- Joined
- Mar 27, 2015
- Messages
- 1,928
- Reaction score
- 352
I take your point about previous posts very well indeed, but in my experience most people have been quite sensible about thumb sizes and don't put up a fight when they step outside boundaries and are asked nicely to keep it small and neat. What made me ask the question was the direct challenge and the assertion that there is no specific rule governing maximum thumb sizes. It didn't help my mood that the pictures in question were of Kim Kardashian. as if my day wasn't bad enough already.
These ideas spread like viruses specially from the click-thru cashwhores vying to draw attention to their posts. I'm already constantly having to fight againts "post stacking", where there are only one or two thmbs per row in a full gallery so that that post comes to dominate an entire page. Now imagine posts of full size embeds. Once one does it they will all try it and if there is nothing in governance to proibit or limit the action we can't stop it without becoming unreasonably dictatorial, a course I am loathe to follow.
As to the social media flood, in my view the only way to disuade it is to change the rule on hosts to curtail Imagetwist etc which,, if my understanding is correct, pay sall amounts for click-thru traffic. I did take barnik8's point well about the reduction in activity, but I can't help wondering if the current activity is what we want anyway. We have very good posters like Ghost and Friend26 who seek out quality to contribute and would almost certainly move seemlessly to imagebam or sharenxs, but they are often drowned out by the endless vomitoria of twitpics, snapchats, "adds" etc most of which we can't disallow because it meets established criteria. We may not be able to ban or disallow such posts but we can disincentivise them by curtiling profit motive. I suspect that by taking the emphasis off such posts to make those quality contributions currently lost in the cacophany more prominent we'll attract more quality posters, the real genre enthusiasts, to the board who may be reluctant to join the Kardashian-Cyrus-Thorne famewhore bandwagon currently being propagated.
It also occurs to me that I have been thinking about this far too much and that my 2016 resolution should be to get a life
BOC
These ideas spread like viruses specially from the click-thru cashwhores vying to draw attention to their posts. I'm already constantly having to fight againts "post stacking", where there are only one or two thmbs per row in a full gallery so that that post comes to dominate an entire page. Now imagine posts of full size embeds. Once one does it they will all try it and if there is nothing in governance to proibit or limit the action we can't stop it without becoming unreasonably dictatorial, a course I am loathe to follow.
As to the social media flood, in my view the only way to disuade it is to change the rule on hosts to curtail Imagetwist etc which,, if my understanding is correct, pay sall amounts for click-thru traffic. I did take barnik8's point well about the reduction in activity, but I can't help wondering if the current activity is what we want anyway. We have very good posters like Ghost and Friend26 who seek out quality to contribute and would almost certainly move seemlessly to imagebam or sharenxs, but they are often drowned out by the endless vomitoria of twitpics, snapchats, "adds" etc most of which we can't disallow because it meets established criteria. We may not be able to ban or disallow such posts but we can disincentivise them by curtiling profit motive. I suspect that by taking the emphasis off such posts to make those quality contributions currently lost in the cacophany more prominent we'll attract more quality posters, the real genre enthusiasts, to the board who may be reluctant to join the Kardashian-Cyrus-Thorne famewhore bandwagon currently being propagated.
It also occurs to me that I have been thinking about this far too much and that my 2016 resolution should be to get a life
BOC
