Spiff

Trip Reports and Travel Photography have shown a positive response to the new photography abilities. Other forums could show a similar benefit by having photography capabilities included as well.

With the exception of Omni, should other forums be photography-capable as well, with a reasonable restriction of say 1 photo per post?

This thread has been started by me not acting as TalkBoard Liaison but as a FlyerTalker.

chrissxb

I support that idea

1 or 2 photos / post are reasonable, mods can allow more if a specific thread needs them. I could imagine the 1st emirates flight with A380 being an exception if a FTer makes some photos. but the restriction actually makes sense (except for trip report and the travel photography forum) - photos can help to show for example hotel properties or airline seats, but we don't need a picture album, we have a.net for that

wharvey

I support this wholeheartedly.... however, I would not limit the number of photos... I can imagine many reason where more than 1 or 2 photos would be valuable....

This would add "character" and "color" to many threads....

William

chrissxb

but make others look like the daily mirror or the sun
or Bild or whatever you have in your country

linsj

The only other online BB I frequent allows photos in any thread with no limits. Even on DSL, threads with pics dowload slowly (I can't look at those threads on dial-up, which I'm on occasionally), and it's incredibly annoying to scroll past them to read the text I'm interested in. I don't want to see that happen here.

Spiff

Photo viewing can be turned off by a user, can it not?

wharvey

Yes, you can....

You do it here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/profi...do=editoptions

Under Visible Display Options.

Kiwi Flyer

Yes it can. However it will be annoying to have to remember to change that setting potentially each time I log in. Some computers I use have fast connections and others slow (even without the odd FT being sloooow issues). I use lots of different computers to access FT (including airline lounges around the world). If photos in threads become widespread I will likely have to switch it off permanently even though the computer I use most often is mostly okay FT performance.

I like the current setup (with links to off-FT sites). That way I have the choice to view or not without suffering performance or having to play with my settings.

Edited to add - allowing embedded photos in the forums I moderate presumably will give me no choice but to have images enabled. This means I won't be able to moderate effectively while travelling (depending on the computers and connections available), and as some here know I travel a lot.

Prospero

My two pennies worth

obscure2k

I agree^

magiciansampras

Not that I necessarily disagree, but what is the logic behind excluding OMNI from this?

SkiAdcock

Guess I haven't been to trip reports or travel photography lately. I didn't know you could post photos in those forums! I'm on the fence on this one, but more inclined to keep status quo due to kiwiflyer's comments. OVMV.

Cheers.

Kiwi Flyer

If images were enabled for OMNI, how many seconds do you think it would take until OMNI become swamped with p0rn?

magiciansampras

How is that any different than any other forum? OMNI has a moderator just like all the other high-traffic forums.

lin821

THIS logic, I think I can follow.
True. But maybe FTers wouldn't want to burden Randy with the new task, right?

Speaking from an innocent mistake, I am for the status quo.

Once I was replying to a thread in Technical Issues Forum. The post I had quoted had screenshot of the presenting problem. Without knowing the "complications" with the embedded pictures/photos, my reply turned into a huge space eater (on the screen, due to the quoted screenshot). ed1 hinted me nicely about the disabling/enabling FT feature that allowed me to correct my mistake in a timely manner.

I would support any improvement if changes to the status quo wouldn't interfere with:
1) the viewing pleasure of the readers (speed- and space-wise)
2) the efficacy and efficiency of mods