Print

[AA4HA]

Hi,
Just as a suggestion, have you considered allowing pictures to be entered into the forum section?

I know that it may increase the storage requirements for the server. What if the ability to add pictures was tied to the folks who have a paid subscription?

Tisha Hayes

[K5TR]

Just as a suggestion, have you considered allowing pictures to be entered into the forum section?

I know that it may increase the storage requirements for the server. What if the ability to add pictures was tied to the folks who have a paid subscription?

We have thought about it - and I know it would be useful at times to be able to upload a photo to a forum post.
As we moved to the new forum software we could not allow photos since it would not have worked with
our old code that we were cross posting to.  The other issue I have with photos is that is adds yet another
thing to police and/or get complaints about.  Limiting the feature to subscribers is an interesting suggestion and
that might be one way to help filter out trouble makers.

So, I guess I am saying that we might allow it - but we need to solve a few more issues before we can turn that feature on.

Thanks

[W3LK]

If you do decide to allow photo uploads, a limit on file size (say 100k) would be a good idea, as would be file dimensions.

[N3OX]

I think limiting to subscribers would probably limit the utility of being able to post photos for some folks.

For example, it would be really useful if people asking antenna questions could take some pictures of their installations or backyards or whatever... not all those people would be subscribers.

But it's certainly true that images provide a very serious moderation challenge.  If it's not too technically difficult, some kind of decentralized moderation would be useful.

There could be a "flag this image" sort of thing that first off, immediately makes the image disappear if any user finds it objectionable.  Then it passes it on to the mods for the final judgement call.  Users who get flagged too often (or even once?) and have that upheld by the administrators could be banned from posting images, and users who flag not-actually-problem images could have their flagging privileges taken away.  That way "almost everyone" could post images and "almost everyone" could make them vanish in an instant to prevent spam, pornography, stupidity, etc in a way that was very fast and generally didn't involve any obvious moderation action.

It would be massively helpful in some threads to post drawings or whatever.   I do that routinely already but I have my own hosting for them.  There are a lot of situations in which the saying about "a thousand words" is nearly literally true.

I wonder only showing a link to an image would help?  The "mischief impact" and therefore desirability of mischief of an image that isn't actually displayed in-thread is probably quite a bit less than if it's just sitting there.  Once you've seen it you can't "un-see" it .   

I don't know what purposes Tisha has in mind, but I think that for the purposes of forum discussions, a link to an image is probably nearly as useful as in-line images (especially for those using tabbed browsers). However, even to post links now, those without their own website or third party photo hosting account have to sign up first.  And as sites disappear or delete images, the loss of useful and illustrative image links from old eHam threads would be detrimental to future readers. 

73
Dan

[K5END]

George,

You are probably aware of this, but some websites allow use of posts with a script for sites like photobucket.com

In this method, the picture appears to be part of the post but that image file is not stored on your server.

To the casual reader it is transparent, and appears the same as if the file had been uploaded to your forum.

Here is one example I just now grabbed at random from a search on "ham radio." It appears to be from KG4ENB. The script looks like this:




Edited post after viewing: I see you have it disabled so that the "[IMG NOT]http://" and "/IMG NOT]" are replaced by a "(" and a ")"


The direct link to that photo is

http://i387.photobucket.com/albums/oo320/kg4enb/Ham%20Radio/sandcasting001.jpg

[KG4RUL]

Given the problems associated with moderating them, I think you should not host pictures.  And it is really not needed when you can link to an external site so easily.

A single image on PhotoBucket: http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc296/kg4rulphotos/Berkeley%20Cty%20ARES%20Tower%20Trailer%20Construction/100_1189.jpg

A slideshow on PhotoBucket: http://s216.photobucket.com/albums/cc296/kg4rulphotos/Berkeley%20Cty%20ARES%20Tower%20Trailer%20Construction/?albumview=slideshow

Dennis KG4RUL

[AA4HA]

A slideshow on PhotoBucket: http://s216.photobucket.com/albums/cc296/kg4rulphotos/Berkeley%20Cty%20ARES%20Tower%20Trailer%20Construction/?albumview=slideshow
[/quote]

I was worried about the ratty looking boat trailer, when I started to see antenna tower sections I was happy inside.

Tisha

[K1CJS]

I would have to agree that a link to an outside site would be preferable.  It would solve a lot of moderation problems too.  With the capabilities of modern computer software and the internet to instantly link to another site, you would just be giving yourselves another headache to worry about by permitting pictures on this site.

Of course, that is just my opinion, YMMV.

[N2MG]

I'm torn about this.  Having pictures available would be an excellent tool for so many things.  We've discussed the downside of having them hosted here. 

However, having the photos hosted somewhere else is not without its problems.  That has the potential of having the "somewhere else" go away. Then we have a bunch of incomplete threads, essentially.

Hosting them locally with some kind of mandatory moderator approval necessary might be the best compromise.

>>I think limiting to subscribers would probably limit the utility of being able to post photos for some folks.

Agreed.  It flies in the face of the way eham has worked historically.

Mike N2MG

[K3GM]

I occasionally will post with a link to a picture.  I use Photobucket. If you want to see the picture, click on the link, and it opens a window. Obviously, a site without pictures loads very fast and is good for dialup users.  You could link the photo to the hosting site using embedded IMG command, but then you're at the mercy of that site with regards to speed, and eHam users with dialup would be back in the same boat of having to be forced to wait for the picture paint.  You could make the arguement on the number of users who are still on dialup