| 4:51 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Based on the extra bandwidth needed I would slightly tend to say no to images. But if they are allowed, then only by uploading them to the server. Because nothing is so irritating as reading old threads with images where links are broken or worse, the image content on an external server has changed.
| 4:55 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I agree, if images are allowed then they need to be via uploads only. This will add to the storage requirements of WebmasterWorld.
Also, this adds a bit more burden to moderation, as images would need to be checked for "inappropriate" images.
| 4:57 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No Images please... keep the site fast.
| 5:03 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
If images are added, then I would also suggest another item in preferences to allow users to turn off images.
| 5:03 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
You could address the speed/bandwidth issue to some dgree by simply linking to them. Another option would be to make it a user preference in the control panel with the default being a link. Most forum software uses a thumbnail anyway.
As the saying goes an image is worth a thousand words, often when I'm looking at video questions I could explain something with an image that may otherwise never be clear even after a lengthy explanation.
| 5:05 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No, because people are not as clever as they think. Even me. And for all of the reasons above.
| 5:09 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No images. Please. Every forum I've operated where images were allowed has gone south. All have recovered by turning them off.
| 9:15 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
NOT an image fan.
| 6:16 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Every time i write an instruction for my staff i use 2-3 images. every image saves me 10 minutes of writing. i vote for images in the posts.
| 6:21 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No, no, no.
1) This would be opening the door for yet another hotlinking site.
2) This would clutter up the message boards. Have a look at other forums allowing images. Gosh. How much more ugly can a forum get?
3) Speed considerations. A fast site that can be even read over a slow link is much better than a site stuffed with (useless?) images.
I would rather have the members express themselves in their own words.
So, no, I would not change this rule.
| 7:45 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Well, i saw another post asking to allow links.
Maybe allowing links solve the issue, when a member feel he really need to show an image he can put its link.
| 8:48 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Every time i write an instruction for my staff i use 2-3 images. every image saves me 10 minutes of writing. i vote for images in the posts. |
@russiandesigners... welcome to webmasterworld by the way!... if you need pics to tell your staff what to do, and can't get it done is 40 words or less, and avoid 20 to 30 minutes of your time, might suggest a different biz plan. No disrespect, just a heads up fact of life.
Above is 52 words (give or take) done in 1 minute.
No pictures required. :)
| 9:10 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
if you need pics to tell your staff what to do, and can't get it done is 40 words or less,
Depends on what they are being told to do. There are some activities where pictures make a lot more sense. I use a lot of screen shots in any instructional documents.
| 9:11 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
If an image speaks a thousand words, then even useful images are going to make it far harder to find information on WebmasterWorld unless a rigorous tagging or 'alt' system is introduced.
| 9:33 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Despite the current policy I can see times when an image might add to the discussion. I don't think I would be a fan of in-line images being allowed. I might be happier with a link to a WebmasterWorld hosted image that I know would remain in perpetuity.
| 9:58 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
There are plenty of free image hosting websites, and you can always link to an image if it adds value to a thread. But inline images - no, thank you.
| 10:00 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Images would be great but no one stays on topic with them.
| 10:15 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Due to the increased bandwidth costs and potential for abuse involved, perhaps images should be a supporters only feature.
| 12:25 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
no to images - unless you are going to spend a lot of time moderating them, not for inappropriateness but for stolen images ... i feel that it would reflect badly on a professional forum.
i also feel the image issue is connected to the outgoing links issue, it is also in the spirit of the web that you should link to content not copy it, so if links are allowed then the page an image is on should be linked to, rather than the image be uploaded to the WebmasterWorld server.
so: No to images
Yes to linking to images
| 12:41 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
perhaps only in the html/css forums where people are trying to show what they want and what is currently happening.
but generally, I'll put in a big no vote on images. You lose control over the look and feel of your site. Just my .02
| 12:52 pm on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
no to images