On behalf of all active members and viewers of the popular "photo of the day" thread located in the Mac Forums > Special Interests > Digital Photography section, we would like an explanation for the prohibiting of the <TIMG> tag when quoting images. We feel that quoting images as thumbnails, by using the <TIMG> tags, allows for a member to more actively and accurately critique, comment, and/or reference any given photo posted in this thread. Furthermore, we believe that the use of <timg> tags for quoting images is a natural extension in a thread dedicated to photography, and as such should not be prohibited to use by any member of macrumors:forums.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Digital Photography Forum - Photo of the Day: Quoting images with TIMG
- Thread starter SolracSelbor
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The post sounds like it's come from the head of some sort of newly formed Union, and you know what they're likeBy setting up the thread in this way you are hardly going to get a fair discussion
The post sounds like it's come from the head of some sort of newly formed Union, and you know what they're like
Well, I don't understand that... but I do understand the need to quote 'timg' pix (NOT full-sized pix), when making comments. Otherwise a photo thread simply doesn't 'work'. What IS the problem?
The OP kind of made me chuckle, it's all a bit "we the people", you know? anyway, doesn't matter.
What IS the problem? I don't know. General rule of thumb is that quoting of images is discouraged. Should there be an exception made in this case? Possibly, but it's not my call.
Yes, as I stated in the thread, changing rules without an explanation make people nervous. ( and since we're using political analogies, it leaves a stalinistic feeling
)
I look through the photo of the day threads (love 'em) and I for one think it looks much tidier to have the original images quoted in TIMG format instead of full size.
I understand why having the image quoted is helpful. However, in most areas of this site images are changed to links when quoted so having the images quoted as TIMG isn't asking too much. It still keeps the relevant photo right there, just smaller.
Just my preference though. I've only ever posted photos in those threads a couple of times because I don't know WTF I am doing with my DSLR and I don't want to embarrass myself, but I do love browsing the thread(s).
I understand why having the image quoted is helpful. However, in most areas of this site images are changed to links when quoted so having the images quoted as TIMG isn't asking too much. It still keeps the relevant photo right there, just smaller.
Just my preference though. I've only ever posted photos in those threads a couple of times because I don't know WTF I am doing with my DSLR and I don't want to embarrass myself, but I do love browsing the thread(s).
I want to ban both the [I]and[/I] [img] tags all together. [B]Thus forcing people to attach the photos and use the [attach] tag.[/B]
This would solve a lot of problems simultanouly:
[B]Pics gone missing. [/B]Im most photo threads images hosted elsewhere tend to go missing after a while, leaving generic "The image is currently unavailable"-place holders. The place holders usually start appearing after a few days or a week or so.
[B]Huge pics.[/B] The [attach] tags make a nice, clickable thumbnail in a small, tidy format.
[B]Upscaling. [/B] The [img] tag will upscale images smaller than the designated size (not usually a problem in the photo-threads, but a weakness with the [img] tag in general, and why substituting the [img] with the [img] as default image won't necessarily be a good idea).
[B]Quoting.[/B] [attach] tags that are quoted automagically makes a link to the attachment in the quote. Then we don't have to scroll through x number of the same quoted image, [img]'ed or not...
All in all this would make much tidier and viewable threads, IMO.
This would solve a lot of problems simultanouly:
[B]Pics gone missing. [/B]Im most photo threads images hosted elsewhere tend to go missing after a while, leaving generic "The image is currently unavailable"-place holders. The place holders usually start appearing after a few days or a week or so.
[B]Huge pics.[/B] The [attach] tags make a nice, clickable thumbnail in a small, tidy format.
[B]Upscaling. [/B] The [img] tag will upscale images smaller than the designated size (not usually a problem in the photo-threads, but a weakness with the [img] tag in general, and why substituting the [img] with the [img] as default image won't necessarily be a good idea).
[B]Quoting.[/B] [attach] tags that are quoted automagically makes a link to the attachment in the quote. Then we don't have to scroll through x number of the same quoted image, [img]'ed or not...
All in all this would make much tidier and viewable threads, IMO.
Not banned all together, for the occasional image, but for regular use in the photo threads (including the desktop threads) and sorts. That's what we're really talking about.
And still, if you go through certain old picnic threads, to take an example, then a lot of images that once was there is gone...making the thread a bit harder to follow, not to say pointless...
I understand your reasoning, and they do make sense, but I think to partially ban them would just take too much work and "policing".
I just think it's a case of needing to be sensible. Anyone browsing the Digital Photography or Pictures forum should expect threads with lots of big pictures in them. If people quote images and TIMG them I don't really have an issue with it in these forums.
Still don't see what the problem is, folks. Quoting a thumbnail merely places a comment in a convenient context, that's all. Still short of a genuine explanation why people in a photo forum are being stopped from presenting pix and comments in a way that makes sense to other users. That's all it is. No-one's trying to do anything contrary to the MR ethos. Mountain... molehill, I reckon...
I don't really have time to put down my thoughts fully here at the moment but here is what I see.
The latest thread has an average of ~37 views per post (37 for April and 41 for March) that indicates there are a lot more people who view the thread than post in it. Which is part of the objection to the first post in this thread as it has immediately made this thread hostile to the members who are less confident about posting, as seen by the members responding so far.
Quoting images that are directly above is entirely pointless.
Quoting images from other pages causes (especially if there are many on a page) my page loading time to increase substantially due to me being on a slower internet connection.
If you are commenting on a picture then both you and the OP know which picture is being referred to and if someone else wants to comment there after then they can view the picture quite easily.
The rules weren't changed, it is something that I have been doing as standard across all threads I view however I like to view that thread so it appears I do it more often in there.
There is a difference between expecting lots of pictures and having pictures to excess.
The latest thread has an average of ~37 views per post (37 for April and 41 for March) that indicates there are a lot more people who view the thread than post in it. Which is part of the objection to the first post in this thread as it has immediately made this thread hostile to the members who are less confident about posting, as seen by the members responding so far.
Quoting images that are directly above is entirely pointless.
Quoting images from other pages causes (especially if there are many on a page) my page loading time to increase substantially due to me being on a slower internet connection.
If you are commenting on a picture then both you and the OP know which picture is being referred to and if someone else wants to comment there after then they can view the picture quite easily.
The rules weren't changed, it is something that I have been doing as standard across all threads I view however I like to view that thread so it appears I do it more often in there.
There is a difference between expecting lots of pictures and having pictures to excess.
I don't know if this involves too much effort but blocking the "Image Hosting" sites but allowing personal hosting might be an acceptable compromise.
Or you could "auto upload" images linked externally to the MacRumors servers.
Let me know if I got this wrong:
The explanation for disallowing timg tags in quoted messages is because you have a 'slower' internet connection?
That is as if my boss would tell me to remove a gig of RAM from my notebook, because hers got less than mine.
...
Anyway, I am for the use of timg tags in quoted messages, even if it's a direct reply to post above.
Why?
Because I'm a visual person, and it's much easier for me to identify the connections and the post in question when i see the image being commented on.
Also when someone comments on an image from previous pages i think it's easier to instantly see a small version of the image being commented on than havingto click a link and wait till the page loads, only to go back again and read the comment, deciding to have to see the image again, therefor clicking again and then goinf back to the comment again ... etc ...
have a nice day.
timg tags for quoted images has to be the answer. I don't see why there's any need for a discussion. They allow the thread to function smoothly - without them it becomes clunky and awkward. A compulsion to make the thread excessively neat and tidy is not a good reason to remove them.
I voted yes, since I am fundamentally a lazy browser who doesn't like to do research unless absolutely necessary, and I have turbo internet. Also, no offense to MR servers, but my photos look much better when hosted on photobucket than when uploaded to the forum which does it's own magic tranformations. This said, I would settle for it either way just to keep the darn bickering out of the potd thread!!! It drives me nuts when half the posts on a single page are about controversy and rebuttal, without pics.
That will lose us viewers faster than quoted images.
This said, I would settle for it either way just to keep the darn bickering out of the potd thread!!! It drives me nuts when half the posts on a single page are about controversy and rebuttal, without pics.That will lose us viewers faster than quoted images.
I'm a person of higher authority, in that I get to approve forum rules and policies, and I'm listening. I rely on the advice of our moderators who frequent the photo threads day-to-day, and from sensible comments in threads like this one.
I'm not sure what this means. If you mean that we should allow all forms of embedding, attaching, or referencing images, even in quotes, simply because the vBulletin software we use allows users to do so, I disagree. If you mean that we should disable forum features that we don't want used at all, then that I understand, but we're talking about using them in initial posts vs. using them in quotes.
If you want my personal 2 cents, I prefer links alone to TIMGs in quotes (and both to IMGs in quotes) because I don't read every comment. Sorry, commenters, but I'm a skimmer. If I find a particular image interesting, then I might look for comments on it. Otherwise, I'd rather not see the same image in 10 different posts, 9 of them TIMG quotes, if I'm not interested in that image at all.
I have a fast Internet connection but I'm spoiled by the instant loading of text pages, so I find the long page-load times of photo-of-the-day threads rather annoying. That makes me a less-frequent visitor to such threads, and that's one reason that my personal opinion isn't our guide to what's best. Rules or suggestions to members about quoting images should be a matter of what's best for the majority of our forum readers.
My only real concern about hosting images on the MR forums is how slow it is compared to other services (Plasq's Skitch comes to mind pretty quickly
).Besides that, I'm not sure what's wrong with using timg tags..
It is my understanding (Maybe I'm wrong) that images in timg tags have already been cached in your computer (well, at least for regular browsers of the thread) so you aren't actually loading all that extra content.
I definitely prefer the timg tags to be allowed, but if it is actually an issue for bandwith/loading times, I wouldn't be THAT anguished to see them go..
See, now that's why you've been trusted with such immense power.
Looking back I agree that the same image quoted by several different members over and over gets to be distracting, but we must work on the assumption that not every poster has teh common sense™ or etiquette skills required for the thread to run smoothly on its own. I can understand the frustration the mods must feel for trying to simplify stuff for us and getting no thanks... I feel for them. We can never expect even a small fraction of the potd posters to actually read the rules as laid out by iGary in the beginning before joining in. Until recently it seemed that the thread was policing itself most of the time by its senior members. I can see the need for some type of moderation but how important is it? Does the entire MR forum have to undergo new image posting rules and restrictions in the name of fairness as well? Will those highly talented and more serious contributors who I look to learn from drift away or lose interest, and haven't some already? My pet peeve is the unrelated bickering over c/c, not the quoted images. Can we also please have these annoyances shoveled over to some "I think your opinion stinks" political/religion/social issues thread? Sorry for ranting, but it's better vented out somewhere like here rather than in a thread designed for artists and photographers to come together and share their skills and ability, demonstrating the magical and glorious mystery which is our Creation.
An important thing to remember here is that MR is NOT a photography site per se..... In fact, it's only been about the past couple of years that we've even had a subforum devoted to digital photography at all. This is a very busy site in general, loads of bandwidth used on a daily basis, and undoubtedly lots of time put in by each of the admins and mods to keep things running smoothly!
The first time someone posts his/her image in a thread is not a bandwidth issue for MR because the image is being "hotlinked" from a hosting site elsewhere. The next guy who comes along, views the image and then decides to quote the whole post in its entirely, including the full-sized hotlinked image, is causing issues because this indeed does slow down thread and post loading, and really is it necessary to quote everything, including the image, just to say, "gee, great photo!" NO.
I am fine with either a decision to use only links in the future or TIMG tags, whichever works out best in the long run for MR and its members.
The first time someone posts his/her image in a thread is not a bandwidth issue for MR because the image is being "hotlinked" from a hosting site elsewhere. The next guy who comes along, views the image and then decides to quote the whole post in its entirely, including the full-sized hotlinked image, is causing issues because this indeed does slow down thread and post loading, and really is it necessary to quote everything, including the image, just to say, "gee, great photo!" NO.
I am fine with either a decision to use only links in the future or TIMG tags, whichever works out best in the long run for MR and its members.
What if the title of the thread was something like Read the rules before posting in the Picture of the Day Thread with a hotlink to the rules, whatever they are determined by admins to be... is that possible? Then offenders could be dealt with in the same way offenders in other threads are dealt with by the mods... or something like that.
As someone who obsessively looks at the potd thread about 10 times a day I'd like to say that I am a supporter of the use of <timg>. The reason I love the forum so much is the amount you can learn about photography, and having the image in sight whilst reading the c&c is fantastic.