Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.



:-)

> 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.

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.

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 ;-)

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • But all those examples sell a wide variety of things,  and mostly they are well spread out along Lordship Lane. These two shops both sell one very specific thing, albeit in different flavours, and are just across the road from each other. I don't think you can compare the distribution of shops in Roman times to the distribution of shops in Lordship Lane in the twenty first century. Well, you can, but it doesn't feel very appropriate. Haa anybody asked the first shop how they feel? Are they happy about the "healthy competition" ?
    • ED is included in the 17 August closure set (or just possibly 15 August, depending on which part of the page you trust more) listed at https://metro.co.uk/2025/07/25/full-list-25-poundland-stores-confirmed-close-august-23753048/. Here incidentally are some snippets from their annual reports, at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02495645/filing-history. 2022: " during the period we opened 41 stores and closed 43 loss-making/under-performing stores.  At the period-end we were trading from 821 stores in the UK, IoM and ROI. ... "We renogotiated 82 leases in the year, saving on average 45% versus the prior lease agreement..." 2023: "We also continued to improve our market footprint through sourcing better store locations, opening 53 and closing 51 stores during the year." 2024:  "The ex-Wilco stores acquired in the prior year have formed a core part of this strategy to expand our store network.  We favour quality over quantity and during the period we opened 84 stores and closed 71 loss-making/under-performing ones."
    • Ha! After I posted this, I thought of lots more examples. Screwfix and the hardware store? Mrs Robinson and Jumping Bean? Chemists, plant shops, hairdressers...  the list goes on... it's good to have healthy competition  Ooooh! Two cheese shops
    • You've got a point.  Thinking Leyland and Screwfix too but this felt different.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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