Jump to content

east dulwich forum flickr account

El Pibe

By El Pibe
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

El Pibe

El Pibe

Posted
Posted

I've taken the liberty of setting up a flickr account for everyone to use (and a gmail for that matter)


user: [email protected]

pwd: ForumUser01


forum user


Hopefully people can get the hang of it.

Upload the photo there instead of to a message, click on the share button of the photo and copy the code in the Grab the HTML/BBCode box (you can set the size and everything)


Burden on server lightened, plus photo should never dissappear.

ianr

ianr

Posted
Posted



:-)

> click on the share button of the photo and copy the code in the Grab the

> HTML/BBCode box (you can set the size and everything)


[post-smiley ed:] and then a moderator has to waste five minutes to come along and change it to something more reasonable.


Do you really want to encourage the embedding of photographs within threads? It's a pain to consume, and an encouragement to nuisance hot-linking.


[Afterthought 8/11] Isn't this, in proposed form, a non-starter anyway? The Flickr account seems inaccessible to me, presumably because the Flickr username is associated with a single (El Pibe's) Yahoo account. Would Flickr even countenance the creation of an account meant to be accessible by anyone? Even if they did, wouldn't it then be liable to attacks by trollers, spammers, pirates, vandals, porn merchants, the bored, ..., for all of which the nominal account holder would be liable to be held responsible.

ianr

ianr

Posted
Posted

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> embed, link, whatever.


But you were encouraging embedding, as did Admin in the "How to upload and embed a photo:Guide" sticky thread, and its use has been building up since then. Properly it's perhaps in that thread that I should really be querying the practice. I've nothing against the use of an external image repository to lighten the forum server load; probably a good idea, if Flickr or whoever can tolerate it and it can be managed if necessary.


> Given the recent spat on the CGF thread, I reckon it's sensible.


Is that one of the picture threads? I tend to avoid them if I remember them.


> Plus moderators can always edit the worst offenders


Do they really want the work and worry?


> This forum really does sap one's will to live sometimes, with it's wellspring of negativity.


I do sometimes find avoiding reading the forum at all quite therapeutic, for a number of reasons, but I'll keep quiet rather than risk being accused of negativity, and stick to the current straw.


I just don't see why, in most cases, the polite and helpful provision of a link, such as Dispproving baby photo, isn't preferable to having my screen gratuitously filled with whatever someone thinks I should be viewing, and having my reading of a thread made correpondingly less easy.

El Pibe

El Pibe

Posted
  • Author
Posted

as i said, link, embed meh.


The spat was about history man effectively using the forum's servers as a repository of photos of local historical interest and then getting upset that admin was deleting them.


He probably didn't know how to embed, and just supplied the links. The presentation is irrelevant to the problem really.


Sorry to tar you with such an adjective, but I was just trying to provide a dedicated resource to help tackle a real problem - people complaining about their photos being deleted by admin, but not being bothered to actually do anything about it - with a workable solution.


I try to do something and within moments I'm being told it's undesirable.


The word sheesh sprung to mind ;-)

El Pibe

El Pibe

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Plus links with "midfuck" in and from a whole host of sites get disabled by work firewalls!! (yeah I suppose some might also do flickr, though so far nowhere i've worked)


and whenever I've seen embeds that break the page then me old mucker mockney resizes them, takes seconds.

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • Forest Hill Climber
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By Forest Hill Climber · Posted

      In 2016 London City Airport began using concentrated flight paths. When there's a predominantly westerly wind, incoming aircraft approach from East London (north of the River. When there's a predominantly Easterly wind, incoming aircraft approach the airport from the West: circling through Forest Hill, Dulwich, Vauxhall, Tower Hamlets, Docklands. This latter flight path affects many of us in South East London. https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/london-city-airport-concentrated-flight-paths The planes going into City are often below 2,000 ft, so very noisy. Sometimes we have incoming Heathrow at the same time, flying higher. The early flights that I hear e.g. 04:30 are incoming to Heathrow. They are scheduled to land at 05:30 but are 'early'. Apparently the government allows a percentage of flights to arrive early and late (but these are now established as regular occurrences, informally part of the schedule). IMHO Londoners are getting very poor political representation on this issue. Incredible that if you want to complain about aircraft noise, you're supposed to contact the airport concerned! Preposterous and designed solely in favour of aviation expansion.
    • DulwichParker
      Local plumber and gas engineer - Jafar - Portrait Plumbing

      By DulwichParker · Posted

      Yet another recommendation for Jafar. Such a nice guy, really reliable and fair. He fixed a problem with our boiler and then incredibly kindly made two more visits to replace a different part at no extra cost. 
    • Sue Klein
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By Sue Klein · Posted

      I didn't have any problems with plane noise until city airport started flying planes to and from about 5-8 minutes apart from 5.30 am or  6 am,  and even with ear plugs and double glazing I am woken at about 6 well before I usually would wake  up. I have lived here since 1986 and it is relatively recently that the planes have been flying far too low over East dulwich. I very much doubt that they are headinbg to Heathrow or from Heathrow. As the crow flies we are much , MUCH closer to City Airport than Heathrow or Gatwick. I even saw one flying so low you could see all the windows, when I was in Peckham Rye Park.
    • Jenijenjen
      The Chapel of Rest

      By Jenijenjen · Posted

      Robert Redford

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...