September 07, 2005

• Broadband here. When my job makes me test dial-up on someone's computer...well it just sort of makes me feel ill.
• Currently at school, so broadband. However back at home, we're running on 28.8kbps dialup. Phonelines can't handle anymore, and everything else hasn't reached rural nova scotia, or is out of our price range.
• Broadband. I'd still be on dial up if people could code effeciently and not weigh down their pages with bandwidth sucking graphic crapola. It seems there's been an unwritten conspiracy to forget about dialup users. That said, there are still pages that take freakin' forever to load and I've got cable BB which is reputed to be zippy. On top of everything, I was forced to get Cable TV as well, as the rate from Comcast was extortionate without the add on. On the plus side, I can now see the Daily Show. On the minus side I still catch chilling glimpses of Greta Van Sustern, Bill O'Reilly, Tucker Carlson, Nancy Grace and other nausea inducing "personalities" as I speed through the channels. But I see, I've digressed...
• Douggles: Some of us live in the depths of the wilderness. No DSL availabooble. We chortle and hoot everytime we're able to connect to the outside world. Dial up only. So my Flying Monkeys, keep using that img tag, 'cause I lubs it, just post witty ittty bitty size pictures so you don't gag my machine.
• At 10 AM I will have DSL. Last night of dial-up for me. I am so happy.
• I have cable internet, and I still can't load some of the larger threads. (but that's because of my processor size (Pentium II), not because of the connection speed). The cable internet did not force us to get basic cable. We don't even get that kind of TV that's not on cable, I don't know what it's called. Someone enterprising could probably write a greasemonkey script to limit the size of images posted in a mofi thread.
• Broadband. If I'm going to access Teh Intarweb, I'm going to do it at 733T speeds.
• Broadband. At home and work. We just got upgraded to 2.2mbps at home, which was nice.
• Just got 8Mbit at home, a vast relief after trying to use VNC and Samba ofer 28.8kb
• Mr. K, I had the exact same thought. But changing the size doesn't influence the load time, because it's still got to load the full-size picture before scaling it down. Broadband, like that wasn't obvious. I had dialup for six weeks when I first got back from the US and it almost killed me. KILLED ME. I'm a spoiled brat.
• Mr. K, I had the exact same thought. But changing the size doesn't influence the load time, because it's still got to load the full-size picture before scaling it down. Really? So I guess all greasemonkey scripts take place after the page is fully loaded? Hmmm. I wonder what other workaround there is. What about extensions? Those have to work preload, because my adblock steps in before the ads are downloaded. So an extension may do it.
• *waves to stray from metropolitan Nova Scotia*
• Broadband is the only way to fly. I only wish I got frequent flyer miles for using it.
• I don't think I could go back to dial-up. Not just because I'm a spoiled brat with my cable at home and my 100 mbps LAN at work, but because I don't actually have a phone line at home and I love not having it. That and I do everything online - shopping, bills, banking, etc. - all of it is digital now. Heck, my insurance company adds a small surcharge to people who request a paper copy of the monthly bill, to offset the printing and mailing costs. All that said, I do wish Comcast would get off their asses and stop unnecessarily capping my upload bandwidth. Speeds in the US are much slower than elsewhere in the world, not because our lines are worse but because the cable companies are all afraid we'll run servers if we had higher speeds (and what's so wrong with that? I run a server in my office, and it doesn't hurt anybody...) As it is, my upload speed from home is about the same as it would be using 56.6 dial-up. Makes it a royal pain in the ass to do any kind of web-based work at home, as it takes forever to upload changed files to the server. (For a while I thought it was my router but as far as I can tell it doesn't have any bandwidth cap setting at all.)
• Dial-up is so 29th century. Dial-upADSL here.
• Broadband, baby! Couldn't play City of Heroes without it.
• Broadband here at work. No home computer. Thus, my absence from MoFi during the weekend (he said as if someone noticed).
• Dial up at home, but since both my wife and I have broadband at work, it wasn't really an issue. Now that she's started her year maternity leave, we may have to get either bb or dsl at home too.
• I have Carpathian-Innards-Augury-UP, it's a pretty frickin fast connection, but man, do you go through a lot of goat intestine.
• I have Broadband. And actually it was cheaper for me to get a cable modem (along with the lowest craptacular cable channel package) than to keep my land line and dial-up service. At the time, it was a purely economic decision. But the deliciousness of broadband has spoiled me forever. Since I have an airport card, I use Wifi most of the time when I am traveling. The only time I ever use dial-up now is when I am staying with my parents. It seems quaint and old-timey. My boyfriend is also on dial-up for some unknown reason, but I think he may make the switch soon. Mainly because I am tired of downloading stuff for him.
• I have broadband with no cap on bandwidth. HA! But it's only DSL.
• I have dial-up because I'm a cheap bastard.
• have cable internet, and I still can't load some of the larger threads. (but that's because of my processor size (Pentium II) My surfing PC is a Pent II and i have no problems loading any of the threads over DSL...
• Damn - I am impatient with broadband already....but after the experience of using dial up for a week last year I try my best to make sure the sites I build load quickly and put the fear into anyone who thinks 100Kb images online are ok....
• Thus, my absence from MoFi during the weekend (he said as if someone noticed). I noticed! (She said, knowing he can't prove otherwise.)
• Cable broadband shared over a wifi network.
• Cable broadband at home, and God knows how many ridiculously fat optical pipes at work.
• Cable broadband. meredithea = spoiled rotten! However, I'm teaching online classes this year, so I get to write off my internet bill as a business deduction! (wooo!)
• At work, something called a T1? I don't pay much attention. I just wave my hand and say "make it work, fast" and IT monkeys rush off to do my bidding. I also have the same deal going at home with Mr. Mickey and our DSL.
• info in and info out -- in winter we rely on reindeer-drawn sleighs which now and then pass by -- and when that doesn't work we beat the elves till they hustle themselves
• You spoiled brats! I remember when the web was only 100 pages, all text, in black and white, and we had to connect uphill both ways at night under a snowstorm. Barefoot! at 300bps!
• Cable broadband.
• bps? Youngsters. My modem speed's measured in baud, you hear me, BAUD!!!1!!1
• My modem's speed is measured in cheese. In fact, I use bongos to connect to the internets.
• I just wave my hand and say "make it work, fast" and IT monkeys rush off to do my bidding. *envys Mickey So there's only like eight of us that have dial-up out of all the MonkeyMembers? And four of us have have chain-drive computers. So sad.
• Cheyne drive computers? How dare you work my clones to such an end!
• Before my switch to BB, I had just upgraded to the new fancy modems with the streamlined coal chute. Things are better now
• I'm coming up on my one-year broadband anniversary! I don't think I'll be able to go back. Too many web designers seem to long for the days of dial-up, when web pages were something to be savored and waited on. caution live frogs: I do wish Comcast would get off their asses and stop unnecessarily capping my upload bandwidth. ... As it is, my upload speed from home is about the same as it would be using 56.6 dial-up. A 56K v.90 modem's upstream is only 33Kbps. Comcast Cable's basic package (which I have) is capped at 384Kbps upstream - over 10x faster than a v.90 56K modem. If you're really only getting dialup-like upstream speeds, something is broken somewhere.
• Cheney drive computers? He's not on vacation at all!
• L2D - all I know is it seems damn slow. The upload that takes me 30 seconds at work takes 10 minutes at home. It makes me mad - who knows, it may really be my router. Stupid router.
• I'm on a Commodore 64 with 300 baud modem.
• There's no broadband options in my area yet except the obscenely expensive satellite variety, so I'm stuck on dial-up--and it's killing me slowly.
• I've got a cable modem and I have just discovered the joy of having vontage. Cheap, cheap, cheap phone calls and I love the web based checking of who called you, who you called, voice mail via the web, etc... No, I don't own any stock in the company, it just is nifty new techno widget that I am digging on.
• dont call 911 and expect anyone to come.
• I went from DSL and wireless to a 33.6 connection on a good day on a stupid friggin island that hasn't even been getting a connection for 4 days now. Very frustrating.
• DSL. Make that: intermittent DSL.
• I found that my modem worked better if I filmed myself doing an interpretive dance to Scorpions' "Winds of Change" and posted a link to it on the internet. You might try that.
• Will Europe's "Final Countdown" do in a pinch?
• Only if the laser show is suitably bitchin'.
• Honestly, it's more of a laser pointer show, but there has been a lot of bitchin' about it, lemme tell ya.
• That's why I didn't go Vonage. They don't have 911 service (and I know someone who asked them if they did, and their customer service lied and said yes). Hopefully, the customer service on my cell phone plan told the truth!
• Um, yes, they do have 911 service. One of the first things that they did is to register my number to my physical address and confimed it with me that I do indeed have 911. I guess I might be surprised if I do call and it ain't there, but I still have my trusty cell phone.
• Dial-up, and have never had anything else: almost nothing that I do that's legal requires broadband. My connection is slowed down more by background downloads of virus-scan components than by anything else; no other delays are really appreciable for anything I do. The reason I don't have DSL is that the required networking was inconvenient for this household when we had the money to do it, and now we don't even have that. But I'm pretty sure I'll be getting broadband sometime in the next year. And then, what - I can download fansubbed anime via bittorrent. That's about the only huge advantage I can see for me. Fiance needs to upload huge files to an FTP server, so when we move in together, we'll be getting broadband. :)
• I am so stoopid about the technocracy. So, verbminx you have an open invitation to come use my stoopid DSL and like totally unprotected wireless because my kids haven't figured out the security on it all yet!! Doh! I get drive-bys, no shots fired!
• I am so stoopid about the technocracy. Me too. What is technocracy anyways? A religion or a business or a secret society for ex-greenpeace kids? Or maybe it's a way of life.
• I can't think of a better place to put this question other than opening a new thread, so: Is the image tag a bad idea? I don't have the time right now to code in an optional images-on/off, so really for the moment it's one or the other. I'll go with the majority -- sock puppets don't get votes. Yes to images on MoFi, or no?
• No to images.
• The images attract too much attention at work, and take too long to load at home, so I vote no.
• No thanks, and here are my fucking retarded reasons. - Images take up too much space, I wish more of the web was text only. Obviously, though, it's not so turning off images isn't reasonable. - It's easy enough to click a link through to an image - I don't want to risk seeing NSFW items without a forewarning. Either this is a site that warns or it's not. If it's not, then I'll accept it and peruse at a more appropriate time. - I like that the editorial content on MoFo is static (with the rare exception of censoring Harry Potter endings). Since the content of the img tag is displayed on MoFi but not stored on MoFi, it becomes change-able.
• I'd like to trust the good judgement of monkeys here, because broadband or not, big files are detrimental to everyone... but know that the flesh is weak (heck, I've posted a couple ones already). But... the right image in the right comment can be a good thing. So, a middle ground? What about some filesize limit? An imageposting ban to very recent members, to prevent spammer's muckwracking? Heavily enforced NSFW guidelines? Mmmh, this all looks like too much work. Guess it's best to turn them off until an on/off option can be implemeted.
• No to images. First, they slow down scrolling. Second, and more importantly to me, they lend themselves to a Fark-type humour. It's a lazy way of making a comment or joke. This is one of the reasons why I prefer MoFi -- you have to put some thought into what you're saying, rather than be part of a race to put up the same old cliched image. Which isn't to say that we don't have cliches here, we do, but not having images keeps away a certain kind of poster. Is that snooty? Maybe. But if I wanted Fark (or MeFi for that matter), I'd be there instead of here.
• It's a tough call for me. One side of me enjoyed MoFi without the imagery, yet another part of me kinda likes the occasional image dropped in. I guess if I was forced to decide, I would say nay. Maybe we should impose some kind of image limit? Similar to the "one post a day" rule - i.e., "one embedded image per-day to keep the the content high." If we lose image tags, then my plan for the most visually annoying profile page will be nixed! Arrrrgh! On preview: the Capt. makes a good point there on his second point.
• tracicle, please no images.
• No images. Having been on dial up recently I know what a drag too many pictures can be. Besides, it's only a matter time before someone starts putting up goatse or other inappropriate content.
• Prefer text.
• I vote yes. Every major web browser has an option to not display images. Block it yourself.
• I'd have to side with no images for now. It's too easily abused.
• Threads like this are amusing just like threads about socks and dictators are amusing. Sure, I could go to other forums to see people posting images like that, but I happen to like that special brand of monkey humor. I can understand not wanting to see good discussion threads degenerate into posts with animated gifs, but when we're just fucking around (as we often do) a few well-chosen images can turn a thread into solid comedic gold. I can see how adding a user option to disable images would take a bit of work. Would it be easier to set it so the image tag can be enabled in certain threads? Or maybe in all eeked threads? I would suggest that we just agree to do this ourselves (I think we're all mature enough for that to work) but I guess some people want to censor all images for fear of the goatse terrorists or something.
• I would hate to see images go away all together, but it seems that some people are already using them to excess. Could we agree that each monkey limits themself to only 1 image per day? and 5 'fucks' per day
• I vote no images.
• It's the fucking internet. You can't STOP PEOPLE FROM POSTING STUFF. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK see? Christ, if you're offended by pictures of silly things, then please log off and go to sunday school. Posting images in a blog is *absolutely required* - this is the 21st century! If someone posts something offensive, tell the moderator, then they delete it. SIMPLE OR, turn off images in your browser (it's been an option since Netscape 4). Or, if you're using firefox, block images from a particular host site; again, spectacularly easy. To reiterate, this is the INTERNET. Censorship and intentional hobbling of posting abilities are inherently against the purpose of the medium. Stop being big wishy washy old-fashioned stickybeaks, afraid of change. Yes, I am the one they mention OVERUSING the image tag. And guess what, I'm *paying* for the privilege, via bandwidth. Dial-up is going the way of the dinosaurs. We're sorry you're stuck with it, but in 5 years there will be no dial-up. It will all be broadband. Hope you enjoy your 8-track and vinyl mono record collection, in the mean time.
• and 5 'fucks' per day Oh, yeah, I'll second that! Where do I sign? Oh... wait...
• Chyren, have you ever busted anyone for double posting or self-linking? What is your opinion on those policies? Isn't that a form of censorship? I don't object to images because of bandwidth (I love my DSL) but I do think they change the 'flavor' of MoFi and the type of exchanges we have. For me it's a matter of quality -- not quantity.
• I would agree that a limit to amount of image posting is ok. Originally I even (if memory serves) said at one point that only "senior members" of MoFi should be given the ability to post images, due to concerns about abuse and 'goatse' problems. But as it happens, I think that most people don't seem to want to bother with it, and few have the space to host images on personal accounts. It would be very easy for tracicle to enact a script which blocked images from all but a few 'okayed' domains, if she so desired. Busting someone on double posting or self linking is irrelevant to the issue. Posting images is not against tracicle's stated posting policy, nor generally accepted norms of posting protocols for community blogs. Show me where posting image restrictions are in the FAQ or guidelines, and show me that prohibition against self-linking or double posting is specific to MoFi?
• I'm not bothered by images as long as they're used sparingly and reflect the civility, exquisite taste and sense of fucking decorum to which we've all become accustomed. On the other hand, there are monkeys on dialup, at work or with youngsters about, so let's consider them as well. If you have pictures that you really want your fellow monkeys to see, it's easy enough to create a text link.
• Posting images is not against tracicle's stated posting policy, nor generally accepted norms of posting protocols for community blogs. Show me where posting image restrictions are in the FAQ or guidelines, and show me that prohibition against self-linking or double posting is specific to MoFi? It's currently not in the FAQ, etc. That's because it is a relatively new feature on MoFi that Tracicle orignally censored turned off. I think the point of this thread is that people are trying to work out guidelines for image posting on Monkeyfilter. Of course, whether or not such guidelines are implemented is entirely up to Tracicle. My complaint against excessive use of images still stands. It changes the quality of discussion that initially attracted me to MoFi. For example, I love comic art and hold it in high regard; however, there are times that I am not in the mood for reading a comic and I am drawn to the written word. There are other times that I appreciate a well placed illustration within the context of a good novel (Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions) If Monkeyfilter becomes a place full of excessive image posting then it will read differently. If I block images on such a page then it is similar to watching a made-for-TV version of Raging Bull where every 'fuck' is bleeped out. I am not suggesting censorship. I am suggesting restraint. We generally limit ourselves to 1 FPP per day, it would be very easy and reasonable to adopt a similar policy for image posting.
• Doesn't matter to me. But things worked just fine without the img. It's kind of like "Washington Redskins" to me: It doesn't bother me, but if others don't like it, I have no problem with getting rid of it.
• And Chy, if folks don't like your imgs, you can always GYOFB.
• If folks don't like my words, they can kiss my fucking ass. KMFA. MoFi without Chy is like MoFi without beeswacky, and MoFi without beeswacky is like spaghetti without meatballs. Oh, btw, I HAVE my own blog, in fact two. But I put 'em on hiatus to be with you. If you want rid of me, I'll happily go back to them, because sometimes talking to myself is the only way to get a DECENT CONVERSATION.
• In fact, fuck ya, if you want to call me on it, I'll leave MoFi. /drops pants /flashes arse
• I don't think this is about the words.
• Cu8nx
• Chyren, how about you disapear in a puff of self-pity and wait for everyone to wail about your absence. Then you can reapear with a new name and same cunty attitude.
• I vote no flameouts.
• Second.
• /bows before tracicle
• Who said anything about wanting to be rid of you, Chy? Nobody. I made a valid point. You should deal with it. Nobody's attacking you. Not even remotely. Some people disagree with you about images, for a variety of reasons. That someone disagrees with you does not make him or her necessarily an asshole, or anti-Chy. But you know all this already. So why the drama?
• Third. I am not suggesting censorship. I am suggesting restraint. We generally limit ourselves to 1 FPP per day, it would be very easy and reasonable to adopt a similar policy for image posting. At first glimpse, this strikes me as a reasonable compromise. I don't know about just "one per day," and I don't know how much work an img limit would be for Tracy to implement, but neither am I entirely a fan of unchecked image posting here. Self-imposed restraint on the part of the members is simply too much to ask, IMHO. That's not a shot at anyone, just (to my mind) a statement of unassailable fact. I really hate it when trolls put shock links on this site, and I'm glad when they're a link away, so I can read the comments before I have to look at tubgirl or eels for the umpteenth time. I'd really not have it splashed all over the site, and unchecked img posting rights will all but guarantee that it happens. On the other hand, it is easy enough to block/turnoff images. I'm not crazy about having to do that just to come here when I'm not at my home computer, but I'd be prepared to do it if it is the will of the people.
• "how about you disapear in a puff of self-pity and wait for everyone to wail about your absence." How about YOU disapear (sic) and wait to see if anyone misses you?
• *offers deep, cleansing breaths to all present*
• How about YOU disapear (sic) and wait to see if anyone misses you? That's not why I'm here. I hope you have a better day tomorrow. I'm now withdrawing from thread out of respect for Tracicle's request. /Cleansing breath.
• Paging Jesus Christ... I think this thread is getting a wee bit out of hand for no reason. Everyone take a step back and take a deep breath... in out... in out... that's it! Baby pandas people, baby panda!
• Hmph. Please no more puffs, Chy - it was too weird without you last time.
• Out of fucking hand is right! And I wasn't even around for the best of it. Geez.
• OH MY GOD CUTE PANDA IS KILLING ME /hands site over to equine kid, expires
• WTF??? /cute little orangutan, hair all on end, an expression of comical surprise on his face.
• *apppears in heavy clomping hoof-boots, stretchy blue tights, cape and a grey wig Did somebody call for GramMa Blue Horse? Now behave yourselves or I'll have to take out my dentures* and use them to bite you on the ass. *and you DON'T want to see a picture of that
• I vote yes on images. Would an image flag in each profile be difficult to implement? What about a flag that when true, replaced each image with a link to it? If this is as simple as I think it would be, this should give everybody what they want. On a different note, it you work thinks a finger is NSFW, then the problem you have is your work, not the internet. Take it up with the right people, because right now you're asking the wrong people to fix your problem.
• I can see both sides. Yeah, images are fun, but only until someone gets kicked out of their job. Is it possible to have images turned off by default, and turn on-able, like on MeCha? I think that would be the best solution.
• i'm with skrik.
• Could we just a have a rule that images must be totally, utterly SFW? I think it would be a shame to lose images without at least a slightly longer trial.
• hands site over to equine kid, expires That little horsey bastard is always stealing my thunder. *looks at metafilter img posting policy, scratches chin*
• Well, after a look at the (admittedly pretty crap) Metaphilter code, the user preferences aren't at the same level that filters out bad HTML tags. So what that boils down to is that we can't make image viewing optional without a fairly major rewrite, which is in the works but not for quite some time yet. So the options as they stand are turning images off completely, or relying on everyone to post images that are safe for work, bearing in mind that a vast majority of monkeys are surfing from work (naughty monkeys). If I turn them off, then we can bring them back after the rewrite with the option of having them visible or not. If we keep them up, I'll add appropriate wordage to the guidelines/FAQ. We could try a week on the new, kinder guidelines and see how it goes.
• I'm a funny little monkey A gay gibbon, or monkey-rhesus. And when I feel like smiling I type a colon and parenthesis :) But now I'm so unhappy When before I felt just fine. I can only demonstrate my gloom With a colon, SHIFT + nine :( All this vexing over images! It's led to mass frustration Yet we often fight with only words. Oh - and fucking punctuation.
• )
• I have rarely fucked punctuation. (But such memories of the times I have!)
• I'm finding the images amusing so long as they are appropriate for the thread and not just for shock value. I also browse at work, but unlike many fellow monkeys I am in my own office. (Small, hot, non-air conditioned, in the attic of an ancient building, used to be some sort of lab space, but it's still mine!) MCT: Eels? How are eels offensive? I mean, I've seen things on the internets that are offensive, believe me. But eels? Eels are just tasty morsels on top of my sushi. Little fishies with long skinny bodies and a lovely flavor. Don't ruin the eels for me. Tell me that was just a typo. And quidnunc, I prefer colon [ALT]+0222. :Þ
• Only those who drink hot pee-pee And whose brains are made of poo Would dare to taunt another With colon [ALT]+0222.
• Sorry, frogsy, not a typo. If you don't want your sushi ruined, I suggest you not google "eel porn" or anything like.
• it you work thinks a finger is NSFW, then the problem you have is your work, not the internet. Take it up with the right people, because right now you're asking the wrong people to fix your problem. Is this a serious argument? My job is at problem because a picture of someone flipping off with "FUCK YOU TROLL" in rather large lettering shouldn't offend anyone at my work? What are you suggesting, exactly?
• I ♥ this place... on preview: techsmith, if that image did indeed cause a problem for you at work, then perhaps you should have a talk with your boss. If you are allowed to browse the internet on company time, then they should be well-aware that it's nearly impossible to NOT run across something offensive now and then. It's the friggin internet - it comes with the territory! Now on the other hand, if you are not suppose to be perusing the threads of MoFi on company time, and this image brought issue, I think your argument is not so solid... And perhaps that is just me? I live in an environment (NYC) where profanity and offensive imagery is the norm, to the young and old alike. We live in a time where even public officials use profanity. I am failing to see how this image of Johnny Cash flipping the bird with some profane text would be so abhorrently offensive...
• I like having images in threads, but I think we need image posting guideleines. Until we can hash some out and make them part of the FAQ, I think images should be disabled.
• We went almost two years without images. Now we've had them for about a week, and any suggestion of removing them is met with cries of "censorship" and childish threats of quitting and depriving us of your presence? So far I haven't seen a single inline image that added anything of value to a thread. If they're worth keeping, we need a better reason than "they're fun", because that doesn't make up for the valid reasons some have given for their removal.
• The ability to post images isn't going to change anyone here. I fail to see how chy posting an image with the words "fuck you troll" is any worse (or different) than him posting the text "cunty mints" before images were enabled. We're still the same monkeys, and the image tag isn't going to radically change anyone. If any of us were really out to ruin your fucking day, we would've done it weeks ago without images.
• There is no better reason than "they're fun". MoFi is supposed to be fun. Isn't it?
• and this image brought issue, I think your argument is not so solid... We have a two choice content rating system. There isn't a scale; it's either SFW or it's NSFW. Why is there a need for this? Because most many people read it at work. Or maybe we could drop those identifiers in favor of NSFTSW. I think I was pretty clear in my point. I like the fact that MoFi's content is SFW as-is. If it becomes NSFW, then I won't read it at work. So, seriously, why all the backlash? I'm I the wet blanket to your img tag ballyhoo?
• I fail to see how chy posting an image with the words "fuck you troll" is any worse (or different) than him posting the text "cunty mints" before images were enabled. So you're saying the it's always been (at risk for) NSFW, and that explicitly saying NSFW wan't really ever needed?
• Jesus Christ! Has nobody noticed that since the rush of discovery the use of pics has died off? And no-one's posting anything really bad, and I don't think they would. This place is self regulating. So yes to pics, just don't be CUNTY with them!!!
• You have always been at risk for NSFW while surfing the internet, techsmith. You can't totally avoid it, and blocking other people's ability to have fun because you want to surf without thinking or considering what you're clicking while you're at work is not possible. The rest of the internet users on the planet cannot be totally responsible for your job. If you want to surf while you're at work, you take that risk. This is my opinion. Why aren't you working? You're presenting a straw man argument with that whole NSFW tag issue, so I'm ignoring that.
• MoFi is supposed to be fun. Isn't it? Absolutely. That's why I come here. It's been fun from day one. Has it been more fun since image tags were enabled?
• We have a two choice content rating system. I wasn't aware that we had a rating system. Seriously, I think any mature, intelligent person uses a little common sense and knows when it's probably best to give the community at-large some forewarning with the NSFW identifier. I'm not about to slap a SFW or NSFW label on every post and/or comment I contribute to MoFi. If I was linking to a page that had that image of J. Cash flipping his middle finger along with the text in question, there is no way in hell I would say "NSFW," because it seems quite silly. I think that tag is best suited for the obvious, i.e., pr0n, nudity, graphic imagery, bloody corpses, clowns strangling little children, etc...
• "Has it been more fun since image tags were enabled?" Well, yes. It has been more fun for the people that enjoy images or posting images or both. YMMV.
• You have always been at risk for NSFW while surfing the internet I'm not talking about surfing the internet. I'm talking about reading MoFi. You're playing the straw man pretending you don't see a difference.
• YMMV I think that's it, in a nutshell - for just about everything in life. I've had fun with the images since they were enabled. In fact, I thought that some of Chy's images were superb (he obviously puts great effort into them), and found it a rather unique way of commenting. Communication happens at many levels. That's what we are doing here, no? Communicating to eachother. I know for fact that I am a visual person. I comprehend ideas much more quickly and concretely if I *see* it. Yes, this place is fun - - and I am sure it will continue to be (with or without the img tags).
• There is no intrinsic difference. There are many NSFW links on MoFi. There was a whole post about the history of the word 'cunt', for christ's sake. There have been all manner of questionable links here, not all of them explicitly identified by the NSFW label. Your whole argument boils down to 'I want to skive off work surfing the net without getting disciplined for it' and I'm saying, I don't care about your job. If you don't like an image, tell tracicle, and she'll balete it from the link. That's very fucking easy.
• /sigh I would be perfectly happy to have an 'image free zone' on some threads, and others that are okayed for images. Personally, I enjoy photoshopping, and was looking forward to engaging in amusing photoshop threads, if the chance ever arises.
• Some say image tags aren't very good And give this reason why: We just can't trust them in the hands Of evil fucking ch...ildren such as kitfisto.
• If a thread is all about images, like Chy's photoshop example, then dialup users and work surfers could avoid it. I'd have no problem with that. My issue is with random images that pop up in the middle of "discussion" threads. We need to be able to police ourselves and avoid dropping images in when a link to the image would suffice. It's not too hard to imagine a scenario where some user puts up a swastika image in a Bush thread, thinking they're making a funny joke or a sly political observation. But what about the poor sap reading it at work, when the boss walks by and sees a big swastika on his monitor. Make that a Jewish boss, and you've got some serious splainin' to do.
• 
• and you've got some serious splainin' to do. Fair point, but -- and I say this as someone who spends nearly all of his work downtime online -- I also agree that that's the risk you take with being online at work, particularly if you're not supposed to be. If your job actively involves surfing, then yeah, your boss should be apprised of the risks. I like the idea of photoshop threads here so that our artistic monkeys can play, the same way we let bees paint with words in any thread he wishes. I just dread the thought of MeTa-style pile-on image linking, which is pretty much always boring and asinine. Like that stupid "Mwah!" graphic, or the endless march of Admiral Akbars, or old photos of people grinding axes.
• I knew it was just a metter of time before some fucking idiot asshole posted a big image to this thread. I'm at work so I'm done with this thread for the day. Just to be safe I'm done with MoFi for the day.
• I thought it was funny. For the record.
• Seems to me that a stylesheet containing

  #content IMG { display:none; }

  could solve the NSFW issues, if not the bandwidth issues.
• I fail to see why posting a perfectly SFW image is more offensive than calling someone a "fucking idiot asshole."
• Works just peachy. Proof by example.
• "I fail to see why posting a perfectly SFW image is more offensive than calling someone a 'fucking idiot asshole.'" Exactamundo. And it's not even a 'big image'. It's only 23kb.
• Well, I think goetter's solved the problem, so everyone can shut up about it now.
• _______ _____|_)- OO NO, SUCK MY PEE-PEE.
• And it's not even a 'big image'. It's only 23kb Dialup, baby, dialup. Or my own "satellite broadband" world, where 23Kb and 128Kb are almost the same (they're both slow: they require a second trip to the server, and I measure my ping time in seconds, not milliseconds). I sentence you to a year's worth of Admiral Akbars over dialup. *thumps toy gavel*
• That's it, quidnunc. Now we're going to have to ban text. .
• they require a second trip to the server In the snow! Uphill! Both ways! Actually, in this case the page renders just fine so you can read it, only with the little red x's where the images go. These are replaced with the images after subsequent (and possibly time consuming) trips to the server. Long load times are only inconvenient if you can't do anything while the page loads.
• More than one person has made the point of having, as a guideline rather than an enforced server-side business rule, specific threads for photoshop entries, and specific threads which are more image-friendly. I can totally get behind a guideline that says something to the effect of "Don't use images except in image-friendly zones." This would entail some programming changes (though I think a simple one), and presumably would be chosen by the FPP poster, some sort of "Images encouraged!" tag, perhaps with a little gif of a picture frame or something. I'm completely unfamiliar with metaphilter, but I imagine that adding a check-box to the FPP posting page which puts the little "Images Encouraged!" gif at the end of the FPP would be a fairly simple mod and only affect the content of the FPP entry (which I presume is templatized separately?). I also think that this would inform users which threads are likely to have images, and still allows the community to sort of self-enforce the guideline. What say you, Monkeys, and Bashi?
• Reb'n.
• Haven't seen enough images yet to draw many conclusions about their possible overall effect on threads here, or on the quality of discussions./n00b to this issue. Can only search my own reactions in this regard. As a self-avowed nutjob I feel it's intrinsically unfair to deprive other monkeys of a pleasant creative experience. Surely we can work out some way to allow those who play with images to use them here while at the same time ensuring those worrying about NSFW issues to feel secure they won't be goatse-ed in front of the boss. Wish I knew more about these matters, but since the only forum I go to is this one, what I've noticed thus far is that the moving images slow me way down in reading -- the human eye automaticvaslly focuses on fast-movement in the field of vision. The static images I can glance over easily. I am a fast reader but my time is lumited because of other work. So I'm guessing I may tend to skip reading threads containing marqueeing/jiggling/flashing image. However, this I b elieve is really my personal problem to work out and not one others should have to be concerned with. Text and the ideas/imges words convey is what drew me here -- being a text-centric fool. Everything else for me will be subordinate to text. I gave Flash and Quicktime a year to show me I wanted them -- when it was clear I dodn't, I threw 'em out. I may do that with images but at this point see it as no great hurdle, just a ;esser distraction from The Goof Stuff. However, I'm reserving the right to bitch about this later if I find other more irksome thigs apply.
• Maybe if ye squint ye won't notice the typos.
• I'd love to have the option to use a CSS template that would block the images--could that be added to the profile? I don't want to take away the fun that some folks have with the images, I just don't want to have to see them all the time. Blocking the source of all of the linked images isn't a good option for me--I don't want to have to go through user by user (or possibly image by image in some cases) blocking servers (I use Firefox). I'm on here from work, as that's usually when I have the freedom to be on. I'm allowed to be online and goof off occasionally. I still don't want to call attention to it by having images visible.
• What patita said. I'm allowed to be online on breaks, lunch, etc. But I work in an area where customers might walk by my desk. I'd rather not be the "one who gets the internets banned for everyone" here. Maybe my boss should be more understanding, but customers may or may not be. That said, I've really enjoyed most of the images. I'd hate to see them go away. (The pics of plegmund in the T-Shirt thread had me really laughing.) Net society has come up with the NSFW tag. It's not a rule, it's just something people do as a courtesy. I'd say if you would have put an NSFW tag on a link, then don't post the pic, post a link to it. But that's just what I'm gonna do. To each his own opinion, obviously.
• To be honest, neither I nor #2 even thought about disabling images at the CSS level, so I'll get onto that this evening. It's a quick, brilliant fix for those that don't want to see any images at all. I'll add it to the default stylesheet and maybe a couple of others as new, image-free styles. I'll ask #2 about the "Images encouraged" checkbox because that's something I'm not sure about -- he knows the Mephi code much better than I and what its limitations are. As I said, we've discussed a full rewrite (possibly in something other than PHP, but that's another story) in the future, but that's dependent on baby-related spare time and sleep. The checkbox is a good idea. In the meantime, I see no reason for posters not to mention in their post text whether images are okay/verboten/meh. If the images are going to stay -- and it seems that we have sufficient workarounds for those who don't want them to not have to see them -- then we should still keep them safe for work. It's a given these days that people will surf from work and I've heard the stories of people being fired, whether true or not, and don't want to feel responsible for that. :)
• So I can't post my bouncing boobies animated gifs? FUCK
• Sure, post a link to 'em.
• Bouncing-booby gifs are what the Internet is all about.
• thanks to goetter and tracicle for a quick and humane fix!
• That is teh sweet. ))) for goetter (and Tracicle of course)
• After thinking about it a little more, I suspect that the "Images Encouraged!" button could be VERY easy to implement. Consider: If on the FPP page the user clicks the "Images Encouraged In This Thread" checkbox, the form simply appends the following to the end of the FPP: < img src = "./images/images_encouraged.gif" > No database fuss, no muss. Just a simple Javascript that appends the image tag to the end of the post. I think it would take more time to make the image than append that string to the post on submission.
• I shall inform Lord Vader!
• See to it, MCT. The fate of the Empire is in your hands. And you know how Lord Vader responds to.... errors.
• I shall inform Lord Vader! Who gives a shit?
• Sorry, frogsy, not a typo. If you don't want your sushi ruined, I suggest you not google "eel porn" or anything like. omg, this stuff can't be real.
• Had not observed before that Prince Charles has ears like Mr Spock.
• Screw you, quodninc!!!
• Quidnunc: Be nice or I shall send a team of well-dressed gentlemen to shove an [ALT]+0222 forcefully up your colon. (If you really don't behave, I'll have them use a capital thorn, rather than a lowercase.) ☺ Tracicle - if you add the image blocking to the CSS, possible to cascade it such that body contains images, but images inside whatever container holds the comments are not displayed? as in: blockquote img {display: none;} thus the in-thread images will not be displayed, but the other stuff in the system (header logo, creative commons button at the bottom, etc.) won't be affected.
• Tracicle: If the CSS image-blocking thing works, please add it to the 'barebones' style sheet. (It's the one that looks the most innocuous at work).
• Had not observed before that Prince Charles has ears like Mr Spock. Several decades ago, National Lampoon had a full-page headshot of himwith the caption "I just flew in from the coast, and are my ears tired!" Heh.
• c.l.frogs, that's the purpose of the #content selector.
• (It's the one that looks the most innocuous at work). The two people complaining the most about getting caught at work because of images are the same two who are the most outspoken in telling anyone who downloads mp3s that they are STEALING and BREAKING THE LAW. Interesting system of ethics and morals you got there. (And I still don't believe the eels in those photos are real.)
• smallish bear: Forget eels... how about octopii? A video clip of that sort really ruined sex, sea food and gave me nightmares for a week... :(
• sb: As a contract employee, I set my own hours and bill them accordingly. I'm very careful to bill for actual hours worked, so much so that I almost always bill for fewer hours than I actually work on a project. My concern with "personal" use of the internet at work is one of appearances: someone seeing strange pictures on my monitor may get the wrong idea, and even though I'm not 'stealing' company time, I'd rather not have to explain my actions to anyone. Downloading MP3s *is* breaking the law, but so is driving too fast, smoking dope, and gambling. I've never had a problem with any of those activities...just don't whine and complain about it not being fair when you get caught. Accept the punishment like a man. Interesting system of ethics and morals you got there. I have no morals whatsoever, but I'll put my ethics up against yours, any day.
• I have no morals whatsoever, but I'll put my ethics up against yours, any day. I'll have you know that I have never: downloaded an illegal mp3, driven over the speed limit, gone through a yellow light, jaywalked, smoked dope, sniffed glue, solicited sex from an african badger, taken photos of bridges in the post 9/11 world, poured salt on slugs, stolen nuts from squirrels, engaged in cockfighting, bet money on cockfighting, bet money on dog fighting, balked, sniffed markers, huffed paint, humped my master's leg, asked anyone to accomodate my need to maintain a false air of professionalism at work, covetted my neighbor's wife, coveted my neighbor's ass, coveted my neighbor's wife's ass, taken an interest to octopus porn, made shit up on the internets so as to appear ethically superior to someone I've never met, or convinced myself that anyone really gives a shit anyway. Also, please cite the law which has been successfully used to prosecute a United States citizen in a criminal court of law for downloading mp3s.
• The two people complaining the most about getting caught at work because of images are the same two who are the most outspoken in telling anyone who downloads mp3s that they are STEALING and BREAKING THE LAW. Should I assume I'm one of the two jackholes you're referring to? Why is it so hard to understand that I'm allowed to surf the web at work, but some images are not appropriate?
• smallish bear: I get the feeling that you've got a personal issue with me that goes beyond the subject of this thread. I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not, do me a favour and explain to me what the hell your problem is. The claim of ethical superiority was made by you (Interesting system of ethics and morals you got there), and I merely responded to it. Also, you seem to have been carrying that MP3 thing around for several weeks, which is strange for someone who claims to have never "convinced myself that anyone really gives a shit anyway". If there's a personal conflict here, I have no problem with ignoring your posts & comments on this site, and having you do the same, but I'd prefer to get it out in the open and resolve it.
• Well, we set up the cascading image-viewing option last night (so it will work over any stylesheet in the list, yay cascading), but I had to take the wee one to bed and leave #2 to it. It doesn't seem to be up this morning. I will find out more henceforth.
• Ah, he muttered something along the lines of "The code is crap." We'll try again tonight.
• I have no problem with ignoring your posts & comments on this site Be my guest, but keep in mind that this will preclude you from responding to my comments with sweeping generalizations having zero facts to back them up. Actually, looking at how that one turned out, you might want to consider doing this anyway.
• sweeping generalizations Mote, beam, usw.
• Can't say I didn't try... You really do go out of your way to track my comments, and even further to misinterpret them*. If fact, the comment you link to with the phrase "sweeping generalizations" contains exactly two sentences. The first is my opinion, which you solicited. The second is a fact, which as of yet has not been disputed. Where are the generalizations? Where is the sweeping? And I'll repeat the question you chose not to answer...What the hell is your problem? So much so that I suspect you may actually be my ex-wife, or at least in cahoots with her...
• Well, one good thing has come out of this discussion: MonkeyFilter: I'm reserving the right to bitch about this later. *bows in Bees general direction*
• Well, the rewrite may be sooner rather than later after a failed attempt to set up a checkbox that would call up the "no images" stylesheet. Mike managed to get the checkbox working, and the stylesheet working, but aspects of Metaphilter wouldn't allow the two to work together. Grr. In the meantime as a stopgap, we've added goetter's line to the default stylesheet (the lavender) and the "bare bones". We can add more another time. So for now if you don't want to be exposed to anusimages, select a "no images" style from your profile page. And spread the word. Sorry it's not what I promised, but there are serious limitations with the current code.
• FYI, "bare-bones" is working for me, thanks. IE 6.0 sample inline image link
• Me too. Thanks, tracicle and #2!!