Why no pictures allowed in some forums?

[Borek]

In some forums (Astrophysics for example) it is impossible to post images (using [ img] tags) - they are converted to just links. It is sometimes inconvenient. Is it accidental, or is there some reason behind?

 

[mgb_phys]

I imagine pictures in astronomy tend to be large.
The hosts of PF pay for bandwidth, so if they host the picture rather than supply a link it costs.

 

[Moonbear]

Actually, the reason is far more boring. We do allow attachments in those forums, but not hotlinked images to avoid having inappropriate images (i.e., spam) showing up without going noticed. We've relaxed that in some forums that use a lot of images or that have a lot of visitors who can report spam quickly (still, we prefer the younger students attracted to the science forums not get an eye full of something their parents would rather they not see). The software upgrade we just did comes with a new spam catcher type filter, so maybe we could reconsider allowing the images if that seems to work well to prevent the problems with inappropriate images showing up. We have had very few problems with members abusing the option to use image tags where they are allowed, so I don't think we have to worry about it from that angle, at least not now.

 

[robphy]

From my observations on which forums have the IMG tag on,
it seems the newer forums (like the Homework) and GD and FF&A allow IMG.
However, the older forums (like S&GR) don't.

[S&GR could really benefit from having the IMG tag on
since (I think) "spacetime diagrams" can clarify the discussions and hopefully resolve many confusions folks have with relativity.]

 

[Borek]

I imagine pictures in astronomy tend to be large.
The hosts of PF pay for bandwidth, so if they host the picture rather than supply a link it costs.

It doesn't matter in the case of images linked from the outside (that's what [ img] tags are for) - image is hosted elsewhere.

Moonbear: OK, I understand that approach. At the same time in my experience that's very rarely a problem. I have seen it happening, once. Probably 15 posts limit on links will work for images as well - but that's only a suggestion, I perfectly understand it it is up to Mentors and Overmentor to decide

 

[mgb_phys]

It doesn't matter in the case of images linked from the outside (that's what [ img] trags are for) - image is hosted elsewhere.

Sorry my mistake, I thought he was complaining he couldn't upload pictures but had to host them, rather than visible vs click to view links.

 

[Moonbear]

It doesn't matter in the case of images linked from the outside (that's what [ img] tags are for) - image is hosted elsewhere.

Moonbear: OK, I understand that approach. At the same time in my experience that's very rarely a problem. I have seen it happening, once. Probably 15 posts limit on links will work for images as well - but that's only a suggestion, I perfectly understand it it is up to Mentors and Overmentor to decide

It actually used to happen very frequently (to the point that mentors were getting afraid to open post reports at work...I study reproduction and teach anatomy and there were some images in spam that surprised even me!) However, I don't see as much showing up now that the spam filters have been installed, so our original reasons may no longer be applicable. I'd like to wait just a little longer with the new software to make sure the spammers are all on summer vacation or something, but if this pattern holds up, I'd argue to allow linked images elsewhere as well.

 

[Gokul43201]

Greg, we've got img tags enabled for GD. Could you please extend that to P&WA as well? It would make a huge difference to be able to display polling trends, economic data, demographic data and useful statistics - particularly with the election season we're in.

And beyond this, there are really good reasons to extend it to other forums as well, if there are sufficiently strong safeguards in place. In any case, it couldn't hurt too much to give it a shot for a couple days to see how things go, can it?

 

[D H]

The [noparse][/noparse] tag didn't work for me in Physics:Classical Physics in this post: [url]https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1785086&highlight=xkcd#post1785086[/url]
Is that because Physics:Classical Physics is an old forum or because .png images don't work with the [noparse][PLAIN][/noparse] tag?

If the primary issue is bad images, one solution is to allow people above a certain post count to post (small) images at will. Of course it's hammer time if they do post something foul.

 

[Gokul43201]

To my knowledge, img tags are enabled only for some forums - GD is one of them and I think the HW forums are the other.

 

[Andre]

See the thread http://earth.myfastforum.org/Finally_the_quot_water_quot_isotopes_in_the_ice_cores_about56.html to get an impression how important it is to be able to illustrate the narration.

I do regret it not to be able to that here.

In the several forums I visit I have never seen inappropriate visual spam but that's not a guarantee of course.

 

[Moonbear]

If the primary issue is bad images, one solution is to allow people above a certain post count to post (small) images at will. Of course it's hammer time if they do post something foul.

You can already upload attachments. We just have to approve them. So small images can be posted that way.

Though, if there's a way to enable image tags after reaching a minimum post count, like we tried with links to prevent spammers before the new spam filter was installed, that might be a reasonable way to do it. It would keep the spammers we haven't managed to block from hotlinking their images, but make it easier for our regular members to do so without having to wait for us to find their attachments to approve.

 

[robphy]

You can already upload attachments. We just have to approve them. So small images can be posted that way.

Though, if there's a way to enable image tags after reaching a minimum post count, like we tried with links to prevent spammers before the new spam filter was installed, that might be a reasonable way to do it. It would keep the spammers we haven't managed to block from hotlinking their images, but make it easier for our regular members to do so without having to wait for us to find their attachments to approve.

If I recall correctly, the IMG tag is already enabled in HW and GD.
So, why can't the tag now be enabled in the more-technical forums?
It seems odd to have more restrictions in the more-technical discussions.

If the spammers are here to abuse IMG, wouldn't we see it in HW and GD already?
(In the past, I've been pretty quick with the report button.)
Is it already being seen in HW and GD?

 

[Moonbear]

If I recall correctly, the IMG tag is already enabled in HW and GD.
So, why can't the tag now be enabled in the more-technical forums?
It seems odd to have more restrictions in the more-technical discussions.

If the spammers are here to abuse IMG, wouldn't we see it in HW and GD already?
(In the past, I've been pretty quick with the report button.)
Is it already being seen in HW and GD?

We have seen some pretty graphic spams, though, I didn't realize it was already enabled in HW (or forgot). Of course, since that's where most of the "young eyes" are glued, if it's a problem, that's the forum we'd most want to protect from such images. So, I think you're right, that if we can keep it in HW, then it doesn't make a lot of sense not to allow it in the other forums.

I don't know if there was any other reason Greg had for not enabling it elsewhere, but at least I'm being convinced that the rule may be outdated.

 

[Evo]

I guess I don't know why we would need "photographs" in P&WA. Right now we can link to reputable sources with graphs and I would prefer to keep those "graphs" or "pictures" with the source so I can validate them and people can read the text that goes with those charts. If suddenly a bunch of pictures show up with no reference, I will have no choice but to delete them.

I can see where pictures in other forums would be nice, but again, wouldn't we need to link to the source to verify?

I thought that was one of the reasons it was allowed in GD, people are posting pictures that need no source.

 

[jtbell]

[grumpy mode on]

Are you young whippersnappers too lazy nowadays to click on a link to open an image, or what? Back in my day, I had to hike to the sender's house (uphill both ways, in a blizzard!) to get a printed copy!

[grumpy mode off]



More seriously, am I the only one here who still uses a dialup Internet connection at home? I could get broadband service, but so far I've resisted it, because I have free dialup access to my college's campus network, and I can download really big files at the office.

I suppose I wouldn't mind too much if we allowed inline images, but restricted the number in a single posting or thread. There are some forums that I don't even think of trying to access at home because people commonly include a dozen or so images in a posting, and it takes a half hour or more to open a thread via dialup!

 

[robphy]

More seriously, am I the only one here who still uses a dialup Internet connection at home? I could get broadband service, but so far I've resisted it, because I have free dialup access to my college's campus network, and I can download really big files at the office.

I suppose I wouldn't mind too much if we allowed inline images, but restricted the number in a single posting or thread. There are some forums that I don't even think of trying to access at home because people commonly include a dozen or so images in a posting, and it takes a half hour or more to open a thread via dialup!

Inline images are already allowed in the HW and GD forums.
For example, in HW... https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=243518

My point is:
if they are allowed in HW, why not in the more-technical physics forums (like S&GR)?
In addition, I believe that the traffic in HW is much larger than in the more-technical forums.
Is the usage out of control in HW?


To speed up your browsing via dialup, you can use add-ons in Firefox that will only load images from the website you are viewing (e.g. the PF graphics, avatars, and LaTeX renderings) and not from externally-linked websites, unless you ask for them. In Firefox, you can also not-load images altogether.

 

[Defennder]

I'd really prefer to have embedded images in posts. It saves the trouble of having to click the picture links which may disrupt the flow of content in the post.

 

[Borek]

I guess I don't know why we would need "photographs" in P&WA. Right now we can link to reputable sources with graphs and I would prefer to keep those "graphs" or "pictures" with the source so I can validate them and people can read the text that goes with those charts. If suddenly a bunch of pictures show up with no reference, I will have no choice but to delete them.

Sometimes it is much easier to explain what you mean not by words, but drawing it. It has nothing to do with charts and reputable sources.

And I agree 100% with Defennder - having to click and to move to other website to check something really hurts reading and following the flow of the content.

 

[Evo]

Sometimes it is much easier to explain what you mean not by words, but drawing it. It has nothing to do with charts and reputable sources.

And I agree 100% with Defennder - having to click and to move to other website to check something really hurts reading and following the flow of the content.

So you're talking about an example such as the one shown below.

"See the thread http://earth.myfastforum.org/Finally_the_quot_water_quot_isotopes_in_the_ice_cores_about56.html to get an impression how important it is to be able to illustrate the narration."

Now that would be very nice as long as it has the text and also links back to the proper source.

 

[Borek]

No, I am talking about an example like here:

One picture is worth a thousand of words

 

[Evo]

No, I am talking about an example like here:

One picture is worth a thousand of words

That would be great.

 

[Moonbear]

More seriously, am I the only one here who still uses a dialup Internet connection at home?

Oh, people still use dial-up? :tongue:

I think it's the threads in GD that are more likely to cause problems there, since they have lots of pictures in many posts, and that's already in place. In the main forums, I don't see a lot of need for huge picture files, just a quick way to insert simple diagrams. It would even be nice if the img tags could be used to just insert a thumbnail image that still required clicking to go to the original source if you needed to see it bigger, but would help get an idea of what one was looking at with the text right there. Or, even if attachments could be "arranged" rather than just all stuck at the end.

Is there a BB code that could be used for inserting thumbnails instead of full-sized images? That might be more acceptable to those with dial-up yet allow inserting images in proper context in posts and eliminate the sometimes long delay for a mentor to come along and approve an attachment.

 

[Evo]

Oh, people still use dial-up? :tongue:

I think it's the threads in GD that are more likely to cause problems there, since they have lots of pictures in many posts, and that's already in place. In the main forums, I don't see a lot of need for huge picture files, just a quick way to insert simple diagrams. It would even be nice if the img tags could be used to just insert a thumbnail image that still required clicking to go to the original source if you needed to see it bigger, but would help get an idea of what one was looking at with the text right there. Or, even if attachments could be "arranged" rather than just all stuck at the end.

Is there a BB code that could be used for inserting thumbnails instead of full-sized images? That might be more acceptable to those with dial-up yet allow inserting images in proper context in posts and eliminate the sometimes long delay for a mentor to come along and approve an attachment.

When you use "attachments" it is a thumbnail right now.

Also, most hosting sites' default code is thumbnails now.

 

[robphy]

I'd really prefer to have embedded images in posts. It saves the trouble of having to click the picture links which may disrupt the flow of content in the post.

Even when reading a journal article, I hate having to find a figure that is not close to where it is being mentioned... then hopefully work my way back to where I was. I especially hate when the figures are all at the end (apparently, for the publisher's convenience).

For me, the problem with attachments is that some time is needed for the reviewing process. For a new poster, a review is certainly appropriate. For a seasoned poster in an very-active discussion, the review of attachments would likely hinder the active discussion.

Since there is resistance to extending the already-existing (in the HW and GD forums)
IMG-tag feature to the more-technical forums [which could really benefit from it],
let me suggest a possibly more useful, low-bandwidth, server-stored solution:
allow SVG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graphics
to be included or generated at PF (similar to allowing $\LaTeX$ to be included).
One might be even to find or make an online tool which helps a user create SVG diagrams to be included in a post.

(In the past, I have had to do crazy things with $\LaTeX$ to get a diagram included:
several examples https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=968227#post968227 ,
spacetime diagrams: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=367371#post367371 , https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1278147&postcount=17 .)

Firefox and Opera already support SVG. IE (still) doesn't automatically support it... and thus requires a plugin (e.g. the free Adobe SVG Viewer, which I have been using on IE).

 

[Andre]

Oh, people still use dial-up? :tongue:


Is there a BB code that could be used for inserting thumbnails instead of full-sized images? That might be more acceptable to those with dial-up yet allow inserting images in proper context in posts and eliminate the sometimes long delay for a mentor to come along and approve an attachment.

Something like this:

Click to see full size image

As mentioned several times, it's important that the thumbnail can be inserted in the appropriate location in the text. Not at the end only.

 

[Moonbear]

Something like this:

Click to see full size image

As mentioned several times, it's important that the thumbnail can be inserted in the appropriate location in the text. Not at the end only.

Yes, that's what I meant. But it looks like it's not independent of enabling img tags? I think the issue of keeping the images embedded in threads small enough to not overly bog down people still using dial-up is important to consider. If it were a different tag for thumbnails, that would make it really easy to enable that and not the img tags. I guess we could always just request people use thumbnails rather than full images. We already have so many rules, I'd hate to add another just to pressure people to use reasonable file sizes (though we do already delete the occasional image that's monstrous and ask for it to be reposted in a smaller size).