TALK[img] - Question / proposal to update images in certain locked threads

[Timelord2067]

This is an abstract kind of question so I am directing it in a separate thread so that it doesn't distract from the mammoth task @joker_josue and @TryNinja are undertaking to preserve legacy images that had been uploaded to third party websites and used on the Forum.

If I've missed any threads, please let me know.

TalkImg.com - Image hosting for BitcoinTalk
[Script] Imgur to TalkImg - automatically fix your broken images
[Script] Fix broken Imgur images forum-wide (client only)

Known alts of anyone: User generated (Mk I - 2015 to 2016)
[User Generated] - Known alts of anyone  (Mk II - 2016 - 2017)
Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List Mk III (2017 - 2022)
Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List ^{Mk IV} (2022 - ongoing)

[BPIP] Bitcointalk Public Information Project [Back in Action]


A week ago, joker_josue created a thread to announce their TALKimg.com website - the aim of which is to enable users to upload images that will be still viewed many years/permanently into the future.

Inspired by their work, TryNinja has created a script to port legacy images hosted by third party websites onto the TALKimg.com website thus preserving them.

I've had a look through my own threads that I have created (~60 in all) and found at least a dozen were locked that contained images that I would like preserved and so I have unlocked them whilst I am in the process of porting the images from one hosting site to another.  I've unlocked all of my threads whilst I am carrying this out and will then re-lock them once I am done.

This got me to thinking.  In the case of the other contributors to the Known Alts threads that I *can't* unlock?

The BPIP.org website offers a script which in part enables users to copy text that is contained within locked threads:

If a dummy UID were created by @theymos , posts from any locked threads could be quoted, posted to a thread in an obscure part of the forum (e.g. "archive" so as to avoid anyone seeing the post and replying), the images are ported and the post "edited" (or not) then the post is deleted thereby not skewering anyone's posts counts.  Once the locked thread's legacy images have been ported to the talkimg.com hosting site, a PM is generated requesting the links be changed to the updated links which I imagine could also be done automatically via a dedicated UID that receives the notification and has admin privileges to unlock, modify, then lock the threads again.

I'm sure there are other threads whose images need preserving, so this would enable those threads to be freshened up but still remain locked.

Admins already have the ability to merge (or split) posts of others, so it is not like a bot couldn't just sweep said threads (or indeed the entire forum) in the background.

Thanks for reading / replying.

[1714023023]

1714023023

[1714023023]

1714023023

[1714023023]

1714023023

[1714023023]

1714023023

[joker_josue]

But in your opinion, who would do this work, the creator of the topic or third parties?

The doubt that came to me, because of another idea, is whether it really will be considered a violation of privacy to edit (via forum or via BD) a post by someone, without their authorization.

We have to think carefully about this, because although a user does not appear on the forum for years, he may appear and not like to see that his post has been edited without him knowing.

[robelneo]

But in your opinion, who would do this work, the creator of the topic or third parties?

Admin can delegate one of the staff to do this if the creator of the thread is not active anymore, if the thread was locked by the moderator the creator cannot edit it.

The doubt that came to me, because of another idea, is whether it really will be considered a violation of privacy to edit (via forum or via BD) a post by someone, without their authorization.

Not at all, in this case, the admin has the privilege to edit everything, all authorization emanates from the Administrator, those threads are useless and unreadable if those images cannot be upgraded

We have to think carefully about this, because although a user does not appear on the forum for years, he may appear and not like to see that his post has been edited without him knowing.

I don't know about Theymo's take on this if I am the forum admin if there's one section that needs to be fixed I'll proceed to do it or delegate someone to do this, it's my forum I see to it that every section and functionalities of the forum are all working to the benefits of all the users.

I support Timelord on this request.

[Timelord2067]

With the urgency by not just joker_josue and TryNinja to port legacy images off of third party servers before they are removed, others such as @LoyceV are also downloading en-masse the entire archive of legacy images either to talkimg.com or other unspecified backup sites.

The question then is how do they propose to update the links to those images they have spent the last ten or so days methodically downloading to make available for others?  Scripts can only have so much reach - especially if the images are removed by the host site.

From recollection, posts can be edited in the back end via the SQL databases without there being any indication on a thread page.  The same is true for the handful of trust-feedbacks that have been removed through intervention that I am aware of where e.g. DOXing has occurred, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that an admin/mod could intervene via unlock, edit, lock.

My thoughts above would be more along the lines of a request is made to have a relevant but locked thread's image's links updated to talkimg.com - more than likely they would unlock the thread, run the code and then re-lock the thread.  In my model, even without the thread being unlocked *anyone* with the code could run it on a locked thread with the "report" being sent to a bot-UID that would upon receipt of the relevant information (perhaps an accompanying token to ensure no malicious intervention were occurring) run it's own code to then unlock, update the links and then re-lock the thread.

Locked threads from (in my own case, the Known Alts threads) to the Pumpkin Carving competitions are viewed by others - some threads are locked, some aren't.  But, you're not going to get each and every person coming back online years later to update their threads.  Hopefully my suggestion gets some traction and is acted upon.

[Not your key not your BTC]

TalkImg.com - Image hosting for BitcoinTalk
[Script] Imgur to TalkImg - automatically fix your broken images
[Script] Fix broken Imgur images forum-wide (client only)

Those thread shouldn't in meta but on project development board like BPIP

[LoyceV]

With the urgency by not just joker_josue and TryNinja to port legacy images off of third party servers before they are removed, others such as @LoyceV are also downloading en-masse the entire archive of legacy images either to talkimg.com or other unspecified backup sites.

It's currently only on my server. If anyone wants to download it: just ask.

The question then is how do they propose to update the links to those images they have spent the last ten or so days methodically downloading to make available for others?  Scripts can only have so much reach - especially if the images are removed by the host site.

I'm currently working on one .zip per userID.

[yhiaali3]

We have to think carefully about this, because although a user does not appear on the forum for years, he may appear and not like to see that his post has been edited without him knowing.

I don't know about Theymo's take on this if I am the forum admin if there's one section that needs to be fixed I'll proceed to do it or delegate someone to do this, it's my forum I see to it that every section and functionalities of the forum are all working to the benefits of all the users.

I support Timelord on this request.

Yes, the forum administrator has the right to maintain the forum and make it work optimally, but I understand joker_josue's point of view that modifying images without members' consent is a kind of privacy violation.

The point of contention is that some members may reject the idea of anyone modifying their topics without their knowledge or consent, and others may find this a violation of privacy even if it is just a matter of modifying broken image links.

[joker_josue]

Yes, the forum administrator has the right to maintain the forum and make it work optimally, but I understand joker_josue's point of view that modifying images without members' consent is a kind of privacy violation.

The point of contention is that some members may reject the idea of anyone modifying their topics without their knowledge or consent, and others may find this a violation of privacy even if it is just a matter of modifying broken image links.

I am not against the idea of fixing images that are broken.

But the situation must be analyzed. It's one thing for a moderator to edit and leave an informational note about the edit. Another is a change in the BD, which doesn't make any information visible to the public (it can, but it's more complicated). If edited for that, what guarantee do we have that it's not edited for other things?

I agree with correcting these images if possible. Anyway, I am raising these questions for us to analyze together.

[LoyceV]

Another is a change in the BD, which doesn't make any information visible to the public (it can, but it's more complicated). If edited for that

A user settings: "try to fix broken images: yes/no" would be nice, but I guess that's less likely to be implemented than just changing the URL from the image proxy.

what guarantee do we have that it's not edited for other things?

Admin can already edit anything he wants

[joker_josue]

what guarantee do we have that it's not edited for other things?

Admin can already edit anything he wants

Yes I know.
Everything in the database can be edited by the admin. I'm not concerned about that.

But I don't think this has ever been done, by the administration, editing the posts via BD.
My question is whether doing this will not break trust, which has never been done before.

[vapourminer]

Yes, the forum administrator has the right to maintain the forum and make it work optimally, but I understand joker_josue's point of view that modifying images without members' consent is a kind of privacy violation.

The point of contention is that some members may reject the idea of anyone modifying their topics without their knowledge or consent, and others may find this a violation of privacy even if it is just a matter of modifying broken image links.

I am not against the idea of fixing images that are broken.

But the situation must be analyzed. It's one thing for a moderator to edit and leave an informational note about the edit. Another is a change in the BD, which doesn't make any information visible to the public (it can, but it's more complicated). If edited for that, what guarantee do we have that it's not edited for other things?

I agree with correcting these images if possible. Anyway, I am raising these questions for us to analyze together.

perhaps add "an automated process has changed the urls of n images from imjur to talkimg on date" or some such to the bottom of each edited post. is that possible?

cant speak for others obviously and i personally dont mind the edit; forum can do whatever it wants. i would just like it noted somewhere.. seems its the polite thing to do.

[RickDeckard]

perhaps add "an automated process has changed the urls of n images from imjur to talkimg on date" or some such to the bottom of each edited post. is that possible?

cant speak for others obviously and i personally dont mind the edit; forum can do whatever it wants. i would just like it noted somewhere.. seems its the polite thing to do.

I tend to agree with this concept. From my perspective, if I happen to disappear from this forum or something happens to the content of my posts in a time where I'm no longer here and assuming that the images posted by myself end up broken, then the whole message within my reply/post will be lost in translation for anyone who reads them. In that case I wouldn't mind if someone edited my post and replaced the image to its original posting state in a way to preserve my chain of ideas. While I totally understand the privacy side, I can't be the only one that gets frustrated whenever a particular image attached to a reply is no longer visible and the user specifically uses it to sustain his/her post.