|
Chris Maunder wrote: If images are added to forums and/or quick answers they must appear immediately and there must be a decent proportion of members who can nuke the message immediately. That's the only way it will work.
It is a good idea.
Also we can allow users to attach a screenshot after a certain reputation points.
|
|
|
|
|
Others have replied regarding the issues with uploading images.
One solution to this is to allow members to upload images, but in return give other members even greater powers in removing messages, and removing the accounts of those that post inappropriate material. I'm not sure that would make everyone happy. (Actually I know it would really upset certain members - but I'm guessing the majority of those simply wishing to ask and answer programming questions in a professional manner would appreciate the extra option)
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate your solution and we can implement this. 
I am supporting this.
Also I have suggested some solutions to the problem explained by Richard, they are:
1. We have to make more people (at least 50 guys) as approvers. We can also decide this
according to average login rate of high reputed guys in a partcular day/week/month,
so that we are sure that some approver is online everytime to approve the screenshot.
2. Even after the screenshot appears, we will have another "flag" option by which Admin
will be notified immiediately and take necessary step on that picture.
|
|
|
|
|
Tadit Dash wrote: 2. Even after the screenshot appears, we will have another "flag" option by
which Admin
will be notified immiediately and take necessary step on that
picture.
You'd need admins to cover every time zone then - and you'd need enough of them to cope with holiday cover, work commitments, etc. I honestly don't know if Chris would want to open up the admin gates to that many people - there are very few real site protectors around now.
|
|
|
|
|
I hardly even know what a Site Protector looks like anymore.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay then we can leave this point 2 about notifying the admin.
But point 1
Tadit Dash wrote: We have to make more people (at least 50 guys) as approvers. We can also decide this according to average login rate of high reputed guys in a partcular day/week/month, so that we are sure that some approver is online everytime to approve the screenshot.
can still serve our purpose. 
|
|
|
|
|
Or we can leave the system as it is.
There is a practical reason here - if you allow screenshots, these could be very large. This would affect anyone who looked it up using a data plan on mobile, or people who are logging in from locations where the communications infrastructure isn't up to the latest western standards.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: if you allow screenshots, these could be very large
We can reduce the size in the code behind.
|
|
|
|
|
Doing that reduces the resolution/clarity, negating the benefit. If I were you, I'd give this one up as an idea that isn't going to go anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Doing that reduces the resolution/clarity, negating the benefit.
Sorry, but I don't agree with this. If you see the pictures uploaded in facebook, they have the same clarity and resolution as that of the originally uploaded one with reduced size (you can check this by downloading the same picture).
And one more thing, they can be downloaded on mobile devices very quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
If you make a picture smaller, something has to give. If I have an image that's 1600 x 800 and I reduce it to 400 x 200, then I have to somehow make that image 4 times smaller.
Tadit Dash wrote: And one more thing, they can be downloaded on mobile devices very quickly.
Or not, and they still eat into a data plan. You can't get past that point.
As there is a workable alternative, I have to say that I can't see this going anywhere and you can argue the point all you like.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: If you make a picture smaller, something has to give. If I have an image that's 1600 x 800 and I reduce it to 400 x 200, then I have to somehow make that image 4 times smaller.
then the image size will also reduce.
For example - If we have the original picture of 1 MB, then it may reduce to 40 to 50 KB and that will have a manageable clarity also.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: they still eat into a data plan.
And if the size will be reduced to 40 to 50 KB, then it will not eat much of the bandwidth...
|
|
|
|
|
And when the image size reduces, so does the size of fonts in the image.
|
|
|
|
|
The solution here is to automatically limit images to a certain size by resizing, server-side, images larger than 600px x 300px (say) and then linking that reduced sized image to the original large image via a hyperlink.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I am definitely against that. Simply use third party drop sites, and put a link. Don't pollute CP with images of all kinds, requiring another moderation.
|
|
|
|
|
If user wants to give any unsuitable content, then they can also do that by third party drop sites. And it will require moderation.
Instead we can make this functionality in CP, so that we would be having the image alongwith the question (not external image links).
|
|
|
|
|
Providing links is already possible, and already moderated. Plus I have the choice to open or not open a link, and can preview where this goes to. In all cases, surfing CP is safe.
Your request implies:
1. that the CP content could not be safe anymore, eg, I cannot open a CP page anymore without a risk of NSFW pictures displayed ( and that will happen, trust me).
2. that something for which a solution already exists must be rethought, with extra implementation and extra moderation.
No, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you really need a "screenshot" to include with your whatever: then why don't you do a screen-capture on your own computer, open it, and crop-it, so only what is relevant appears, then put it on-line in the cloud somewhere (like Picasa, DropBox, or whatever) and post a link to it in your question or comment.
That gives the CP user the option to view the screenshot or not.
If CP allowed the inclusion of pictures, screen-shots, etc., it would be a mad-house rather than a fun-house 
best, Bill
"If you shoot at mimes, should you use a silencer ?" Stephen Wright
|
|
|
|
|
In my profile, I set my company name to "Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion", but after I save it, it is truncated to "Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism".
Who ever heard of SPECT? 
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
You should have gone to SPECT Savers.
|
|
|
|
|
You sir are a cad.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: Who ever heard of SPECT?
I don't 'spect anyone did. 
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
