties (i.e. the size of the file, whether it is a valid image file, whether it is a dynamically generated image, whether it obeys the dimension restrictions) and if the image passed the criteria, permission would be given to the post parser to display the embedded image. If not, then the image would not be embedded. When the images are external, the image itself can always be replaced later. So just because it passes today or tomorrow, in 3 days, I could keep the same image url, but the image itself is different. The only solution is local images or no images. Otherwise, there truly is no guarantee. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: mjcmurfy on November 09, 2011, 06:52:21 AM Why not write a server side script that would allow users to input ad-hoc an external image link, it would then be tested for various properties (i.e. the size of the file, whether it is a valid image file, whether it is a dynamically generated image, whether it obeys the dimension restrictions) and if the image passed the criteria, permission would be given to the post parser to display the embedded image. If not, then the image would not be embedded. When the images are external, the image itself can always be replaced later. So just because it passes today or tomorrow, in 3 days, I could keep the same image url, but the image itself is different. The only solution is local images or no images. Otherwise, there truly is no guarantee. I'm aware of that. Read the second part of my post again. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: DeathAndTaxes on November 09, 2011, 06:52:45 AM When the images are external, the image itself can always be replaced later. So just because it passes today or tomorrow, in 3 days, I could keep the same image url, but the image itself is different. The only solution is local images or no images. Otherwise, there truly is no guarantee. Exactly. Sadly it looks like the forum is going back into circa 1980s text only BBS but all these complicated schemes to validated and revalidated are dumb. Either you host images locally or don't bother trying to do anything else because odds are no scheme is going to stop a determined hacker. Given how easy it is to host images locally it simply doesn't make sense trying to make the "problem" more complicated only to have it be a token security measure. Three options 1) No images 2) Locally cache images 3) Accept that you may be attacked Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: mjcmurfy on November 09, 2011, 07:02:15 AM ... all these complicated schemes to validated and revalidated are dumb. Really? Why are you involved in bitcoin again? It's not that complicated. Three options 1) No images 2) Locally cache images 3) Accept that you may be attacked Let me expand on that: 1) No images 2) Figure out a way of solving the problem and save server costs 3) Locally cache images 4) Do nothing and accept that you may be attacked Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: BTCurious on November 09, 2011, 10:53:00 AM I know no one is going to care about me, but I'm going to look for a different forum. This is ridiculous. 4chan has thumbnails (which I always expand using javascript anyway), and reddit/IRC/everything2 are only popular with nerds for a reason.
The only good solution I've heard to this… "whim", is to have a checkbox to turn on or off embedded images. If they were turned off, they would be automatically turned into a link. But this suggestion is being completely ignored. There is no such thing as the perfect forum, you should be looking for the perfect forums. (http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_09_06_a_ketchup.html) This non-issue is being solved with a sledge-hammer. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: SgtSpike on November 09, 2011, 04:53:05 PM I can't wait until we have enough people at bitcoinforums.net that we can have proper discussions there, and get away from this forum. Hopefully, theymos pushing away users from this forum with this new image scheme will make that happen.
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Maged on November 09, 2011, 04:57:38 PM Why not write a server side script that would allow users to input ad-hoc an external image link, it would then be tested for various properties (i.e. the size of the file, whether it is a valid image file, whether it is a dynamically generated image, whether it obeys the dimension restrictions) and if the image passed the criteria, permission would be given to the post parser to display the embedded image. If not, then the image would not be embedded. When the images are external, the image itself can always be replaced later. So just because it passes today or tomorrow, in 3 days, I could keep the same image url, but the image itself is different. The only solution is local images or no images. Otherwise, there truly is no guarantee. I'm aware of that. Read the second part of my post again. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: btc_artist on November 09, 2011, 06:05:48 PM Like I said before, I think it's a better policy to assume that people don't want images. From a pure usability and UX standpoint, the best policy would be to assume that people DO want images, perhaps clickable thumbnails that show the full image in a lightbox.On the other hand, this is a privately owned website, and the owners are free to do as they please. :) As for dealing with security issues (cookie stuffing and CSRF), simply host all images locally and have stringent checks to validate them as clean image files. That's a no-brainer for me. EDIT: IMO, sig images are a distraction to useful discussion, but embedded images in posts can be very helpful to discussion. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Bitsky on November 09, 2011, 06:15:14 PM - add column "showsigimg" to database and default it to 0
- add checkbox "Don't show images in users' signatures" under "Look and Layout Preferences" - mod source to toggle showsigimg depending on checkbox state - mod source to add <style type="text/css">.signature img {display: none;}</style> into head section if showsigimg==1 Problem solved. Thanks to btc_novice for starting this idea. My goal is to make the best Bitcoin forum possible, not to appeal to current users. If users are not appealed, then this won't be the best forum possible. Simple as that. You can have the greatest product in the universe, but if nobody wants it, you're fubar'ed. See Betamax.Seriously, this should be rather trivial and doesn't really deserve all this drama. Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: btc_artist on November 09, 2011, 06:17:11 PM Seriously, this should be rather trivial and doesn't really deserve all this drama. Yup.Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: BitMagic on November 09, 2011, 06:32:57 PM Youknowwhatelsewecouldgetridof?Whitespace. W cld rmv ll vwls. tht mght b fn. Trolling much? That always gets you what you want. No, it's called continued satire to show the ridiculousness of this whole ordeal. Sometimes a comical response has more of a point than to piss off other posters. http://www.tacomaworld.com/gallery/data/500/demotivational-posters-come-at-me-bro.jpg Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Graet on November 29, 2011, 01:27:26 AM what is happening with this?
It seems rather discriminatory that some pools can use sig images still while others are blocked. and when will the avatar pool images be blocked? or are they ok? or are these forums not about fairness? it is one thing to deal with the trolls and the crap that comes from them, but when the administration stops being fair to all participants.... maybe it is time to move to a forum that is more consistent in its admin... either do the job properly or allow the free for all that there was previously.... Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: cablepair on November 29, 2011, 03:03:04 AM its not that they are blocking one and not another
the way it works is as soon as you change your signature it starts to blocks images so the people who still have images in their signature means they have not changed it since before the new rules Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Matthew N. Wright on November 29, 2011, 03:15:53 AM Result: Some people have images, some don't. its not that they are blocking one and not another ??? Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: AniceInovation on December 24, 2011, 02:12:48 PM Is this change definitive or you're looking to fix it?
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: tysat on June 14, 2012, 03:15:57 PM This new policy seems to be more about the mods' personal tastes than the demands of the community. ...yes, this "new" policy from November of last year... Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: cryptoanarchist on June 14, 2012, 05:02:48 PM This new policy seems to be more about the mods' personal tastes than the demands of the community. ...yes, this "new" policy from November of last year... oops...I don't know how I ended up on this thread. I seem to remember it was like it was the third or fourth down in the 'meta' forum when I clicked on it. sorry Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: iCEBREAKER on July 13, 2012, 06:47:48 PM looks like the forum is going back into circa 1980s text only BBS but all these complicated schemes to validated and revalidated are dumb. Three options 1) No images 2) Locally cache images 3) Accept that you may be attacked I <3 txt only 80s BBSes!!!1 And so: Option 4) Can I allowed for putting big ANSi arts in my sig? 8^P Code:
Title: Re: No more signature images Post by: Bitcoin Oz on July 14, 2012, 03:46:01 AM Someone needs to create ascii banners for advertisers :)
|
