Subject:
|
Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2002 22:34:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1259 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Jeff Stembel wrote:
> > As far as I'm concerned, posting the avatar images are a blatant abuse of
> > the free service Kevin is providing to us as Lego fans.
>
> I don't see how these images are abuse. The TOS only requires that
> images be related to LEGO products or be of general interest to the LEGO
> community.
My reasons for feeling they are abuse is due to the drowning out of content I,
and other fans I speak to on a regular basis, am interested in, the bandwidth
issues, and their general appearance. Frankly, I think they're ugly. I
wouldn't complain if there was one or two per recent page, since there have
been other things I've thought were ugly and didn't comment on.
I rarely check the Brickshelf recent page from home anymore because I have
dialup, and downloading all of those avatar images is a waste of *my*
bandwidth, and the only thing I can do about it is not look, which means I may
very well miss viewing models I *am* interested in.
> Unless one feels that Bionicle Zone is not part of the "LEGO
> community" I would think that avatars for use on BZ would apply since
> they are of general interest to the segment of the LEGO community which
> uses BZ.
Well, I rather doubt that all of them are reserved strictly for BZ, and
honestly, I'd complain if Lugnet used a similar system and members here put the
images up on Brickshelf.
> The volume of them is large, and they may not interest as large a number
> of us as pictures of the latest supper MOC,
I submit they are of less interest to the general fan community than pics of
any MOC whatsoever.
> but what standard do we use to determine if an image is of "general interest
> to the LEGO community"?
I suppose whatever "we" can convince Kevin is of general interest to the fan
community. :)
> How many people need to be interested in the picture for it to be
> acceptable?
Actually, I think it should be the other way around. If a lot of people
complain, then maybe it isn't of general interest, hmm? :)
> > I know very well what hurting means, thank you very much. These images are
> > flooding out the content I want to veiw, and are most *certainly* hurting my
> > viewing experience. And I'll say again, they are hurting the signal to
> > noise ratio on Brickshelf.
>
> That is a valid complaint, and hopefully Kevin will respond to it. I
> hope he does so in a way which lays down clear and reasonable rules
> which don't prevent the occasional "fun" picture and preferably just
> does something so that certain classes of images don't flood the "recent
> updates" pages. I think banning them would be hard to do without hurting
> the overall community. Pictures which I would like to see continue to be
> allowed on Brickshelf which could be targeted by the same rule which
> bans avatars include:
"Do not upload images to be used as "avatars" on web forums because they use
too much bandwidth." Works for me, although I'm sure Kevin would be able write
a better worded ban than that. ;)
> - photo's of fans (and their families, including pets) which help us see
> each other as individuals (example:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=584 ) (careful wording
> could continue to allow these while banning avatars)
Well, Kevin has said in the past that a few personal images are of general
interest to the community, whereas family albums are not. ;)
> - member folder pictures (example:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?lsearch=andersson ) (these
> pictures which serve the same purpose as avatars could be allowed while
> banning similar images for other services, they also do not exist in the
> normal Brickshelf space so presumably updates of them don't cause
> something to appear in the recent updates pages).
Those are almost never seen and take up very little space, and thus generate
little bandwidth issues. :)
> Note that it would actually be easier to ban pictures for eBay and whatnot
> since there a purpose is to use the image to get money.
Kevin has specifically said, however, that he *wants* people to put their ebay
and brickbay images on Brickshelf. In my opinion, even those images are of
more interest to the general fan community than the avatar images, especially
when viewing the recent page.
Jeff
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
| (...) I don't see how these images are abuse. The TOS only requires that images be related to LEGO products or be of general interest to the LEGO community. Unless one feels that Bionicle Zone is not part of the "LEGO community" I would think that (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
122 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
