 | | Signature Image Abuse
|
|
I haven't seen any of this yet, likely cause the FTX features are new. However, on the EZBoard style sites, many people include LARGE images in their signatures - non-standard banners for their sites, poorly made animations, etc. Sometimes these (...) (22 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Let's wait a bit and see how it ends up being used first. I think the best way to define ground rules would be with tasteful netiquette examples. (...) Yup, there's definitely the potential for abuse. This isn't a full chainsaw like HTML is, (...) (22 years ago, 28-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) I don't think we'll have to wait that long... (3 URLs) (I know Chris was just joking here -- we were chatting about it at the time, but he was trying to prove a point by giving an example of overdoing it) I suggest limiting signature banners (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) How do you suggest knowing which images are signature banners? (...) What about 50x80? How do you suggest knowing which images are avatars? (...) Even if they're pornographic? (...) Oh that's -=(*text*)=- but you don't want to try that out. (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) you mean like this? <</nonesuch/test>> (blinks in Mozilla) Dan (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Watchful concerned community members who are willing to kindly guide and inform abusers. (...) If you prefer :-) (...) See above. (...) So, no animations, unless they're porn? ;-) (...) :-P Sorry if I'm coming across as a bit negative. I (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Tim Courtney wrote: <snip> Needless to say I agree with Tim that there is a good potential for abuse here... I raised another type of potential abuse in this post: (URL) it seems to have gone unanswered. Perhaps because (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) See, the only thing that worries me about that is sooner or later - one of the guides are going to rub sombody the wrong way and I fear a huge war breaking out over it. I do not think that is too far-fetched. It happens every so often when (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Abusers sounds like such a nasty word. If someone embedded a 6000x6000-pixel Hubble Telescope image 10 times in a row as a prank, that would be abuse. If someone wanted a sig image just a little bit bigger than "normal," would that be abuse? (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Yup, I agree, and I think the posting page should summarize or refer posters to a page of netiquette guidelines (don't top-post; delete irrelevant quoted content; don't post annoying animated GIFs; don't post images too large; etc.). (...) (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) If the guidance was given in a way that was accepted by regulars as polite, getting 'rubbed the wrong way' would be entirely the fault of the person receiving the correction. I don't think we need to go out of our way to make LUGNET a (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) That's an interesting point -- I think it would preserve the freedom for those who use it responsibly, and enable you to prevent abusers from continuing to abuse the privilege. -Tim (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) On a somewhat unrelated note, Todd, do you have plans to be able to save sigs? That would be a HUGE win to me. Jake --- Jake McKee Webmaster - BIP (URL) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) If not abuse, what would it be? It would be a violation of netiquette, so after the "abuser" is made aware of such guidelines, further violations would at the least be considered rude. Perhaps they aren't an 'abuser' until they're conscious (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) You do if you read messages on the web interface using either the Entire Thread on One Page or the This Message and its Replies one One Page options. Brian H. Nielsen (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Tim Courtney wrote: <snip> (...) Mmm, really, may I ask what was the intended purpose of including outside images? I'n sort of confused here- no big images, no sig images, etc. You could make a rule that simply says, 'no (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) I think MOC images can (and should) be larger. I'm not concerned about size there (though others are). I'm on a DSL connection, running 1600x1200 resolution. But, I do respect those who don't have that available, and suggest images of MOCs (or (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) This is what I meant.. if for whatever reason it's decided that FTX should no longer be allowed in posts, can you at that point - prevent people from including FTX tags? (I suspect not, at least not in an easy to implement but hard to get (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Good one! I've been wishing for a feature like that for some time :-) I almost never use a sig, cause I post casually far more often than I do as a representative of a group or org. Another one could be -- with the membership overhaul, allow (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Turn it around - let people turn off FTX in messages they read. Todd's already contemplating a setting to let people choose to filter out images based on size. How about another option to filter out all FTX formatting? (...) I've always liked (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) or combine the two, and allow people to block (or allow) FTX in messages from specific posters. (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) I meant disabling the viewing of it on a person-by-person basis...not disabling their ability to post that way. --Todd (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Yes, one per e-mail address. So you can have different sigs if you post from multiple addresses. --Todd (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) No... although preventing someone from posting with that content type wouldn't be much work if it were administered manually (the same way someone is prevent from posting at all, which is very rare). (...) Yes, trivial. Just commenting out one (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) So, does that mean that for example: • I, Tim Courtney, can see that poster John Doe is annoying me, and flip a switch so LUGNET doesn't show me FTX formatting when I read his posts or • You, Todd Lehman (or another admin), can see that John (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Good plan, works for me :-) -Tim (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) For all sorts of things. (...) Not excessively big. Use common sense. (...) Again, use common sense. Sig images are fine if they don't annoy people. --Todd (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) I think 640x480 is a good suggested maximum. IMHO, there'd be nothing wrong with 640x2000, though, if it were, say, a giant comic book page. I think it really needs to be left up to the viewer to decide what to do with large images. (...) Hmm, (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) my guess is that I choose not to see any FTX formatting, ever, by anyone. That seems the easiest to implement. Dan (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Neither... I meant: You, Tim Courtney, could disable viewing of all FTX messages. Other people would still see FTX messages. But the other two options might be possibilities. (Although I'd hate to do the second one.) --Todd (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) The various discussion has brought up a lot of issues. There has only been momentary reference to pornography, but have you considered that? Since the images are hosted externally, you can't even put someone on moderation since they can make (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) If such a thing were possible, yes :-) -Tim (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Sounds good. But make a clear limit on the number of charactars and/or lines. -- Kyle (URL) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Also, with a signature feature implemented, people will probably be more inclined to use that than paste in each time. If it's not convenient for them to store more than x lines, they won't. So that will deter abuse as it is. -Tim (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) it will allow a different kind of abuse. If I put an image in my sig, I can track who's reading my posts - just like doubleclick.net. Not sure if people are worried about the privacy implecations. Dan (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Hmm interesting. I can't think of anything really evil to do with that info though... is it a big deal if others know if you read their LUGNET posts? -Tim (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Suggestions on limit values? Standard sig size according to RFC 1855 (URL) 4 lines -- but that's a "rule of thumb" and not something written in stone (I think 'rn' or some other newsreader I used once upon a time enforced it, however). I'm (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) You can do that now by putting an image in you post --Orion (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) right - that was my point. The fact that you could put it in a sig is the same thing, only easier. Just wanted to point out something to consider when allowing inline images. Dan (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Of course in practice it wouldn't be a very effective way for someone to snoop because of image caching in clients. They'd log a few hits here and there but not likely enough for any meaningful tracking. --Todd (21 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Todd Lehman wrote: <snip> (...) It's not just a matter of lines, it's a matter of bandwidth consumed. Consider this post: (URL) current "signature" is only 2 or so lines long (depending on how you count) but has a 30K (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
