topic icons
-
@anonymous said:
IMHO it was better without the topic Images.
What do you dislike about topic thumbnails? Do you feel that seeing OP avatars is more valuable as a graphical references than having something related to the topic? Considering many people, such as yourself, do not have an avatar isn't anything better than the useless, blank graphic that often shows up?
I'm assuming you dislike all graphics on the site completely as you dislike the topical ones and avoid the user ones?
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
ML hosts "no" images at all (favicon, logo and a few miscellaneous exceptions.) Not the avatars, nothing. Not even when you upload an image.
Yes, but why?
Because it's not a logical way to run a community at scale. The ability to host images well requires a CDN designed for that. That's not what we do and never will be. Just like anything, get good hosting from those that do it well. Same reason that you wouldn't host your own DNS or WordPress site - there is no value to it. It costs a lot for something that is basically free from other means and no matter how much you put into it you can't do it as well.
There are lots of reasons not to host images, why would you want to even go down that path? What upside do you see to the community running its own image hosting framework and CDN system?
I assume you also feel that using a third party email system is not a good idea and that the community needs to build in its own MTA?
-
@anonymous said:
Who server is it hosted on? Who pays for the bandwidth?
Not generally relevant in this sort of scenario. It is community content. Hosted on Rackspace's servers.
-
Or do you mean where are the images hosted? Because the images are not hosted with the community. The images are nearly all hosted by Gravatar (WordPress) and Imgur.
-
The bandwidth for the avatars, for example, is paid for by Wordpress (or whatever their company's name is.)
-
This post is deleted! -
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The bandwidth for the avatars, for example, is paid for by Wordpress (or whatever their company's name is.)
Automattic
Right, I knew that it was something along those lines. A bit of a silly name, no connection to what they do and not clear who they are.
-
Now if the thumbnails are causing performance issues, that needs to be addressed, of course. But there are no more or fewer images now that before and no different functionality than before. It's just that many recent topics have the thumbnails filled in and many old ones do not. But in all cases an image from an external source, normally Automattic, are displayed.
-
This post is deleted! -
@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.
