Subject:
|
Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2002 23:16:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1324 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeff Stembel writes:
> 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.
Your felling they are abuse is because you do not like them, and they take
up space for items you do like. Just so happens that there are many of these
items you do not like. But they are lego related, like it or not - they are
lego related and should not be banned from a lego pic hosting service.
> 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.
Well, that is ecause of your viewing habbits. But should we ban the items
you do not like to fit your viewing habbits?
> > 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.
Maybe they all are reserved for BZ, maybe not - does it really matter what
they are reserved for? They are Lego related images.
> > 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.
Ok, lets see your evidence of that. Even if it only interests 5 people in
the entire world, it is lego related, and not of adult content - so does
that mean it should be banned? I was unaware that if a certian percentage of
people did not like the particular item we should throw it away like it is
trash. It is lego related, and there are people who like it - you just have
to learn to deal with it.
> > 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. :)
Once again, because you do not like it it is bad for the community.. hmm
> > 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? :)
Why are you complaining? Oh ya - because you do not like it. Not because it
is not of intrest, but because you do not like it.
> > > 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. ;)
Too much bandwith? I have been meaning to get to this... have you checked
the file size of these? I saved the first one I saw and you know how big the
file was? 3.29kb - thats it! This is the one I saved:
http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=99643
I am more concerned about the NON-LEGO pictures that are 100+ kb in size.
You would have to have appx. 33 of these pictures to equal one 100kb pic.
Your argument would be much better if you went after non-lego items like this:
http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=8106
or this
http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=7528
(random examples taken form a search for misc on brickshelf)
> > - 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. :)
This is the most flawed logic you have presented yet. When anything is
uploaded or altered it goes to the top of the recent page. And ack to
bandwith, the 100+kb non-lego pics take up MUCH more bandwidth than these
3kb files.
What I will say is that somebody needs to explain to 'boy genius' that he
can use one folder to hold all of his images, he is what you call 'flooding'
the recent page. If he put all of his images into one folder it would be
easier for your vieewing habbits - I think your problem really needs to be
with him, not with these images in general. Banning them because you do not
like them is not the answer. I think it would be easy to find 'boy genius'
by looking over on BZ and explain to him that he only needs one folder, not
many folders with only one pic in each one. I do not think he is doing this
on purpose, I think he is unaware of this fact. Agreed?
tom
> > 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 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
| "tom" <tinosanto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GpJI02.2Iu@lugnet.com... (...) generate (...) Storing a file on a server takes up no bandwidth [1]. Accessing that file through the internet remotely does. Chat avatars are accessed much more than (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
| (...) Yes. I do dislike them. I dislike a number of other things, too, but I'm not calling for bans on them. Why? I don't think they are abuses. The basis for every complaint has been becausse of disliking something. Anyway, who are you to determine (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
