Subject:
|
Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2002 01:16:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1324 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Inosanto writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeff Stembel writes:
> > 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.
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 what I can and can't ask for a ban 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.
>
> Well, that is ecause of your viewing habbits. But should we ban the items
> you do not like to fit your viewing habbits?
I don't see why not, if a large number of people agree with me, and Kevin
decides to listen to us. Many things on the internet are based on other
people's viewing habits. The use of high bandwith images is designed around
the viewing habits of people who have DSL and cable. TV shows are sometimes
cancelled because people object to content. Heck, pornography, in essence,
isn't allowed to be publicly viewable because a group of people feel it is
objectionable. Sometimes these groups are large. Sometimes they are small.
Either way, someone (in the group sense) is determining what is viewed by
everyone.
> > 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.
No, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that they are disruptive to my
viewing experience.
> > 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.
Sure, little interest in itself isn't reason to ban something. However, if a
large number of people feel it is disruptive and diminishing of the viewing
experience, they have a perfectly valid reason to ask for a ban. For example,
I'm not particularily fond of Train MOCs, but I don't feel they are disruptive,
therefore I don't call for a ban on them.
> > > 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
Excuse me? Where in blazes did this come from? I said nothing about me in
that line.
> > > 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.
Yep, I don't like them, and I think they're disruptive. Do you think anyone
complains about something they like? Or something they are apathetic towards?
No, of course not. Please allow this simple idea to register in your brain.
> 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!
Tim answered this well, so I don't need to expand upon it.
> 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
Those are technically already banned, however, Brickshelf does need better
policing. I plan to bring this up next time I talk to Kevin. Besides, we are
talking about a change in the current Terms of Service.
> > > - 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? Changing the personal user icon does NOT move the folder to the top of
the recent page. Again, did you even read what was written? Apparently not.
Please make sure you understand what is being talked about before you call it
"flawed logic."
> 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.
He is one person, and I think he is doing it on purpose because of this thread.
Besides, it is NOT just one person. there are a large number of people
uploading such pics, and if even ten of these people add a new picture once a
day, they'll stay in the recent page thus continuing the flooding.
> 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.
And if he doesn't listen? What then?
Jeff
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
| <snip old convo> (...) Never said you could not ask for this ban. Please point me to where I did say that. (...) And I understand that. (...) lol, maybe not in that line but its what you are saying. (...) I agree with you 100% (...) Yes it does, go (...) (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
|
|
|
|
