topic icons
-
@anonymous said:
You still haven't told us what your going to do about deleted images?
Is this a major concern? As most of them are blank or placeholders that are being replaced with thumbnails, is that even something to worry about. What if we do nothing and images get deleted, is that actually a problem?
Long term I'm sure the solution is having images in a single source like the avatars are uploaded images are.
But I'm confused as to what you are worried about. I can't address your concern without knowing what it is. Currently you are saying that you dislike having the thumbnails, but your concern is that they might then go away? Wouldn't that then be an improvement for you?
-
@anonymous said:
Seems like a a lot of work to be updating images all the time.
Why would we....
- Have them disappear with any frequency?
- Need to update them if they did?
-
The thumbnails have never been used with any frequency in the past, I'm not even sure how long ago they were added to the platform (more than a year, I am pretty sure) and so I am totally open to them not having value but I would need more information as so far, I've not had anyone, until now, state that they weren't a benefit to the community (or as one person said, he didn't even see them with the way that he uses it.)
For me, they are great. The site feels like it looks better and the threads are more identifiable. They were basically blank before much of the time.
I can see some minor pros to having them. The only con that I know of is the performance issue.
If everyone had an avatar set up, I would see where always seeing who was posting might be beneficial, but as so few do, that seems to be moot.
I'm not aware of what negative value is coming from them so I'm unclear how to evaluate the concern around usability.
-
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Because it's not a logical way to run a community at scale.
Spiceworks Does.
Webroot Does.
VMware Does.
Xen Orchestra Does.
Sophos Does.I am finding it hard to find a community that doesn't.
SW also does their own hosting and spends seven figures to do so.
What's the reason why not to? You are avoiding the issues.
-
@anonymous said:
It's feel all over the place. It's too much to look at. It was nice a simply before. I like simply
How is it any different than with the user avatars? I don't know that there is any setting to disable all graphics. that would be nice as a setting, but given that I think you have to either see the avatar or the topic thumbnail on any given thread, it seems to be a draw from that angle.
-
@anonymous said:
I am finding it hard to find a community that doesn't.
Every community on NodeBB does, because that's the code base making it happen. Even those that offer their own hosting also offer non-hosted images too. Every site using Gravatar is not hosting their own. How many don't use Gravatar? SW is unique and older, in that regards, predating Gravatar.
-
I agree no animated ones.
-
It's up to people not to put animated ones there. People put up their own thumbnails too, it's not centralized (hence the reference page to make it easy for people.)
Although I did put up one animated ones for one of my threads and it was the ONLY specific one to get positive feedback specifically about it
-
Has anyone tried using the thumbnails to find a thread? I have and I feel like it makes it so much faster as you can look in "recent" and see what the general topic is at a glance without having to read the title. Maybe I'm more graphically driven than most people for recognition but it makes it far easier for me to identify topics at a glance.
-
This post is deleted! -
@anonymous said:
I am? You still didn't answer who pays the costs of running the community.
Ah, but you didn't ask that and I asked why it would matter. You asked who paid for the bandwidth and where it was hosted, both of which I answered and asked you why it mattered.
Of course GS pays for the community. Now, why are you asking?
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You are avoiding the issues.
Yes. You are trying to beat around the bush and not addressing whatever your concern is. You said that you don't like it but haven't said why. You haven't said what the improved alternative is or why you assume problems. You are holding back something that you want to complain about or something that you feel is an issue and looking at things that aren't issues. Like you are concerned about image maintenance, but you don't state why that is an issue. Are you expecting to have to maintain images? Why? Are you expecting images to go away? Why?
It's like you have something to say but are trying to talk everyone out of using thumbnails without actually saying why you dislike them.
-
This post is deleted! -
@anonymous said:
Because your whole theory that your GS isn't liable for the misuse of images doesn't make any since.
I stated a theory? Where and what was it?
-
This post is deleted! -
@anonymous said:
How far are you willing to take that theory? If someone posted a copyrighted movie would you not be liable because it wasn't stored on the server?
While I stated no theory, that is correct. The liability is with the host, not the linkage. If you post a YouTube video here and it has copyrighted content, the takedown notice goes to YouTube, not to the millions of sites where people may or may not link to it.
But that's not something I said, nor something we discussed in any way, nor is it of concern to the community members.
However, what is of concern, is if you don't link to it and actually upload it. Then it becomes your liability for sure.
Do you have a theory that if you actually host pirated content you are not liable but directing people to find it elsewhere you are?
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It's not GroveSocial using them. It's a community forum.
Here.
That's who is putting up the thumbnails. You think that me stating the GS is not making a thumbnail system is a theory about IP copyright liability?
