Subject:
|
Try for summary of this debate...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2002 06:23:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
248 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> It was an image of a totally naked woman with LEGO bricks covering up the
> genetalia.
(gen*I*talia but who's counting)
OK, thanks for that info. I've seen nekkid girls before so I guess I didn't
miss much there. But was it anyone we KNOW???
Um, can I suggest that someone summarize the larger discussion and see if it
can be put to bed (urp, well you know what I mean)
Here's a cut of my thinking on where things stand...
Without numbers, we have no idea if these avatars are a load (bandwidth
wise) on the server sufficient to know if Kevin should be concerned. Kevin
would have those numbers and could share them if he was so inclined. He
hasn't yet... maybe he's waiting for a consensus or maybe he isn't aware or
maybe he's busy or whatever.
But even IF they're a load, it's a value judgement to say these (LEGO
related) images are "better" or "worse" than other LEGO related images. So
unless they are a HUGE load, say orders of magnitude worse than other
things, arguing against them from that angle smacks of discrimination
against these images, or these users, or this product line and I'm thinking
that's wrong, brickshelf ought not to be making value judgements... (WE
certainly can... it would be neat if Brickshelf had a "rate this image"
function (not to be confused with how many times it got viewed))
So I'm not sure I'd support a ban on avatars per se, despite being the
person who brought up the bandwidth argument in the first place, absent some
hard analysis and factual basis for such a ban.
On the other hand, they DO seriously pollute the recent pages, as do a
number of other things as well. I don't think anyone here participating
except Tom I. would disagree with that. Everyone here except him has said
they don't like paging past pages of images that aren't relevent and aren't
something that should be seen in the recent list just to get to one or two
actual MOCs per page (which is how bad it is sometimes)
I think a way to suppress that pollution would be good. Not just for these
images but for a LOT of categories of images that really aren't "newsworthy"
per se, they are just images being hosted there for convenience.
Not having them appear in recent does NOT in any way shape or form reduce
their utility as images served up in some other context (eBay, BZ, Folder
headings once you actually have content there, etc), unless I am greatly
missing something. (I am not swayed by the "the author thinks it is
significant" argument for an avatar... education will fix that)
Making the default "don't update recent with this" would help. Putting some
help text in on why it (pollution of recent) is a problem would help.
Education of users would help. I suspect most avatar creators, were it
explained to them what's thoughtful and what isn't, would do the right
thing. Even the 9 year old ones would, I suspect. People are generally good.
(just as I suspect once it's re-explained that .announce isn't the place for
MOC postings, most people will do the right thing. In some ways these are
somewhat similar...)
Perhaps the BZ helps could be addressed NOW to at least not get one folder
per avatar... that would be a good help. We have had some participants here
who said they are BZ admins. Can we at least get that change made regardless
of other outcomes?
But the downside of this "don't update recent" suggestion is that it takes
technical work. Kevin would be the best judge of hardness of the work. He
would need to carry out an analysis. Maybe it's easy. Maybe it's really
hard. Dunno yet. Then if it was easy enough he'd have to do the actual work.
SO it would not happen immediately, presumably.
That's my summation, I tried to cover the points I think are relevant and to
put my thoughts in but not too foamily. OT.D really swelled in just a few
hours, maybe this will help, maybe not.
If you think this is a fair summary say so, (or if you don't, say so) if you
agree with my suggestions say so, if not, say that too.
OK I gotta get to bed. We are in system test at this client starting
tomorrow and I also have to do some work on the next release as well.
From Harrisburg PA
++Lar
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: Try for summary of this debate...
|
| (...) Just looking at the size of these, they seem negligible even compared to the stuff in my own folders. So I don't think bandwidth is a huge factor. The main beef I would have is that they put each one in a separate folder (which you talk about (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Try for summary of this debate...
|
| (...) Absolutely agreed. I think we've got to be careful about how we talk about the bandwidth issue until we have hard data. (...) I definitely agree with the above. (...) Umm, isn't a 9 year old breaking Brickshelf's TOS no matter what he/she (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Try for summary of this debate...
|
| (...) I'd like to highlight this a bit more. I think it would be a big mistake to make any value judgements based on popularity contests for what content is allowed. A "highlights" page which brought forth folders or images which are highly rated (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
