Subject:
|
Re: Try for summary of this debate...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:47:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
285 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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.
Absolutely agreed. I think we've got to be careful about how we talk
about the bandwidth issue until we have hard data.
> 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.
I definitely agree with the above.
> 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.
Umm, isn't a 9 year old breaking Brickshelf's TOS no matter what he/she
posts? Otherwise I generally agree with the above, but I would point out
that an "opt in" to the recent pages would mean a certain number of
folders wouldn't get so marked (either because the poster forgot to
check the box, didn't think it was necessary, or whatever). An alternate
"recent" list which showed all folders whether marked or not would be
nice. Another nice feature would be some highlight list like Lugnet has
for news.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Try for summary of this debate...
|
| (...) (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 (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
