TalkBoard Topics - Motion Passed: Allow Images in Omni and Omni P/R

Moved by Cholula and seconded by SkiAdcock:

Allow Images in both OMNI and OMNI/PR


This vote will close on June 6, 2011 at 2:28 PM Pacific Time or after all TalkBoard members have registered their vote, whichever comes first.


Per the TalkBoard Guidelines:
The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.

So while there is already a thread and discussion on this general topic and it is safe to assume that TalkBoard members have reviewed that thread, this thread is about this specific motion. Please feel free to post questions, comments or any other sort of feedback.

A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’

I am very supports for you. Just a limited time for now and no more posts more than 10 or 15 pictures.

Doesn't matter one way or the other for me as I hardly visit Omni or Omni/PR

I've posted links in both OMNI and OMNI/PR so members that frequent those forums will be aware voting is underway.

Thanks for the heads-up, tom911.

I'd encourage a NO vote on this proposal.

One of the things I enjoy about OMNI and P/R is the ability to READ people's opinions and discuss them intelligently, without being subjected to kitten pictures, silly Photoshopped images, and other material with minimal information value. One can already post links to images, if relevant to the topic at hand.

Agreed with Gregory. Clicking on a link to a picture stored elsewhere on the internet is not much more of an inconvenience than actually seeing the image in the post IMO. I would prefer a NO vote as well.

So how will TOS enforcement apply to images in OMNI P/R? Or will it be applied to a posted image in one context on the forum but not apply to the image in another context on the forum?

I hope this motion fails. It undercuts readability (in at least one way) and makes the forum less readable (in more than one way).

I'd encourage a no vote on this. I think the chance of images not appropriate for work is much higher in OMNI and P/R, and for those of us who check FT at work, we'd need to not view any photos in order to elminate those in OMNI and P/R.

What Kipper said.

In other words, NO, NO, NO.

cholula ran a poll in both Omni-lite & Omni-PR for one month:

Results in Omni-Lite:

Yes: 39
No: 37
Maybe: 2
I Don't Care: 12

Results in Omni P/R

Yes: 48
No: 50
Maybe: 4
I Don't Care: 10

Basically dead even on both re: Yes/No. Depends on how you want to count the Maybes/I Don't Care. Input on the public TB thread previously was primarily No. If you count the MIDC as Yes & public TB as No, still looks like it's a dead even.

Some of the people posting no in this thread did so in the public one already re: the same topic, so I don't expect that to change & won't count their no vote twice ;)

Note for anyone reading this who is saying "What's Omni?" or "I don't see an Omni", which I expect we will get when the voting underway on the motion is turned into a public notice at the top of the forums. Omni is a unique forum on FT. It's where non-travel related posts/topics/discussions go. There are 2 sub-forums: Omni-lite (just referred to as Omni) & Omni P/R. Omni-lite might have discussions on getting eyeglasses, talking sports, looking for input on furnaces/mold, who's going to win on American Idol. Omni P/R deals with more 'heavy' topics such as politics/religion & people get more heated.

Cheers.

Another point made in a similar thread, but which bears reposting:

The target audience of FT are frequent travelers. As such, they are far more likely to be accessing this board from mobile devices than the average Internet user. FT needs to be bandwidth-conscious.

A single image, even a small one, can take as much data as pages and pages of text postings. The mobile FTer with a sketchy connection (for whatever reason - maybe in-flight, maybe crappy hotel WiFi, maybe expensive roaming pay as you go in a foreign country) will have to choose between choking on the data stream or missing out on the context of postings with images.

Folks, let's not forget another key point here.

For years, images have been allowed in all FT Forums other than the OMNI's. We originally excluded the OMNI's until we could see the effects of images and how members handled them.

We're just bringing the OMNI's up to speed with the rest of FT and, I hasten to mention, the 21st Century with this motion on allowing images.

And the publishing of images will be subject to the same TOS regulations and enforcement as the written word.

Since Omni isn't treated the same way as other forums on FT, for example, posts don't count, entry requirement, softening of TOS, the FT dumping ground ;), etc, I don't think comparing it to other forums is fair.

That is, unless it becomes on par with all the rest of the forums.

Everytime a thread about a pretty or attractive women comes up, I don't want to be bombarded with pictures of her, as men* in the thread basically use it as an opportunity to ogle her. At the moment, links to pictures may be posted, which don't have the immediacy of actually having everyone in the thread responding to pictures which have been posted in the thread.

This type of posting is not against the TOS - you could make the argument it does not sit well with diversity, but the OMNI mods have told me the diversity TOS is not enforced in OMNI - and so would be allowed per Cholula's post above. But that doesn't mean I want to see on FT competitions to see who can find the sexiest picture of <person A>.

No-one on the OMNI threads tried to deny this would occur, only that I (and the others who objected) could turn off images to stop us having to look at these images. Why should I have to turn off images across FT, when I want to look at people's trip reports, pictures of aircraft interiors and pictures of hotels, because some blokes want to look at pictures of women? If this proposal is passed, it is me, and those like me, who seems to be expected to modify my browsing behaviour on FT so that others can look at not quite relevant to FT's purpose in OMNI.

Given there is no clear mandate for change from the OMNI users, given the problems which have already been identified with it (such as this one, the ones about work appropriate images etc), then I'm surprised this has been advanced, and I hope TB will reject it. 'The rest of FT does it' is not a good reason to change, since OMNI is not like the rest of FT.

(*as it would predominantly be men - sorry, but true. Sexy blokes pic's being posted could at least go either way and I don't want to see those either).

What Kipper said.

In other words, NO, NO, NO.
You posted it first in the poll thread, and far more elegantly than I did in this one. :)
Since Omni isn't treated the same way as other forums on FT, for example, posts don't count, entry requirement, softening of TOS, the FT dumping ground ;), etc, I don't think comparing it to other forums is fair.

That is, unless it becomes on par with all the rest of the forums.
This is a good point. OMNI isn't treated the same as other forums, so I don't think it should be compared to other forums either.

I think images would add value to the Omni experience. Particularly now that it is a 'closed' community once more.

I understand the concerns that others express, but I really don't think it makes sense to limit the user experience out of assumptions and fears.

So how about if the TB passes this motion, but the use of images is closely monitored by the TB, and if the problems and abuses of images that folks are scared of do occur, there is a motion to reverse their allowance?

As i posted in the "poll thread" about allowing images in OMNI....

I say nay and :td: as imho, threads in OMNI and/or OMNI/PR will end up more full of pictures than content (and for me, it's the content that makes OMNI what it is)

Another vote for "No" here.

1)Hotel bandwidths are sometimes slow. Pics will slow load times.

2) Data on mobile devices is expensive. Unlimited data plans aren't standard enough yet.

3) Not everyone will post pictures judiciously. Some may post far too many. Others may post inappropriate content. OMNI is a forum where some may feel confortable posting pornographic content (I recall a boa bites porn model's breast thread which could have been very bad if pics had been allowed).

4) Pics might make this place too much like Facebook. (OK. I'm a little kidding here but I don't want pics all over the place).

If there were some way to make all OMNI pics "Click to view" where the pics are loaded onto FT but aren't downloaded when a page is viewed, I could live with pics. But it would have to be an OMNI-only default not an I have to figure out how to set my account to not display pics when I want to see them in hotel/airline/non-OMNI forums.


BTW, can someone sticky tom911's threads in OMNI and OMNI/PR? I don't think the threads should get buried until all have had an opportunity to see that voting is going on.

I supposed this motion is about allowing "embedded" images in OMNI & PR?

So how about if the TB passes this motion, but the use of images is closely monitored by the TB, and if the problems and abuses of images that folks are scared of do occur, there is a motion to reverse their allowance?
(emphasis mine)

How does TB monitor closely the use of images in OMNI(/PR)? Seem like a path to mix TB job with moderation. :eek:

I say OMNI, PR included, is fun and interesting enough without embedded images. Probably shouldn't overkill the fun with more visuals. Sometimes less is more and the present is fine. ;)

When a picture is more than a thousand words, folks can always resort to hyperlinks. So for those who are interested in visual stimuli, they can still follow the trace.

Please vote no. Thank you.

I supposed this motion is about allowing "embedded" images in OMNI & PR?


(emphasis mine)

How does TB monitor closely the use of images in OMNI(/PR)? Seem like a path to mix TB job with moderation. :eek:



Spend a little time there and see if, in their opinions, the images are having a beneficial or a detrimental impact on the user experience. It they are beneficial, great. If not, they take another vote to remove them again.

I get people being nervous about it. But I see absolutely no harm in giving it a shot.

After all, many of these same arguments were used against allowing images in all other forums, and yet it has done nothing but improve the user experience.

Everytime a thread about a pretty or attractive women comes up, I don't want to be bombarded with pictures of her, as men* in the thread basically use it as an opportunity to ogle her. At the moment, links to pictures may be posted, which don't have the immediacy of actually having everyone in the thread responding to pictures which have been posted in the thread.

This type of posting is not against the TOS - you could make the argument it does not sit well with diversity, but the OMNI mods have told me the diversity TOS is not enforced in OMNI - and so would be allowed per Cholula's post above. But that doesn't mean I want to see on FT competitions to see who can find the sexiest picture of <person A>.

No-one on the OMNI threads tried to deny this would occur, only that I (and the others who objected) could turn off images to stop us having to look at these images. Why should I have to turn off images across FT, when I want to look at people's trip reports, pictures of aircraft interiors and pictures of hotels, because some blokes want to look at pictures of women? If this proposal is passed, it is me, and those like me, who seems to be expected to modify my browsing behaviour on FT so that others can look at not quite relevant to FT's purpose in OMNI.

Given there is no clear mandate for change from the OMNI users, given the problems which have already been identified with it (such as this one, the ones about work appropriate images etc), then I'm surprised this has been advanced, and I hope TB will reject it. 'The rest of FT does it' is not a good reason to change, since OMNI is not like the rest of FT.

(*as it would predominantly be men - sorry, but true. Sexy blokes pic's being posted could at least go either way and I don't want to see those either).

This is beautifully said. I whole heartedly agree. When (and it's when not if) a small portion of the population here starts posting mildly pornographic content (swim suit wearing "babes") another small portion of the population will be alienated. In general men and women react very differently to these types of images. Just because there are more men here doesn't mean that we should have policies that might lead to women being uncomfortable. That is why OMNI/PR was created. To make a forum where potentially objectionable stuff could be put so that the general population doesn't have to see and be offended by it. Allowing pics will eventually necessitate OMNI/PORN which will make me vomit a little every time I see a reference.

Oh good grief. I don't see Omni-lite or Omni P/R turning into 'porn central' :rolleyes:

Truthfully I don't think all images that might get posted if this passes will be of people, (male or female). There have been a # of threads where it would have been helpful to FTers to see what an image was like, especially on the horticultural or furnace ones when people were asking for help on something or couldn't describe it properly.

I also think the Omni mods will keep an eye (pardon the pun) on the images & take action if they're inappropriate, if this gets voted yes.

Cheers.

But an image like this is not inappropriate by FT rules:
http://www.highestfive.com/wp-content/uploads/halle-berry-bond-girl.jpeg
However, if, when I'm reading a thread about a hot celebrity, I really don't want it to become a thread about who can find the hottest picture of her.

And I agree, that not all images will be of people. But, I still think the negatives are bigger than the positives in this proposal. Trying to say the mods will be able to deal with this is both brushing off the concerns raised and is incorrect, since there is no TOS breach with the image I have just posted (or I would not have posted it).

However, it doesn't take much to create an atmosphere which is intimidating or unwelcoming, and I do think that this proposal risks creating a forum where sections of our community will feel intimidated.

I totally agree with this position.

People always have the option of turning off images if they are concerned.

If they are a moderator, they can always have a second account for their "business duties" and use a personal account when they want to view Omni.

We cannot always do things for the lowest common denominator.

William

I think images would add value to the Omni experience. Particularly now that it is a 'closed' community once more.

I understand the concerns that others express, but I really don't think it makes sense to limit the user experience out of assumptions and fears.

So how about if the TB passes this motion, but the use of images is closely monitored by the TB, and if the problems and abuses of images that folks are scared of do occur, there is a motion to reverse their allowance?

Just looking on the front page of OMNI this morning, I see a few threads where photos could be useful. For example, threads on a championship tennis match, eyewear, the NBA and NHL, could all be enhanced with photos. The long running Costco thread on the second page could be enhanced by photos of the products FTers are purchasing and raving about.

I have full faith in the OMNI moderators to keep inappropriate material off their forum. The moderators on the travel side have done an excellent job with images there.

But an image like this is not inappropriate by FT rules:
http://www.highestfive.com/wp-content/uploads/halle-berry-bond-girl.jpeg
However, if, when I'm reading a thread about a hot celebrity, I really don't want it to become a thread about who can find the hottest picture of her.

And I agree, that not all images will be of people. But, I still think the negatives are bigger than the positives in this proposal. Trying to say the mods will be able to deal with this is both brushing off the concerns raised and is incorrect, since there is no TOS breach with the image I have just posted (or I would not have posted it).

However, it doesn't take much to create an atmosphere which is intimidating or unwelcoming, and I do think that this proposal risks creating a forum where sections of our community will feel intimidated.
And, that's an image where while not completely inappropriate for work, is one that could be questioned, at least where I work.

I did not expect images in this thread, and as such, was a bit taken aback when I saw that, with a, "Ugh... just what I need on my computer screen at work."

I can see how too often, the thread title will not reflect the images that are posted in that thread, and how it could lead to non-work appropriate images being visible while at work.

I also agree that it could easily create an intimidating or unwelcoming atmosphere, and one which, with the current TOS, could be allowed to continue without any sort of moderation.

I think pictures are fine. As with anything else OMNI, if it's abused the mods can deal with abusers. The same arguments against pictures could be applied to OMNI itself, yet OMNI has been ticking along nicely for many years.

Ok to those that are saying things like

he mods can deal with abusers
I have full faith in the OMNI moderators to keep inappropriate material off their forum
the Omni mods will keep an eye (pardon the pun) on the images & take action if they're inappropriate

Do you consider the image I have posted inappropriate?
Do you consider 30 such images in a thread inappropriate?
Do you think that some women (and possibly some men) will find threads full of images such as that unwelcoming and intimidating?

How would you see moderators handling images like this, bearing in mind that some women really do not want to be faced with drooling threads in a forum where upto now they've felt quite comfortable and welcome?

If they are a moderator, they can always have a second account for their "business duties" and use a personal account when they want to view Omni. Such a thing would potentially be a breach of FT rules. OMNI has post and time restrictions for viewing, which makes it virtually impossible to use a shiny new personal account to see it. And finally, again - it's about those who are objecting to this change who are being expected to make the allowances to accommodate it. It's the 'too bad, we want it, you'll just have to change what you currently do now' that I really object to. Why should I be forced to amend how I use/view FT, just because you want to see pictures in OMNI? :confused: I'm still not sure what the benefit is that means I should be forced to change how I use FT? So far I've been told I need to register a second hand, wait 180 days and post 180 times to continue to use OMNI, or to limit my ability to see pictures in all forums... for what? Please enumerate the massive benefit which outweighs the inconvenience you are expecting me to go to on your behalf?

Ok to those that are saying things like





Do you consider the image I have posted inappropriate?No.

Do you consider 30 such images in a thread inappropriate?No.

Do you think that some women (and possibly some men) will find threads full of images such as that unwelcoming and intimidating?Perhaps, but then again there are a lot of threads in OMNI/PR that I find unwelcoming and intimidating sans photographs.

How would you see moderators handling images like this, bearing in mind that some women really do not want to be faced with drooling threads in a forum where upto now they've felt quite comfortable and welcome? The same way they deal with any threads. I don't know why you assume that there will be a plethora of "drooling" threads.

Such a thing would potentially be a breach of FT rules. OMNI has post and time restrictions for viewing, which makes it virtually impossible to use a shiny new personal account to see it. And finally, again - it's about those who are objecting to this change who are being expected to make the allowances to accommodate it. It's the 'too bad, we want it, you'll just have to change what you currently do now' that I really object to. Why should I be forced to amend how I use/view FT, just because you want to see pictures in OMNI? :confused:Why should OMNI users be censored with respect to what they want to view and discuss based on your personal morality? There are plenty of threads that I find offensive in OMNI -- I simply don't read them and, with respect to specific posters who I find continually offensive, I simply put them on ignore.

I'm still not sure what the benefit is that means I should be forced to change how I use FT? So far I've been told I need to register a second hand, wait 180 days and post 180 times to continue to use OMNI, or to limit my ability to see pictures in all forums... for what? Please enumerate the massive benefit which outweighs the inconvenience you are expecting me to go to on your behalf?With all due respect, this sounds an awful lot like something we used to say in aerospace when we didn't want to change the way we did things:

"There are two reasons not to do this:

1. We've always done it this way.
2. We've never done it that way."

I'll add my 2 cents, again :)

FT and Omni are very male heavy. I would guess that at least 2/3 of the posters are male. I think it's even a larger number in Omni.

I find those types of pictures offensive and bothersome for all the reasons noted by the other women in this thread. Kipper, myself, Jenbel - none of us want to open a thread that has nothing to do with bikini clad women and find one in there. Plus, I don't consider it appropriate to show up on my computer at work.

It's bad enough we are continuously subjected to locker room talk about women's looks - do we actually have to look at those types of pictures?

But an image like this is not inappropriate by FT rules:
http://www.highestfive.com/wp-content/uploads/halle-berry-bond-girl.jpeg
However, if, when I'm reading a thread about a hot celebrity, I really don't want it to become a thread about who can find the hottest picture of her.

And I agree, that not all images will be of people. But, I still think the negatives are bigger than the positives in this proposal. Trying to say the mods will be able to deal with this is both brushing off the concerns raised and is incorrect, since there is no TOS breach with the image I have just posted (or I would not have posted it).

However, it doesn't take much to create an atmosphere which is intimidating or unwelcoming, and I do think that this proposal risks creating a forum where sections of our community will feel intimidated.
There is nothing in that photograph that is NSFW any more than in this photo:

http://img.glam.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Harrods-Linger-Boutique.jpg

Which could easily be in, say, the Womens Travel forum without problem or comment.

But let me be frank: if I want to look at semi-clad (or unclad) women on the internet, there are FAR better places to do that than FT. @:-)

So really, I do not expect Omni to be overrun with misogynistic objectification of women despite what others fear. Rather I think images would become a useful tool in sharing knowledge, wit and experiences. ^

As I say, why not at least give it a shot, keep an eye on it, and see what happens!^

Why should OMNI users be censored with respect to what they want to view and discuss based on your personal morality?

Isn't that already the case? Some would argue it is.

I'll add my 2 cents, again :)

FT and Omni are very male heavy. I would guess that at least 2/3 of the posters are male. I think it's even a larger number in Omni.


I am no longer sure it is like that. A growing number of FTers falsely identify the sex of FTers who are female. [And it's not just because some female FTers will admit to choosing to use FT handles that "sound 'masculine'" so as to not have to deal with being "chased" or what not.]

Do you consider the image I have posted inappropriate?

No. I'd see the same image in People Magazine or any of the entertainment programs on TV here in the evening.

Do you consider 30 such images in a thread inappropriate?

As long as they're not in one, single post, no. If a poster came on and posts 30 images to start a thread off in one, single post, no matter what the photo is, I'd suggest they have a lot of free time on their hands to piece something like that together. It takes me forever to write up trip reports and insert photos.

Talk Board has not elected to put a restriction such as that in place in the current vote. Milepoint, just to use them as an example, has a limit of 5 images per post. Perhaps Talk Board can ask the FT Tech folks to turn on that setting here, if it exists, so someone doesn't post 30 images in a single post, and pick some magical number of photos allowed per post (say 2-3 to start off). Or, we can just wait and see if someone actually does post 30.

Do you think that some women (and possibly some men) will find threads full of images such as that unwelcoming and intimidating?

No more than seeing members of the Catholic Church, LDS, or various political figures bashed on OMNI/PR. There are always going to be members uncomfortable wading into that side of FT. It comes with the territory.

If the photos can appear in People Magazine, I'm fine with them in OMNI.

How would you see moderators handling images like this, bearing in mind that some women really do not want to be faced with drooling threads in a forum where upto now they've felt quite comfortable and welcome?

If they're more likely to be in magazine whose sole purpose is to display naked people, I can see your concern. I would not want those photos here, and I doubt the moderators would allow them.

If you look at what appears in People Magazine, though, or any of the tabloid publication available at the supermarket check-out stand, I don't have an issue with them being here.

Words make no impact nor effect on people until they are read. One can choose to skip, skim, or ignore content based on say thread title, topics, or user names. That we all know.

Images, on the other hand, work differently from words. Images deliver from the second you have "eye contact." Meaning unlike words, one can't skim or ignore a picture. Once you see a picture, that picture stays with you, like it or not. Even MODs intervene and remove (offending) pictures later on, what's done is done.

Unlike other fora on FT, OMNI & /PR don't have a mile/point/travel theme to tie with the images. The range of topics are, well, unlimited and beyond imagination.

Such a wide range of latitude can turn images into "lethal weapons" very easily. Currently using words only in /PR, we've seen enough blood, eh, saliva wars. :p I can only imagine images as future WMDs in /PR, if this motion passes.

Rather I think images would become a useful tool in sharing knowledge, wit and experiences. ^
With due respect, would you be able to give me some good example threads in both OMNI and /PR, that could use images as a tool of sharing knowledge, wit and experiences? And what useful images would that be? I am really having a hard time coming up with some convincing examples.

With due respect, would you be able to give me some good example threads in both OMNI and /PR, that could use images as a tool of sharing knowledge, wit and experiences? And what useful images would that be? I am really having a hard time coming up with some convincing examples.

Others have already done so upthread! ^

No. I'd see the same image in People Magazine or any of the entertainment programs on TV here in the evening.

As long as they're not in one, single post, no. If a poster came on and posts 30 images to start a thread off in one, single post, no matter what the photo is, I'd suggest they have a lot of free time on their hands to piece something like that together. It takes me forever to write up trip reports and insert photos.

Talk Board has not elected to put a restriction such as that in place in the current vote. Milepoint, just to use them as an example, has a limit of 5 images per post. Perhaps Talk Board can ask the FT Tech folks to turn on that setting here, if it exists, so someone doesn't post 30 images in a single post, and pick some magical number of photos allowed per post (say 2-3 to start off). Or, we can just wait and see if someone actually does post 30.

No more than seeing members of the Catholic Church, LDS, or various political figures bashed on OMNI/PR. There are always going to be members uncomfortable wading into that side of FT. It comes with the territory.

If the photos can appear in People Magazine, I'm fine with them in OMNI.

If they're more likely to be in magazine whose sole purpose is to display naked people, I can see your concern. I would not want those photos here, and I doubt the moderators would allow them.

If you look at what appears in People Magazine, though, or any of the tabloid publication available at the supermarket check-out stand, I don't have an issue with them being here.

* I'm pretty much in agreement with tom911 on this one.


With due respect, would you be able to give me some good example threads in both OMNI and /PR, that could use images as a tool of sharing knowledge, wit and experiences? And what useful images would that be? I am really having a hard time coming up with some convincing examples.

* Sure, last year when I had problems w/ the 'mushrooms' in my basement or had questions before re: furnace & everyone said it would be easier if they had pictures to see to provide advice. Mary's done some horticultural posts where it would be handy.

And as tom911 said up thread, "Just looking on the front page of OMNI this morning, I see a few threads where photos could be useful. For example, threads on a championship tennis match, eyewear, the NBA and NHL, could all be enhanced with photos. The long running Costco thread on the second page could be enhanced by photos of the products FTers are purchasing and raving about."

BTW - I'm a bit confused (and think it's sexist ;)) to imply that all images being posted if this passes will be of male/females - and that only males will post. Why assume women wouldn't do so. Big assumption. Plus I don't think this is going to be a big free for all. Maybe I'm oversimplying, but maybe others are overanticipating.

Re: not safe for work argument. Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me. Ask your employers if they're ok w/ you surfing FT at all while working. ;) Just sayin...

FWIW - I haven't decided one way or the other on this. I am looking for new input, not just the same few repeating their stances over & over. And hopefully once the public announcement happens we'll get that. Having said that, the poll went on for a month & got about 110 votes & even the previous thread didn't get that much extra input other than some people again reiterating their stances.

And finally - no I don't think the Halle Berry photo is inappropriate, porn, etc. The only thing that pisses me off about it is a reminder that I'm not in that shape & bikini season is upon us.

Cheers.

BTW - I'm a bit confused (and think it's sexist ) to imply that all images being posted if this passes will be of male/females - and that only males will post. Why assume women wouldn't do so. Big assumption. Plus I don't think this is going to be a big free for all. Maybe I'm oversimplying, but maybe others are overanticipating. Where has anyone done this? :confused:
And I agree, that not all images will be of people. If you are going to be voting on the issue, is it possible you could read the arguments being made, and not just skim them please? I wouldn't have thought I'd need to spell this out - but the issue is not that every single photo will be inappropriate. The issue is that there are some threads which will become metaphorical locker rooms.

If you think it's fine to put images of scantily clad women everywhere, then please feel free to explain why most workplaces do not allow them to be stuck up on walls anymore?

And talking of workplaces:
Re: not safe for work argument. Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me. Ask your employers if they're ok w/ you surfing FT at all while working. It's really not your call to tell the membership if their employers think their surfing habits are fine or not - that's between them and their employers, and you are not here to protect members' employers from their employees illicitly browsing. However, I would find it odd if the members raised accessibility concerns about a new policy that was being considered and those concerns were brushed aside by a TB member - who is meant to represent them and their best interests on FT -because that TB member didn't think they should actually be accessing FT.

Finally, so we think we should be able to post images from tabloids found in supermarkets...

You do know that the tabloid newspapers with a nude page 3 are sold in supermarkets? I'll include a link, but won't post it because it really isn't work suitable! You have been warned. {LINK REMOVED BY MODERATOR - NSFW} I can open up most British tabloids and find an image like that on the page 3 of many of them. If you are trying to set standards of decency (which of course have already been defined by the mods), then you need to remember to use a frame of reference which is understood internationally. The American Mods got a bit of a shock on one occasion to discover that having 'PG' as the standard for the board, European Mods would use the definition for PG from their own country, which included the kind of nudity shown in the link above and so we had to change the standard from PG (as everyone applied PG as it applied in their own country) to 'generally not suitable for work'.

I definitely don't want those kind of images in OMNI thank you. While I think FT can be at times unnecessarily prudish, there is no reason to be posting that kind of thing in OMNI.

I know there was a demand to have a men's forum a wee while back... but if you are going to create one, you could at least do it honestly, and not just by altering OMNI to make it a place which many women will find uncomfortable to hang out :(

Where has anyone done this? :confused:
If you are going to be voting on the issue, is it possible you could read the arguments being made, and not just skim them please? I wouldn't have thought I'd need to spell this out - but the issue is not that every single photo will be inappropriate. The issue is that there are some threads which will become metaphorical locker rooms.

If you think it's fine to put images of scantily clad women everywhere, then please feel free to explain why most workplaces do not allow them to be stuck up on walls anymore?

And talking of workplaces:
It's really not your call to tell the membership if their employers think their surfing habits are fine or not - that's between them and their employers, and you are not here to protect members' employers from their employees illicitly browsing. However, I would find it odd if the members raised accessibility concerns about a new policy that was being considered and those concerns were brushed aside by a TB member - who is meant to represent them and their best interests on FT -because that TB member didn't think they should actually be accessing FT.

Finally, so we think we should be able to post images from tabloids found in supermarkets...

You do know that the tabloid newspapers with a nude page 3 are sold in supermarkets? I'll include a link, but won't post it because it really isn't work suitable! You have been warned. {LINK REMOVED BY MODERATOR - NSFW} I can open up most British tabloids and find an image like that on the page 3 of many of them. If you are trying to set standards of decency (which of course have already been defined by the mods), then you need to remember to use a frame of reference which is understood internationally. The American Mods got a bit of a shock on one occasion to discover that having 'PG' as the standard for the board, European Mods would use the definition for PG from their own country, which included the kind of nudity shown in the link above and so we had to change the standard from PG (as everyone applied PG as it applied in their own country) to 'generally not suitable for work'.

I definitely don't want those kind of images in OMNI thank you. While I think FT can be at times unnecessarily prudish, there is no reason to be posting that kind of thing in OMNI.

I know there was a demand to have a men's forum a wee while back... but if you are going to create one, you could at least do it honestly, and not just by altering OMNI to make it a place which many women will find uncomfortable to hang out :(

From the TOS:

Individuals who post offensive material or links to such will be subject to disciplinary action.

Ironic that you chose to preemptively accuse a whole sex of abusing a feature while in the same post you break the board rules.

I've said that I'm willing to listen to all FTers & I am & have & will continue to do so, so certainly don't get the brushing aside others comment.

If some repeat the same arguments over & over then I count their vote/take their input into consideration, but unless they've presented new info to back up their stance then I just go w/ what they've said & I've read, but don't necessarily assign extra points one way or the other (pro/con) for the repeating over & over & over of the same statements.

I could care less if someone reads FT at work. Their employers might (and some probably would). That's between them & their employers. But the NSFW argument re: images isn't going to get much play w/ me. As mentioned before, I don't see Omni turning into porn central.

And it goes w/o saying that even if I don't agree w/ particular FTers thoughts it doesn't mean I'm not representing FTers. :rolleyes: FT is a huge community & each have dif thoughts on particular topics, as evidenced in this thread & many others. Just sayin...

Cheers.

I definitely don't want those kind of images in OMNI thank you. While I think FT can be at times unnecessarily prudish, there is no reason to be posting that kind of thing in OMNI.


How about all the other potential images that could be helpful in OMNI? SkiAdcock posted an issue regarding home maintenance that photos would have been helpful. Look at these threads on the front page of OMNI right now, and suggestions I can think of for photos. Would you also not want to see these kinds of images?

American Idol 2011 - photos of whoever is participating and their outfits and public appearances

Who loves Costco? - photos of newly introduced products or existing products that FTers love

2011 MLB Thread - photos of players and winning plays and fans (it would not be San Francisco Giants 24/7)

2010 NHL Season - photos of the San Jose Sharks and their fans

The Amazing Race: Australia - photos of teams FTers have ran into about Australia and locations they have competed



These are just from the front page. I think photos will enhance OMNI and trust the moderators to make the call on material that would not be appropriate.

If Talk Board voted against the current motion based on your views, could you return here and support photos in some other manner that members would find useful, such as in the categories I mentioned above?

Why not allow images in ONMNI with then option of individual user being allowed to ignore photos which they considered to be an issue with the all mighty bandwidth or whatever else.. If you can already ignore members, you might as well be allowed to ignore images if that’s what you want.

I say make OMNI at par with the rest of FT and allow images with the option of disabling it.

Also, if you are going to post provocative photos at least amend the rules to warn members of posting such images with perhaps a thread starter of NSFW or something to that extent


EDIT: Didn't know there was an option already to disable photos.. I only caught this when I browsed this thread logged off and I see two photos at top of the page..

Now that an option to allow/disable images is there, it more of a reason to allows photos imo

Up til today I'd formed no opinion on the matter. After reading this thread I find myself leaning slightly in favor images. If it becomes a moderation nightmare we'll know soon enough.

^ and agreed. More bandwidth, and distractions from opinions. No would be my suggestion.

Thanks for the heads-up, tom911.

I'd encourage a NO vote on this proposal.

One of the things I enjoy about OMNI and P/R is the ability to READ people's opinions and discuss them intelligently, without being subjected to kitten pictures, silly Photoshopped images, and other material with minimal information value. One can already post links to images, if relevant to the topic at hand.

Re: not safe for work argument. Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me. Ask your employers if they're ok w/ you surfing FT at all while working. ;) Just sayin...


My employer does not block FT, but sites on which one would find photos like what Jenbel posted earlier are usually blocked. I'd take that to mean that they deal with my FT visits, but do not want employees visiting sites with photos of women in bikinis.

From the TOS:

Individuals who post offensive material or links to such will be subject to disciplinary action.

Ironic that you chose to preemptively accuse a whole sex of abusing a feature while in the same post you break the board rules.

You probably know that you cannot allowed to post an inappropriate pictures. Only where you can do post another pictures and not a fancy things. Its against the TOS rules and you could be violations of forums rules. It will result bans from FTs for 30 days.

Would the Talkboard consider making images only allowed in Omni-lite and not in P/R?

Or, can we specifically amend the TOS to exclude racy images, and define racy pretty thoroughly.

I really don't want to open threads with bikini clad women, and I don't want to turn off images on all of FT to prevent me from seeing them.

The site should be made easier to use, not harder.

I see nothing wrong with pictures, so long as they're within the context of the post/thread, like they are in trip reports.

Firstly, I want to thank Jenbel and Kokonutz for brightening up this thread by posting excellent pictures of beautiful women.

I do, of course, hope that Kipper did not lose her job by having those pictures on her office computer.

I see nothing wrong with pictures, so long as they're within the context of the post/thread, like they are in trip reports.

My objection, as with others' upstream, is that despite the continuing reassurances that embedded images won't slow down browsing that is simply not so. I find Trip Reports close to unusable these days because of the time it takes to load threads with many huge pictures. If I want to see a picture, I'm happy to click on a link.

My objection, as with others' upstream, is that despite the continuing reassurances that embedded images won't slow down browsing that is simply not so. I find Trip Reports close to unusable these days because of the time it takes to load threads with many huge pictures. If I want to see a picture, I'm happy to click on a link.

I believe if you post only a few pictures in each post, then the thread will load quicker than if all pictures were in the one whole thread? Anyway, with trip reports, can't we at least read the words while we wait for the pics to load?

I find Trip Reports close to unusable these days because of the time it takes to load threads with many huge pictures.

Isn't that a moderation issue, though? I've reported a number of huge photos in travel forums that extend well off my computer screen and every time have seen them deleted by moderators with a note to the poster to repost something smaller. That problem has existed since the first day photos were allowed here. Some members just don't know how to size their photos.

(Bolding Mine)
With due respect, would you be able to give me some good example threads in both OMNI and /PR, that could use images as a tool of sharing knowledge, wit and experiences? And what useful images would that be? I am really having a hard time coming up with some convincing examples.
Others have already done so upthread! ^
* Sure, last year when I had problems w/ the 'mushrooms' in my basement or had questions before re: furnace & everyone said it would be easier if they had pictures to see to provide advice. Mary's done some horticultural posts where it would be handy.

And as tom911 said up thread, "Just looking on the front page of OMNI this morning, I see a few threads where photos could be useful. For example, threads on a championship tennis match, eyewear, the NBA and NHL, could all be enhanced with photos. The long running Costco thread on the second page could be enhanced by photos of the products FTers are purchasing and raving about."
American Idol 2011 - photos of whoever is participating and their outfits and public appearances

Who loves Costco? - photos of newly introduced products or existing products that FTers love

2011 MLB Thread - photos of players and winning plays and fans (it would not be San Francisco Giants 24/7)

2010 NHL Season - photos of the San Jose Sharks and their fans

The Amazing Race: Australia - photos of teams FTers have ran into about Australia and locations they have competed


These are just from the front page. I think photos will enhance OMNI and trust the moderators to make the call on material that would not be appropriate.
All of the above suggested threads are in OMNI-lite (or OMNI Classic). Any good example threads in OMNI/PR that could use images to "share knowledge, wit and experiences?"

I surely don't need nor want to see pictures of Sarah Palin floating all over in OMNI/PR. :p

Not to mention, without allowing embedded photos, hyperlinks can still get the job done. Our Travel Products Forum (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-products-639/) is one excellent example forum that images can weigh more than a thousand words. However, hardly any thread in Travel Products that I've read took advantage of embedded pictures and FTers still get their message cross very effectively using hyperlinks only.

My objection, as with others' upstream, is that despite the continuing reassurances that embedded images won't slow down browsing that is simply not so. I find Trip Reports close to unusable these days because of the time it takes to load threads with many huge pictures. If I want to see a picture, I'm happy to click on a link.
Exactly.

Would the Talkboard consider making images only allowed in Omni-lite and not in P/R?
Excellent suggestion.

It appears this motion is bundled to include both OMNI-lite and OMNI/PR. Even though I don't spend that much time in PR, IMHO, OMNI-lite and OMNI/PR are two very different animals. I can only imagine photos would be put to use in a very different way in OMNI/PR than in OMNI Fluffy.

Is it possible for TB to take separate votes w/r/t OMNI and OMNI/PR?

I find it fascinating that we're arguing the point, instead of voting. The mods are here to count votes, not weigh these arguments.

My vote is no.


My rationale (if it matters):

It's a different, freer forum. There is too much freedom to trust that folks won't start posting like they're on fark.com (I'm a member). Bad enough that I see enough kittens on the normal forums here.

I find it fascinating that we're arguing the point, instead of voting. The mods are here to count votes, not weigh these arguments.

My vote is no.


My rationale (if it matters):

It's a different, freer forum. There is too much freedom to trust that folks won't start posting like they're on fark.com (I'm a member). Bad enough that I see enough kittens on the normal forums here.

It's kinda sad to me how many members of our community don't trust our community. :(

The mods are here to count votes, not weigh these arguments.

You are aware that the Talk Board members are voting here and not moderators or members?

Seems pretty clear from the Talk Board's own guidelines that feedback in encouraged. This is in the first post on this thread:


Per the TalkBoard Guidelines:
The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.

I find it fascinating that we're arguing the point, instead of voting. The mods are here to count votes, not weigh these arguments.
Mods have nothing to do with TB voting. Not to mention the 9 votes by TBers are not counted by any mod. Are you sure you know how TB works on FT? :confused:

We FTers can't vote, only TBers vote on TB motions. Nine TBers will listen to input and opinions from general membership, make the best judgment, then cast their votes accordingly. That's why "we're arguing the point, instead of voting."

ETA:
It's kinda sad to me how many members of our community don't trust our community. :(
It's not about trust and has nothing to do with trust.

I say it's sad how many members of our community don't understand, or choose not to spend time knowing, how TalkBoard operates nor get involved properly so to better FT.

While as an outsider in this debate - I am not an avid OMNI or OMNI PR follower, I recognise the input of regulars of airline fora which have free flow lounge threads and CommBuzz! might be welcome additions to this discussion. There are obvious similarities between those existing lounge threads which currently allow embedded images and what is proposed for OMNI/OMNI PR.

I find Trip Reports close to unusable these days because of the time it takes to load threads with many huge pictures. If I want to see a picture, I'm happy to click on a link.

^^^

Huge embedded images are ruining too much of FT today. It can take upto an hour to download a single trip report nowadays.

Links can work just fine in most cases and certainly in OMNI.

I wonder if Adblock Plus can be configured to prevent images from loading.

While as an outsider in this debate - I am not an avid OMNI or OMNI PR follower, I recognise the input of regulars of airline fora which have free flow lounge threads and CommBuzz! might be welcome additions to this discussion. There are obvious similarities between those existing lounge threads which currently allow embedded images and what is proposed for OMNI/OMNI PR.

That's a great point. Lounges are basically OMNIexceptthepostsactuallycount

Can opponents of this proposal point to where allowing embedded images in the lounge forums has created any sort of problem?

Mods have nothing to do with TB voting. Not to mention the 9 votes by TBers are not counted by any mod. Are you sure you know how TB works on FT? :confused:

We FTers can't vote, only TBers vote on TB motions. Nine TBers will listen to input and opinions from general membership, make the best judgment, then cast their votes accordingly. That's why "we're arguing the point, instead of voting."

ETA:

It's not about trust and has nothing to do with trust.

I say it's sad how many members of our community don't understand, or choose not to spend time knowing, how TalkBoard operates nor get involved properly so to better FT.
I agree--it's sad how many people don't know that TB votes, not the members at general, and how many fail to read the "What is the TalkBoard and How are New Forums and Other Suggestions Considered?" sticky at the top of this forum.

TB is elected each year, with four or five seats up for grabs. Everyone on FT should pay attention when TB elections are impending, and should vote after carefully weighing the options.

I agree--it's sad how many people don't know that TB votes, not the members at general, and how many fail to read the "What is the TalkBoard and How are New Forums and Other Suggestions Considered?" sticky at the top of this forum.

In 2004, after being elected to TalkBoard for the first time, I posted an explanation of how it works:



Yesterday, I had lunch with my entire family. Uncle Irving, who was not thrilled about being dragged out of home to go to a restaurant where he had to pick up part of the check, immediately demanded to know why we were having this dinner.

"To celebrate the election results," I told him.

"Whadda I care if Bush or Kerry won?" Irving demanded. "Did either one of them serve in the big one -- WWII? No! They were slackers!"

"Not that election," I said. "The important one -- I was elected to TalkBoard."

"You're going to be a congressman?" Irving exclaimed. "I can't say I'm surprised. You always were a liar and a crook. I guess it was only natural that you would wind up in Washington."

"TalkBoard is much different than Congress," I told him. "For one thing, we don't get any pay."

"Then why bother being a member?" Irving asked.

"It's all about power," I said. "TalkBoard has the power not to create forums."

"Can't anybody not create forums?" he wondered.

"Sure," I admitted, "but they can only not create forums unofficially. TalkBoard can officially not create forums."

"And if TalkBoard doesn't officially create a forum than it won't exist?" Irving asked.

"Only if the board owner agrees," I said. "Otherwise, he is free to create the forum which the TalkBoard officially did not create."

"That doesn't sound like a lot of power to me," Irving said.

"Well, that's not all TalkBoard does," I told him. "It also sets guidelines for itself and elects its president. These are very important steps. Otherwise, when members ask for a forum and TalkBoard decides not to create it, it would be doing so in a chaotic fashion."

"Tell me," said Irving, "you said you were elected. Did anybody else bother running?"

"They certainly did," my mother injected. "A lot of people. I even voted for some of them."

"You didn't vote for Dovster?" Irving wondered.

"No," Mom said. "It wasn't because of any philosophical issues. I just don't like him personally."

In 2004, after being elected to TalkBoard for the first time, I posted an explanation of how it works:LOL! I missed this the first time -- hilarious! :)

Individuals who post offensive material or links to such will be subject to disciplinary action.

Ironic that you chose to preemptively accuse a whole sex of abusing a feature while in the same post you break the board rules.

You probably know that you cannot allowed to post an inappropriate pictures. Only where you can do post another pictures and not a fancy things. Its against the TOS rules and you could be violations of forums rules. It will result bans from FTs for 30 days.

Y'all missed Jenbel 's point. Why is that link inappropriate? (It is to me, but I'm a prudish American. :p) In the UK, such pictures are not considered offensive (at least to the extent they are in the US) - they're available in every corner market, and 12-year-olds can pick up the newspapers and see them.

Such questions will come up over and over (and over and over) with images in OMNI, and each moderator will have his/her own standards. What a hassle!

Y'all missed Jenbel 's point. Why is that link inappropriate? (It is to me, but I'm a prudish American. :p) In the UK, such pictures are not considered offensive (at least to the extent they are in the US) - they're available in every corner market, and 12-year-olds can pick up the newspapers and see them.

Such questions will come up over and over (and over and over) with images in OMNI, and each moderator will have his/her own standards. What a hassle!

Indeed, that which may be considered offensive in one context on FT and result in FT TOS enforcement may not be considered offensive in the same or another context on FT by some others -- with the determination of what/how things follow from such perhaps depending on what/who the target is and who makes the determination and how the determination is made.

Indeed, that which may be considered offensive in one context on FT and result in FT TOS enforcement may not be considered offensive in the same or another context on FT by some others -- with the determination of what/how things follow from such perhaps depending on what/who the target is and who/how the determination is made.
Which is why I think images in OMNI and P/R should not be allowed. Too often, an image would offend some segment of the OMNI population, while not offending others.

While images might be helpful in certain threads, there's no reason people cannot post links to those images and those who wish to see the image can.

I'm against this motion for the simple fact it opens up a pandora's box of questions about photo suitability and judgement calls for volunteer Mod.'s to make. I rarely venture to either forum but that's MHO since TB is soliciting input.

Which is why I think images in OMNI and P/R should not be allowed. Too often, an image would offend some segment of the OMNI population, while not offending others.

While images might be helpful in certain threads, there's no reason people cannot post links to those images and those who wish to see the image can.Since when has the standard for OMNI/PR been "non-offense"? OMNI/PR is, by definition, edgy and there are, daily, posts that will offend someone. As a case in point, just yesterday an overt anti-semite made a post that, not only was off-topic, but was specifically offensive to me and several others because of its anti-semitic content. My solution, which works just fine, is to have that poster on ignore, a solution that I recommended to another FTer who also found the post, and the poster, offensive. The only standard for OMNI in this regard is that it be SFW. If, in fact, some FTers find a picture, such as the one in this thread of the woman in a bikini, offensive, it is far more productive to explain why they consider it offensive and, perhaps, change a few minds in the process, than to safeguard against possible offensive by precluding prospectively any posting of pictures, offensive or not.

Since when has the standard for OMNI/PR been "non-offense"? OMNI/PR is, by definition, edgy and there are, daily, posts that will offend someone. As a case in point, just yesterday an overt anti-semite made a post that, not only was off-topic, but was specifically offensive to me and several others because of its anti-semitic content. My solution, which works just fine, is to have that poster on ignore, a solution that I recommended to another FTer who also found the post, and the poster, offensive. The only standard for OMNI in this regard is that it be SFW. If, in fact, some FTers find a picture, such as the one in this thread of the woman in a bikini, offensive, it is far more productive to explain why they consider it offensive and, perhaps, change a few minds in the process, than to safeguard against possible offensive by precluding prospectively any posting of pictures, offensive or not.
OMNI-lite usually doesn't strive to offend anyone, as if a post there would/could, it is usually moved to P/R.

If one finds the photo in this thread offensive, then in order to do what you say, those FTers would be subjected to that photo and probably other similar photos numerous times in the thread, because there would be no shortage of other FTers quoting the post or posting similar photos. In one paragraph, your suggestion is that if one finds something offensive, they should simply place that FTer on ignore, but in the next paragraph, your suggestion is that someone who is offended by something should try to convince others why they are offended, and further subject themselves to content they deem offensive?

No one is saying links to sites with images like that cannot be posted, just that some of us prefer photos to not be embedded in the posts.

Reasons for that preference include:
NSFW images
time for pages to load
use of bandwidth/data usage on mobile devices

=I can see how too often, the thread title will not reflect the images that are posted in that thread, and how it could lead to non-work appropriate images being visible while at work.

Simple solution: Not be on FT at work, and actually do work!

I support the motion. I'm not in OMNI all that often and I've been in P/R once.

Since when has the standard for OMNI/PR been "non-offense"?

Whether managing for some or many taking offense is called "standard" or "exceptional", it's been part of the picture (pun included) for years.

I'd vote no for pics, photos, drawings, stickpeople etc. For the reasons given by others. So as not to turn this into a thesis, I'd just say, it's too distracting and unnecessary.

I'd prefer to think of this a preference for the New York Times vs. USA Today.

(although of course, when I'm traveling on an airplane, I read USA Today cover to cover but fall asleep half way through the NY Times ;) )

That's a great point. Lounges are basically OMNIexceptthepostsactuallycount

Can opponents of this proposal point to where allowing embedded images in the lounge forums has created any sort of problem?
I had to delete inapproprate images (of scantily clad women or transvestites (I actually cannot recall which :o)) in Randy's post as much as you like competitions on Communitybuzz!

Agree with the posts that vote "No!" on images.

I'm for images being available in OMNI, just the way it's been with the rest of FT for a few years now. Honestly, I've never understood why this is an issue for some folks, especially with all the options available -



Disable images
The "Report Bad Post" button
The "ignore poster" feature
Don't click on threads that have the word "bikini" in the title
You're at work, what are you doing goofing off in OMNI anyway? Now get out of here before I throw my desk at you! :D



The target audience of FT are frequent travelers. As such, they are far more likely to be accessing this board from mobile devices than the average Internet user. FT needs to be bandwidth-conscious.

A single image, even a small one, can take as much data as pages and pages of text postings. The mobile FTer with a sketchy connection (for whatever reason - maybe in-flight, maybe crappy hotel WiFi, maybe expensive roaming pay as you go in a foreign country) will have to choose between choking on the data stream or missing out on the context of postings with images.

My sole internet connection has been a cellular modem for my laptop for eight years now, about the same time that WAP browsers started showing up on handsets. Back then, 1xRTT seemed to be about as fast as a 56k dialup. When EVDO started rolling out in 2005 it was a vast improvement. Now 4G services are rolling out.

For international travel, I can rent a USB modem from XCom Global for $13 per day, unlimited bandwidth. (Great service, BTW :cool:^)

So, in 2011, I'm not sure how much a concern viewing images on a website should be.


I wonder if Adblock Plus can be configured to prevent images from loading.

Excellent question; there may very well be a way to block any images in the OMNI forums if one desires that.

I'm FOR this and don't feel that this extra bit of "policing" will stress the volunteer Mod.'s as it would appear that they are able to handle multiple (3-6) forums at a time. And with further liberalization post count should also count again as they do on the regular forums lounge threads.As there is NO difference between OMNI and the Lounge threads.

On a slight side note, is there a reason why we're not allowed to have avatars (even small ones, not too flashy) next to our username/handle on the posts? I'm sure its been discussed before, but probably long before my time here.

NO

Visual clutter, slower downloads, over-sized images and images being re-quoted are amongst my main reasons.

On a slight side note, is there a reason why we're not allowed to have avatars (even small ones, not too flashy) next to our username/handle on the posts?

Oh, please no. Avatars, imo, add no information to what is proffered and just take up screen space and incrementally add to load times (particularly when on a crowded 3G connection).

NO

Visual clutter, slower downloads, over-sized images and images being re-quoted are amongst my main reasons.

That pretty much sums it up. ^

I continue not to understand why it is not seen to be so much more user-friendly to have links that the reader can click on or not.

NO

Visual clutter, slower downloads, over-sized images and images being re-quoted are amongst my main reasons.

Folks, we are not debating whether images should be allowed on FT. They already are and have been used responsibly by the members for years. We have image capability in 98% of the forums.

All we are discussing here is rolling out images to the only two forums that don't already have them.

It would be a great help to the TB members if you all could limit your comments to specifically why just OMNI and OMNI/PR should be excluded.

Some folks have limited their comments to exactly this point but I think we are now drifting away from that and are getting into a general discussion on the pros/cons of images on FT.

That's certainly a valid discussion for another thread should folks decide to petition the TB to remove all images from FT.

But let's focus on just the OMNI's here for now if you can.

Thanks.

I defer to your perspective.

You have my view ... which is that OMNIs will become cluttered with images.


Retiring to the BA corner :(

You have my view ... which is that OMNIs will become cluttered with images.

Exactly. Given the topics in OMNI and the, uh, distinctive culture there, I foresee a deluge of images and that will begin to make threads as un-readable as many in Trip Reports now are.

Yes, images would help with those "clinic" questions in OMNI like identifying mushrooms and mildews, but there is no reason that those can't be linked-to.

I defer to your perspective.

You have my view ... which is that OMNIs will become cluttered with images.


Retiring to the BA corner :(

I'm against it for these same reasons. Currently photos are fairly rare on FT aside from the trip report and photography fora. In the airline boards youll have maybe one thread here or there with a single picture in the OP, but really doesn't hurt the experience. I fear the omni situation will be very different, and don't really see much of an upside to allowing photos in omni anyhow.

Retiring to the BA corner :(

Does that forum have photos? Have you found them of value there?

Currently photos are fairly rare on FT aside from the trip report and photography fora.

Maybe you just don't get to the same forums I go to.

In the AA forum there's a thread with meal photos that is quite active, and there's a UA thread where members submit their best UA photos. In AA, which I frequent the most, we see screen shots posted throughout the forum. Just yesterday one of the moderators there posted a screen shot of a new feature about checking flight status. They've become very useful on the airline forum side and are well policed by moderators.

I've posted quite a few hotel photos in the Hyatt forum from my stays with them, and other members have also posted a large amount of photos.

When I wrote my last major trip report from the Olympics in Beijing, I thought it made a world of difference having the photos right there, in conjunction with the text I was typing, instead of having someone stop to click on a link, visit another site, and then return to continue reading and clicking some more. I want to see the photos as I'm reading along no matter what the forum.

I'm all for photos in OMNI as I see photos bringing additional value to threads there that relate to consumer issues. If someone asks about repairing a sink or a basement with mold, issues that have been posted before, members can feature a photo along with their text showing what needs to be done. On entertainment threads, such as those related to baseball or hockey, members can post pictures of significant plays or just fan pictures from the stadium if they're attending the event. Nothing like someone posting from the scene.

Just as photos bring enhanced value to the travel forums, I see they will enhance our experience in OMNI. I trust the moderators to deal with huge pictures that some members post (the ones that go off your screen) and also to remove inappropriate photos.

Well, the issues are pretty clear....

What you see as "additional" or "enhanced value," I see as an annoyance. Particularly on threads where every stalk of asparagus has had to be lovingly photographed. :D I much prefer the Trip Reports of someone like Loose Cannon who provides links (which I can click on or not should I want to see pictures of Fargo, North Dakota). Some Trip Reports threads are basically useless, taking minutes and minutes to load (which could also easily occur on OMNI, given the nature of the discussions).

I want to see the photos as I'm reading along no matter what the forum.

No, I consider that a bug, not a feature. Particularly when the plethora of pix makes it impossible to actually read very easily.

What you see as "additional" or "enhanced value," I see as an annoyance.

If viewing photos within threads is such an annoyance, why haven't you turned the option to view photos OFF? With or without photos in OMNI, all of us can use that feature today on the travel side of FT.

I don't think that needs to be my responsibility. I think that those who want to look at photos can click. Inline photos slow down FT, get quoted too often (thus doubly slowing things down), make work for moderators that didn't need to be, make some threads virtually unusable and unnecessarily penalize those who don't have gazillion speed internet or who are on a 3G connection that is slow. The differences here are obviously clear, and I would prefer to have a platform that is welcoming to the widest number of people. Inline images don't measure up to that criterion, imo.

Sounds like you're making a case for Talk Board to eliminate photos embedded in ALL forums, an item that is not on the table here. They've already voted to allow them and are only voting now on expanding them to two additional forums.

Okay, Tom, you can have the last word here :)

I'd love it if TalkBoard did that. But that's not at issue. What is at issue is whether this problem should be multiplied. I don't think so.

I don't think that needs to be my responsibility. I think that those who want to look at photos can click. Inline photos slow down FT, get quoted too often (thus doubly slowing things down), make work for moderators that didn't need to be, make some threads virtually unusable and unnecessarily penalize those who don't have gazillion speed internet or who are on a 3G connection that is slow. The differences here are obviously clear, and I would prefer to have a platform that is welcoming to the widest number of people. Inline images don't measure up to that criterion, imo.

Just to clarify- Quoted images don't need to be loaded separately. Once an image is loaded once, it is accessed locally by the browser.

I'm against allowing images in OMNI and OMNI/PR. While I understand cblaisd's positions on images in general, I do see the benefit of them when discussing travel in any of the travel forums. However, as has been pointed out numerous times in a variety of venues, OMNI and OMNI/PR are peripheral, and not the essence of FT. It's very nice that we have them here to discuss other things, but I believe we should still keep them limited (as evidenced by the recent vote changing the access rules, which I supported).

As for the above discussion between cblaisd and tom911, I find images in general to be helpful, but sometimes, especially when viewing on a netbook, cumbersome. There should be a way to have posts that quote a previous posts the include an image, to clip the image automatically. And tom911, how exactly can I turn off images?

And tom911, how exactly can I turn off images?

You'll find it in the control panel on the left side of the screen if you're using My Flyertalk. It's under the "edit options" heading and then further down under "thread display options". You can also turn off signatures there if you want, and set the option for how many posts you want displayed per page.

You'll find it in the control panel on the left side of the screen if you're using My Flyertalk. It's under the "edit options" heading and then further down under "thread display options". You can also turn off signatures there if you want, and set the option for how many posts you want displayed per page.

Thanks! I already set it to 40 posts per page, as I couldn't stand opening a thread with hundreds of pages. Little that's helped :(

Didn't realize images were there..

Thanks for the heads-up, tom911.

I'd encourage a NO vote on this proposal.

One of the things I enjoy about OMNI and P/R is the ability to READ people's opinions and discuss them intelligently, without being subjected to kitten pictures, silly Photoshopped images, and other material with minimal information value. One can already post links to images, if relevant to the topic at hand.

Me too, especially for OMNI PR....forum tends to go crazy every now and then, to which picture-posting might just tip the whole site over the edge! OMG, Prez elections are just a year away! Think about it!

Seriously, both OMNI forums allow us all to be quite free with our thoughts and opinions, and I like posting/reading/following certain threads, with the option to "click a link". I'd definitely reconsider if pics were allowed unless very strict guidelines were in place, which on these forums would rather defeat their purpose.

I say no! Who knows what could be posted on their...jailbait child porn you name it. Why leave it to chance

You can post porn on any of the airline and hotel forums right now if you want. You don't need OMNI for that. I haven't noticed any, and if it was there the moderators dealt with it swiftly. What makes you think it won't be handled the same way in OMNI? If it shows up there it will be taken down, just like it would on an airline or hotel forum.

You can post porn on any of the airline and hotel forums right now if you want. You don't need OMNI for that. I haven't noticed any, and if it was there the moderators dealt with it swiftly. What makes you think it won't be handled the same way in OMNI? If it shows up there it will be taken down, just like it would on an airline or hotel forum.

Absolutely and totally correct.

I say no! Who knows what could be posted on their...jailbait child porn you name it. Why leave it to chance

That's ridiculous. There are many reasons to be against images in OMNO and OMNI/PR. This isn't one of them. I highly doubt that people will decide to start committing felonies because they now have the "appropriate forum" to do it; since it doesn't apply to the airline forums, these felons would never dream of posting their illegal material there. But once the option to post in OMNI opened up, go for it!

Inline photos slow down FT, get quoted too often (thus doubly slowing things down), make work for moderators that didn't need to be, make some threads virtually unusable and unnecessarily penalize those who don't have gazillion speed internet or who are on a 3G connection that is slow.

Just for kicks, I degraded my Sprint connection from EVDO to 1xRTT by turning on the GPS function. Then I browsed the Photo Trivia - Guess the Airport thread over on Milepoint (lots of avatars and pics in sigs, too), all while streaming Pandora. The photos took a couple of seconds to load, not a hardship at all. These days you really need to be out in the sticks to have a 1x signal.



As for the above discussion between cblaisd and tom911, I find images in general to be helpful, but sometimes, especially when viewing on a netbook, cumbersome.

I love my little Lenovo x100e; viewing a website that has pictures on it is not a problem for me.

This is one of those threads that while it provided a bit of news, has turned into a thread that would definitely make some members really rather uncomfortable if images were allowed in OMNI, especially with the downward spiral the thread has taken. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/490681-two-nfl-cheerleaders-arrested-tampa-bar-17.html

This is one of those threads that while it provided a bit of news, has turned into a thread that would definitely make some members really rather uncomfortable if images were allowed in OMNI, especially with the downward spiral the thread has taken. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/490681-two-nfl-cheerleaders-arrested-tampa-bar-17.htmlThen those who are uncomfortable don't have to read it. I have no interest in football, so I've never read it -- easy enough.

Then those who are uncomfortable don't have to read it. I have no interest in football, so I've never read it -- easy enough.

I have an interest in football, so I read the first few posts. However, if images had been allowed then, even with the first post, I'd probably have been subjected to scantily-clad cheerleader photos that don't add value to the thread, except to serve as eye-candy for the men.

Absolutely no to pictures.
Omni is about reasoned argument, intelligent debate and watching other posters go into fits of righteous indignation after a few choice words.
Not endless photo-shopped facepalms and epic fails.

This is one of those threads that while it provided a bit of news, has turned into a thread that would definitely make some members really rather uncomfortable if images were allowed in OMNI, especially with the downward spiral the thread has taken.



Don't click on threads that have the word "bikini" in the title



Yeah, so add thread titles like Two NFL cheerleaders arrested at Tampa bar... to the list of things not to click on if you might be offended, at work, etc. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Omni is about reasoned argument, intelligent debate

So much for this being a serious thread.

Yeah, so add thread titles like Two NFL cheerleaders arrested at Tampa bar... to the list of things not to click on if you might be offended, at work, etc. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Why is it so hard and so much of a burden to click on a link to view images?

Not endless photo-shopped facepalms and epic fails.

That would be annoying, wouldn't it? Anyone that persisted in doing that would be on my "Ignore Poster" list. Simple solution. :)^


Why is it so hard and so much of a burden to click on a link to view images?

That's the way USENET was. Thank goodness for the progression of technology that we don't have to go through that to view content of the internet these days.

Vote: Yes.

That would be annoying, wouldn't it? Anyone that persisted in doing that would be on my "Ignore Poster" list. Simple solution. :)^




That's the way USENET was. Thank goodness for the progression of technology that we don't have to go through that to view content of the internet these days.
How is it such a burden to have to take a second, click a link, and have an image pop up to view it... :rolleyes:

Why does the thought of not having images in OMNI upset you? There is a perfectly acceptable solution to not being allowed to post images in OMNI. That's the option of posting a link to said images. It keeps NSFW images out of the threads, yet gives those who want to see those images, a way to do so.

The American Idol 2011 thread is another good example of where NSFW might appear. The title would lead most to believe that it's simply a discussion of performances and the show. However, I could see someone posting scantily-clad photos of the female contestants. It would be NSFW, yet the title would not convey that.

How is it such a burden to have to take a second, click a link, and have an image pop up to view it... :rolleyes:

Why does the thought of not having images in OMNI upset you?

The internet in 2011 is a medium of text, audio, video and images. Why not embrace the medium, instead of draqgging everyone to the lowest common denominator?


The American Idol 2011 thread is another good example of where NSFW might appear.

I've never seen that show, but knowing that pop entertainers dress provocatively, that would be an indicator that an internet discussion of that subject would be inclusive of that fact. Well, unless American Idol was targeting the Lawrence Welk demographic, but I kind of doubt that. :D

How is it such a burden to have to take a second, click a link, and have an image pop up to view it... :rolleyes:Why should anyone undertake a burden because some small minority of FTers might find an image offensive?

The American Idol 2011 thread is another good example of where NSFW might appear.Are you kidding? American Idol is a prime-time television show. There's nothing NSFW about it.

The title would lead most to believe that it's simply a discussion of performances and the show. However, I could see someone posting scantily-clad photos of the female contestants.Oh, please! The same could be said of any topic in any forum on FT, yet it doesn't happen.

Why is it so hard and so much of a burden to click on a link to view images?

Preach it, sister.

FlyerTalk is about information. Information is first and best conveyed by text, with links to pictures as might be helpful.

Newspapers and magazine convey information, and they have pictures too. How many generations ago did newspapers start including pictures, by way of woodcuts?

What I don't get is that some people who never even post in Omni care so much about it :confused:

Kipper, I'm with you, as are others. I really don't want to click on an image that while not normally offensive, would make me very uncomfortable if my boss walked into my office and saw it on the screen.

While in some cases it would be useful in Omni fluffy, I think it would get ugly in Omni P/R. As well, the few times I wanted to show someone something, I simply posted a link. It's not that often I need to do show & tell :)

Have we become so lazy that we have to get our information via pictures rather than from writing?

What I don't get is that some people who never even post in Omni care so much about it :confused:

What statistics do you have that that OMNI qualified FT members are not reading that area?

I said post, not read.

Seeing as OMNI can be masked for some, I would like know vB has the option to disable images in Omni for those who do not want it, but allows the images to be visible in other forums.

Seeing as OMNI can be masked for some, I would like know vB has the option to disable images in Omni for those who do not want it, but allows the images to be visible in other forums.

That doesn't seem such a bad idea.

But what about small, clickable thumbnails which link to the bigger pics? That way you don't have to click on a link, and then think "that was a waste of time", but, rather, can see first whether or not you want to see the bigger picture. At the same time, there wouldn't be HUGE pics for those who don't want huge pics taking up download, especially if they're viewing FT on a phone. Something like this:

http://i859.photobucket.com/albums/ab159/bjcoops/th_dews.jpg (http://s859.photobucket.com/albums/ab159/bjcoops/?action=view&current=dews.jpg)

While in some cases it would be useful in Omni fluffy, I think it would get ugly in Omni P/R.

I've asked twice up thread but no responses to my inquiry from those who advocate for images in OMNI & OMNI/PR. So I am asking for the 3rd time before the voting closes. FWIW, I've seen some example threads w/r/t OMNI (fluffy).

Can those in the pro image camp please cite some good example threads in OMNI/PR, and in OMNI/PR only, that discussion can be enhanced by EMBEDDED images? Please also provide examples of such images as well. I am still having a hard time to picture how embedded images would "become a useful tool in sharing knowledge, wit and experiences" (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16442599-post31.html) in OMNI/PR, when hyperlinks can be freely used anywhere on FT?

I've been patiently waiting since May 24, 2011 (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16443042-post34.html). I am sure if the pro camp can come up with some good examples in OMNI/PR before June 6, 2011 when the voting closes, that will help TBers make up their (right) mind.

ETA: Sometimes decisions are made not because we can, but because whether we should.

Just because technology allows us to enable images in OMNI/PR at this point, it doesn't mean images should be enabled in OMNI/PR. Not to mention image is never, and will never be, the strong suit for OMNI/PR. It's the content and discussion. Words are rich enough in OMNI/PR.

Wait no more. :)

I'm only an occasional poster on the PR side, but looking at the front page right now:

'Handcuffed by policy': Fire crews watch man die
This thread could have photos of firefighters standing on the beach watching the man drown and an absence of resources in the water

Governor Christie takes state helicopter to son's baseball game...
This thread could have a photo of the Governor getting out of his helicopter

Biggest rally against TSA screening?
This could have photos from the upcoming rally

MEMORIAL DAY - A Day For Remembrance, Not BBQ's & Sales
This thread can have photos of events commemorating Memorial Day, everything from parades to the concert at the Capitol

I'd have no problem finding additional threads where photos could easily fit in any day on that forum.

I'd have no problem finding additional threads where photos could easily fit in any day on that forum.

Thank you, tom911, but with due respect, I doubt the above example images will fit koko's ideas of "a useful tool in sharing knowledge, wit and experiences" in OMIN/PR. YMMV.

(underline mine)

kokonutz will need to provide his own links to that material.

Wait no more. :)

I'm only an occasional poster on the PR side, but looking at the front page right now:

'Handcuffed by policy': Fire crews watch man die
This thread could have photos of firefighters standing on the beach watching the man drown and an absence of resources in the water

Governor Christie takes state helicopter to son's baseball game...
This thread could have a photo of the Governor getting out of his helicopter

Biggest rally against TSA screening?
This could have photos from the upcoming rally

MEMORIAL DAY - A Day For Remembrance, Not BBQ's & Sales
This thread can have photos of events commemorating Memorial Day, everything from parades to the concert at the Capitol

I'd have no problem finding additional threads where photos could easily fit in any day on that forum.
I really don't see why those images would add anything at all to those threads :confused:

OMNI is a place for discussion. It's not a place to read news stories. If one wants to see pictures of photos from rallies, then I would suggest you go and read news sites?

Absolutely no to pictures.
Omni is about reasoned argument, intelligent debate and watching other posters go into fits of righteous indignation after a few choice words.
Not endless photo-shopped facepalms and epic fails.

Having thought about this for a while I am prepared to consider pictures of babes in wet T-shirts so perhaps my vote should go in the undecided ballot box after all.

I really don't see why those images would add anything at all to those threads :confused:

OMNI is a place for discussion. It's not a place to read news stories. If one wants to see pictures of photos from rallies, then I would suggest you go and read news sites?

A picture is worth a thousand words ! @:-)

"The adage "A picture is worth a thousand words" refers to the idea that a complex idea can be conveyed with just a single still image. It also aptly characterizes one of the main goals of visualization, namely making it possible to absorb large amounts of data quickly."

I really need to see strong examples that discussion in OMNI/PR would be enhanced by enabling embedded images. So far, I haven't. Please, image pro camp, help me. I still don't get it.

I know killing is brutal. Do I need to see a picture of killing?

Racism is alive. Do I need to see images of that nature to convince me racism is out there?

Tolerance is a difficult lesson for many. Do I need to see images of tolerance, or lack of, to get such idea?

No, no, and no.

I really don't see why those images would add anything at all to those threads :confused:

OMNI is a place for discussion. It's not a place to read news stories. If one wants to see pictures of photos from rallies, then I would suggest you go and read news sites?
That was my point, made in a more subtle way though. If images of that nature are called upon, hyperlinks will do. No embedding needed.

I believe OMNI/PR should "battle" in words, not photos. ;)

Even I am (slightly) willing to loosen up for OMNI Fluffy, OMNI Fluffy will do just fine without embedded images as well.

Having thought about this for a while I am prepared to consider pictures of babes in wet T-shirts so perhaps my vote should go in the undecided ballot box after all.

So, if images were to enable in OMNI/PR, would you be ready to finally upload the picture of you that you had promised two years ago? I recall that picture would have something to do with a beer bottle in your hand, among other things. :D

Would that promise of yours changes your ballot? :p

A picture is worth a thousand words <sinp>

making it possible to absorb large amounts of data quickly."

When does anyone expect to "absorb large amount of data quickly" in OMNI/PR? That's not the OMNI/PR I ever know. ;)

A picture is worth a thousand words ! @:-)

"The adage "A picture is worth a thousand words" refers to the idea that a complex idea can be conveyed with just a single still image. It also aptly characterizes one of the main goals of visualization, namely making it possible to absorb large amounts of data quickly."
So what large amounts of data would be gained from adding in a picture of a rally, or a picture of a group of firemen standing around? Are people unable to imagine what those would look like?

And why, if you want to get that large amount of data which you can purportedly gain from those images, is it too difficult to click on a link to do so?

I'm really struggling to see what the benefit is to introducing images to OMNI P/R, but costs have been identified. So if there is no identifiable benefit (other than 'I'm too lazy/important/busy to click on a link'), but there is a definite cost to members of that forum - which has been stated by a number of users, why is this being considered?

Please feel free to present an example of a thread in P/R to which the ability to embed pictures actually adds anything to that thread. It seems there is a decided dearth of such examples!

Having thought about this for a while I am prepared to consider pictures of babes in wet T-shirts so perhaps my vote should go in the undecided ballot box after all.
And this is one of the reasons why I think images should NOT be allowed... :)

What I still haven't seen is a compelling reason to treat OMNI differently than the rest of FlyerTalk. There are no compelling arguments against images in OMNI that do not equally apply to allowing images in all other forums.

So, if images were to enable in OMNI/PR, would you be ready to finally upload the picture of you that you had promised two years ago? I recall that picture would have something to do with a beer bottle in your hand, among other things. :D



By jove, what an excellent memory you have.

I do believe the exact words were " if America elects a black president I'll put up a picture of me naked 'cept for a carefully positioned pint of Guinness while being slapped in the face with a wet fish by Mrs Showbizguru. "

I think I've just gone firmly back in the " no " camp !

What I still haven't seen is a compelling reason to treat OMNI differently than the rest of FlyerTalk. There are no compelling arguments against images in OMNI that do not equally apply to allowing images in all other forums.

Differential treatment? Come on, koko! You can do much better than that. :p

You know giving the ranges and magnitudes of topics in OMNI and OMNI/PR, both are already treated differently by FTers (& MODs). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

What's off-topic, either by words or images, is much more defined and clear in all travel/point/mile fora. There is no confusion in those fora among FTers and MODs. However, same can't be said about OMNI and OMNI/PR when Off-Topic is the middle name. :D

Now, what about some example OMNI/PR threads that can use images to facilitate your so called "sharing knowledge, wit and experiences?"

FWIW, I've gone ahead & voted NO on this motion. I think there's a good mix of those that are for this & those that are against this.

Personally, I like FT without pictures in general. I feel if you want to post a picture, that a link generally suffices. I honestly rarely, if ever, go into OMNI or OMNI/PR - so it really doesn't impact my user experience all that much. However, I think it does impact enough members and there's a vocal enough crowd opposed to the change (and there's a vocal enough crowd for the change), so I went with the the NO vote on this.

At the end of the day, I don't know whether the motion will pass or not - but as I generally prefer no picturs and I've been elected to represent folks with my opinions, I've voted no.

Thanks for the feedback all!

I haven't voted yet, although I'm leaning towards it.

Valid points have been made on both sides.

BTW - in doing a quick tally of posts, the for/against are about equal, just like they were in the official polls that ran in both Omni & Omni PR for a month.

Cheers.

No one has answered if the forum software allows those who want to blocks images in Omni be allowed to do so, while keeping images visible everywhere else.. Though I think it’s pretty stupid to prohibit images because of what the content might be. We are grownups here, if you find the image in OMNI offending, report it.

Differential treatment? Come on, koko! You can do much better than that. :p

You know giving the ranges and magnitudes of topics in OMNI and OMNI/PR, both are already treated differently by FTers (& MODs). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

What's off-topic, either by words or images, is much more defined and clear in all travel/point/mile fora. There is no confusion in those fora among FTers and MODs. However, same can't be said about OMNI and OMNI/PR when Off-Topic is the middle name. :D

Now, what about some example OMNI/PR threads that can use images to facilitate your so called "sharing knowledge, wit and experiences?"
The same latitude is given to airline 'lounge' threads. Posts can be about anything at all. And photos are allowed. And yet there has been no spike in smut, no tsunami of NSFW.

I recently posted a photo in a lounge thread as the entire post. It was totally off topic, totally irrelevant, and yet witty and fun.

So I say to you too, sir, good morning, good afternoon and good evening! (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16454024-post1201.html) ;)

What I still haven't seen is a compelling reason to treat OMNI differently than the rest of FlyerTalk. There are no compelling arguments against images in OMNI that do not equally apply to allowing images in all other forums.

koko is right as usual. There are no OMNI-specific arguments explaining why this will be a disaster for OMNI when it wasn't a problem in other forums. If people believe that images are a problem across FT, then a proposal to eliminate them across FT is the proper vehicle for that opinion.

We all fear change. I understand that. But consider the question of creating a new forum. We don't demand 100% certainty that it will succeed before we are willing to give it try. If we turn out to be wrong, this decision is more easily reversed than a forum creation. So the standard of proof in advance should be even lower.

I have voted in favor of the motion.

If I had a vote it would be "No".

I now support allowing images. Koko's reasoning was very persuasive.

Because the value of OMNI & OMNI/PR on FT, we are holding the same higher standard when it comes to use of images.

If embedded images can really add value to OMNI/PR, please give some good concrete examples, without beating around the bush. I am really trying to see how much better an image-enabled OMNI/PR would be.

Still patiently waiting for some good OMNI/PR examples.

ps. I feel like a broken record, repeating the same thing but getting no result.

No one has answered if the forum software allows those who want to blocks images in Omni be allowed to do so, while keeping images visible everywhere else.. Though I think it’s pretty stupid to prohibit images because of what the content might be. We are grownups here, if you find the image in OMNI offending, report it.

The forum does not allow users to block images on a per-forum basis. It only allows the administrators to select which forums do or don't allow image uploads.

Users are able to disable the displaying of images in their settings (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/profile.php?do=editoptions), but once again, that will affect all forums.

Still patiently waiting for some good OMNI/PR examples.

ps. I feel like a broken record, repeating the same thing but getting no result.

That could be because many participating in this thread participate on the OMNI side and not the OMNI/PR side. On the PR side a quick check shows you've only posted in 5 threads this year while I've posted in in 13 of them, so neither of us are heavy contributors there.

The members that have the seriously high post count there, or those that consider it their home forum, have not been participating here. The Talk Board has publicized the discussion and those members have elected not to participate. Doesn't tell us whether they're for or against photos, just that they don't care to participate in the Talk Board discussion.

That could be because many participating in this thread participate on the OMNI side and not the OMNI/PR side. On the PR side a quick check shows you've only posted in 5 threads this year while I've posted in in 13 of them, so neither of us are heavy contributors there.

The members that have the seriously high post count there, or those that consider it their home forum, have not been participating here. The Talk Board has publicized the discussion and those members have elected not to participate. Doesn't tell us whether they're for or against photos, just that they don't care to participate in the Talk Board discussion.Hey, I've participated here (and I'm in favor of photographs).

Hey, I've participated here (and I'm in favor of photographs).

Sorry. :) I see you all over FT so wasn't thinking of you as a resident there, though I know you frequently post on that forum. ewrfox, who I see posted a few posts above this one, for comparison, is someone that I would consider a resident of OMNI and OMNI/PR as the majority of his posts are in those forums (compared to me, for instance, where the bulk are in AA and Hyatt).

Would the Talkboard consider making images only allowed in Omni-lite and not in P/R?

Or, can we specifically amend the TOS to exclude racy images, and define racy pretty thoroughly.

I really don't want to open threads with bikini clad women, and I don't want to turn off images on all of FT to prevent me from seeing them.

The site should be made easier to use, not harder.

It is sometimes quite hard to universally define what are racy images and where you always draw the line, even governments find it hard. I hope we don't go considering the view of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland (who are responsible for prosecutions in Scotland) as sensible:

"We do not publicly disclose our prosecution policy in relation to specific offences as to do so may allow offenders to adapt or restrict their behaviour to conduct which falls short of our prosecution threshold."

You can read more about this here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/25/ignorance_of_scottish_pr0n_law_no_defence/).

That could be because many participating in this thread participate on the OMNI side and not the OMNI/PR side.
Not quite.

So far there are 46 unique users posting in this thread, including IB & TBers. Excluding you, I eyeballed at least a dozen handles in thread that are posting quite actively in OMNI/PR. No one in the pro image camp is citing me any good example so far. Not even one /PR thread.

When a picture is more than a thousand words, so is an example thread. :)

On the PR side a quick check shows you've only posted in 5 threads this year while I've posted in in 13 of them, so neither of us are heavy contributors there.
I am not asking for frequency of "contribution" in OMNI/PR. I am asking for thread examples for "image enhancement" in OMNI/PR. I would think that's a fair request, so both the "readers" and "contributors" get to have a better picture in mind. That helps TBers envision then cast their votes accordingly.

Because the value of OMNI & OMNI/PR on FT, we are holding the same higher standard when it comes to use of images.

If embedded images can really add value to OMNI/PR, please give some good concrete examples, without beating around the bush. I am really trying to see how much better an image-enabled OMNI/PR would be.

Still patiently waiting for some good OMNI/PR examples.

ps. I feel like a broken record, repeating the same thing but getting no result.

Gosh, there are infinity examples. A photo of Gov. Christi's copter at his son's baseball game. A photo of Aziz Nouhaili tells a thousand words, imho. flyinbob recently suggested we "check out photos of the fat cops at the scene" of the Alameda suicide...he could have simply posted one. And on and on and on and on.

And as potential stand-alone threads, how about a game to see who can find the 'Orangest' photo of Speaker Boehner. Best political bumper sticker. Fun stuff! :D

Plus, not insignificantly, the ability to post political cartoons, an enormous part of the political conversation.

That help?

Hey, I've participated here (and I'm in favor of photographs).
And I've been in and against, but was told people didn't want to hear the same people arguing over and over... so I shut up mostly.

Now it's being held against us :confused:

Gosh, there are infinity examples. A photo of Gov. Christi's copter at his son's baseball game. A photo of Aziz Nouhaili tells a thousand words, imho. flyinbob recently suggested we "check out photos of the fat cops at the scene" of the Alameda suicide...he could have simply posted one. And on and on and on and on.

And as potential stand-alone threads, how about a game to see who can find the 'Orangest' photo of Speaker Boehner. Best political bumper sticker. Fun stuff! :D

Plus, not insignificantly, the ability to post political cartoons, an enormous part of the political conversation.

That help?
No, not really. None of those meet my defintion of a photo actually adding value to a thread in OMNI PR.

An example would be the illustration of a newly revamped cabin or hotel room in those forums, where no matter how much you describe it, you cannot impart that information as well as you can with a photo.

So far, no-one has identified a single thread where an embedded image would carry that kind of impact in P/R (well, except for those of young, beautiful, scantily clad women, but I can see why no-one has suggested those!). So again, where exactly is the need? Why do I need to see an image of a helicopter in the governor thread? I know what a helicopter looks like, and the make, model and livery is not germane to the discussion.

OMNI is not a news site.

Not quite.

So far there are 46 unique users posting in this thread, including IB & TBers. Excluding you, I eyeballed at least a dozen handles in thread that are posting quite actively in OMNI/PR. No one in the pro image camp is citing me any good example so far. Not even one /PR thread.

When a picture is more than a thousand words, so is an example thread. :)This is getting tiresome. However, since you insist:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni-pr/1221796-no-multicultural-imagery-multicultural-nation.html

A non-US example that shows multi-cultural advertising would almost certainly look strange to American eyes (as there is so little of it) and drive home the point.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni-pr/1221689-governor-christie-takes-state-helicopter-sons-baseball-game.html

Apparently, Christie actually interrupted the baseball game while his helicopter landed near the playing field. A photograph showing the chopper landing amid the players would demonstrate the arrogance of this abuse of tax-payer funds far better than any protracted description.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni-pr/1220637-dancing-monument-now-illegal.html

The cited news articles included video and stills of Park Service police "taking down" kids by throwing them to the marble floor, illustrating far better than words that this was less about violating an obscure Park Service regulation and far more about imposing an authoritarian insistence that the authority of these particular police be respected.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni-pr/960306-oklahoma-druggist-arrested-killing-holdup-man.html

The cited article included a video and stills showing the druggist cooly and deliberately returning to his store, going behind the counter, getting another handgun and then shooting the wounded robber's accomplice multiple times while he lay helpless on the floor. Again, a written description is insufficient to convey the cold calculation of the druggist.

I am not asking for frequency of "contribution" in OMNI/PR. I am asking for thread examples for "image enhancement" in OMNI/PR. I would think that's a fair request, so both the "readers" and "contributors" get to have a better picture in mind. That clear vision would probably help TBers cast their votes accordingly.You've got your examples. Do any of these threads absolutely require pictures? Of course not. After all, mankind managed perfectly well only the written word (and the occasional wood-block print) for thousands of years. Radio was a highly successful medium long before television. Live theater worked just fine as an entertainment medium before motion pictures. All these media are still successful today. I assume, therefore, that you don't watch television, don't go to movies, and don't read illustrated magazines like Time and Newsweek (or the "rotogravure" in your Sunday newspaper) as images are not strictly necessary for your enjoyment of the content.

And I've been in and against, but was told people didn't want to hear the same people arguing over and over... so I shut up mostly.

Now it's being held against us :confused:Hmmm. Maybe we'd better take this discussion to OMNI. ;)

No, not really. None of those meet my defintion of a photo actually adding value to a thread in OMNI PR.

An example would be the illustration of a newly revamped cabin or hotel room in those forums, where no matter how much you describe it, you cannot impart that information as well as you can with a photo.

So far, no-one has identified a single thread where an embedded image would carry that kind of impact in P/R (well, except for those of young, beautiful, scantily clad women, but I can see why no-one has suggested those!). So again, where exactly is the need? Why do I need to see an image of a helicopter in the governor thread? I know what a helicopter looks like, and the make, model and livery is not germane to the discussion.

OMNI is not a news site.I can describe a political cartoon to you all day long and it might not make sense. Whereas one look at it and it would not only make sense but enlighten, inform and perhaps even move you to respond.

And why are word/number games ok and fun for OMNI but photo games are not?

UA has 'post your favorite UA photo' thread. It's popular. It's fun. Why can't PR dwellers have our fun too!?

So far, no-one has identified a single thread where an embedded image would carry that kind of impact in P/R (well, except for those of young, beautiful, scantily clad women, but I can see why no-one has suggested those!). So again, where exactly is the need? Why do I need to see an image of a helicopter in the governor thread? I know what a helicopter looks like, and the make, model and livery is not germane to the discussion.No, but the proximity to the ball game, the size of the helicopter (is it a little news chopper, or one of those big, expensive transports like the President uses?), the effect it had on those who had come to see their kids participate in the game -- all of that is absolutely germane in deciding whether this was an abuse by the governor or not. Yes, it can all be described in words, but most of us are not professional writers nor are we inclined to create the 1,000 words that would be necessary to replace one linked photograph.

OMNI is not a news site.It is, however, a news discussion site.

As I have said before, I hope the Talkboard takes the decision to approve this motion.

I see no reason to treat OMNI and OMNI P/R differently than other forums in this area.

I do believe images add much to a conversation... just as it does in threads where potots are allowed. Just because one person can not see where a photo can add value another person can find much value in the same picture.

While I do not actively participate in the lounge threads, I have not seen "inappropriate" photos in those threads... and many of the posts are OMNI like. So I think our members understand what would and would not be allowed. If not, the able OMNI moderators certainly can take those decisions.

There is a point where we have to move Flyertalk along the technological journey that is available today.

At the end of the day, people who do not want to view images have two options at their disposal: turn off images or not open threads where images might be present.

Moderators who do not want to view images when not on duty can have a second handle (with CD approval) as others have done in the past.

While I expect most have probably already taken a decision and voted, I do hope it is for trusting members and enhancing the experience.

Thanks for those who cited example threads in OMNI/PR.

We'll let the audience decide if those examples validate the claim of OMNI/PR "enrichment."

...most of us are not professional writers nor are we inclined to create the 1,000 words that would be necessary to replace one linked photograph.
(emphases mine)

Exactly. It doesn't take an embedded photo. A linked one will do.

There is a point where we have to move Flyertalk along the technological journey that is available today.

At the end of the day, people who do not want to view images have two options at their disposal: turn off images or not open threads where images might be present.
Are those two options reasonable and/or feasible?

Technology advances with bundled limitation (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16493723-post141.html). You are saying if TB would approve this motion, for those of us who don't want to see embedded images in OMNI & OMNO/PR now all have to turn off every image on FT and sacrifice our viewing pleasure in say Trip Reports & Travel Photography Forum?

Unless I miss it, as far as I know, there's no way to know if any FT thread contains embedded photos before opening it. Or was there a techie tip that I haven't learned? Please share, if that's the case.

Even when technology is available or ready to be used, it doesn't mean having the technology is the best solution. Nuclear power is out there. Yet Germany will finalize their nuclear exit by 2022 (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110603-707791.html). ;)

"Want" and "need" are two different things. I am just saying.

Thanks for those who cited example threads in OMNI/PR.

We'll let the audience decide if those examples validate the claim of OMNI/PR "enrichment."


(emphases mine)

Exactly. It doesn't take an embedded photo. A linked one will do. Wow. Talk about moving the goal posts. You asked for examples of OMNI threads for which images were helpful. I provided them. At least have the courtesy to admit that your challenge has been met, rather than pretending that your earlier, and erroneous, point has suddenly become irrelevant.



Are those two options reasonable and/or feasible?

Technology advances with bundled limitation (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16493723-post141.html). You are saying if TB would approve this motion, for those of us who don't want to see embedded images in OMNI & OMNO/PR now all have to turn off every image on FT and sacrifice our viewing pleasure in say Trip Reports & Travel Photography Forum?Well, wouldn't a linked photo do just as well? You seem to think so.

At the end of the day, people who do not want to view images have two options at their disposal: turn off images or not open threads where images might be present.

Moderators who do not want to view images when not on duty can have a second handle (with CD approval) as others have done in the past.

And if you want to view images in some forums, and not others, it takes 3 clicks of the mouse to turn images on or off.

Edit Options
Show Images (check or don't check)
Save

It does work the other way as well.... as long as images are allowed to be posted in Omni and Pmni PR.

I guess I just hate to see us always catering/pandering to the lowest common denominator.

And if you want to view images in some forums, and not others, it takes 3 clicks of the mouse to turn images on or off.

Edit Options
Show Images (check or don't check)
Save

Wow. Talk about moving the goal posts. You asked for examples of OMNI threads for which images were helpful. I provided them. At least have the courtesy to admit that your challenge has been met, rather than pretending that your earlier, and erroneous, point has suddenly become irrelevant.


Well, wouldn't a linked photo do just as well? You seem to think so.
Didn't I thank those who provided examples? :confused:

No, I never move my goal posts. I've always stated hyperlinks will do just fine as far as OMNI & OMNI/PR are concerned. And my request for example threads/images in /PR is/was not setting up as any challenge but to help me envision. In case you missed my original request post (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16443042-post34.html), here's my original wording:

would you be able to give me some good example threads in both OMNI and /PR, that could use images as a tool of sharing knowledge, wit and experiences? And what useful images would that be? I am really having a hard time coming up with some convincing examples.

Whether the provided examples are "convincing" enough to be a useful tool to share knowledge, wit and experiences, the readers will decide.

How was I moving goal posts? I am not sure what "erroneous" and/or "irrelevant" point you were referring to. :confused:

Well, wouldn't a linked photo do just as well? You seem to think so.
This thread is about enabling images in OMNI &/PR. If you want to discuss disabling embedded images in Trip Reports and Travel Photography Forum, I'd think you can pursue in another thread.

ETA:
And if you want to view images in some forums, and not others, it takes 3 clicks of the mouse to turn images on or off.

Edit Options
Show Images (check or don't check)
Save
I am afraid not.

It's either all or none for FTers, according to IB-Dick:
The forum does not allow users to block images on a per-forum basis. It only allows the administrators to select which forums do or don't allow image uploads.

Users are able to disable the displaying of images in their settings (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/profile.php?do=editoptions), but once again, that will affect all forums.

(bolding mine)

I'm only on for a few minutes because I'm actually doing real life work work. The final deadline for voting is Monday, but I voted today because I'll be working all weekend & gearing up for a long trip to Europe that starts next week and I didn't want to miss voting due to multi-tasking & getting caught up in real-life work stuff.

I read the pro/con arguments (all of them) in this thread, the other discussion thread, the threads in both Omnis, and the polls. I even went back a couple of years & read the pros/cons of allowing images at all on FT threads before deciding how to vote. BTW - I thought there were good arguments on both sides, and my vote was not an easy yes or no.

I have voted in favor of the motion.

Cheers.

I am afraid not.

It's either all or none for FTers, according to IB-Dick:

(bolding mine)

I don't think you understood my post, or maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I suggested you could do is view photos in the forums you want to view them in, whatever they are, and then turn the photo feature off so you can continue in those forums you don't want to view photos in. It takes 3 clicks to turn photos on or off whenever you want.

I understand what IB-Dick is saying in that you either view them across all forums or not. You do have the option to turn them on or off across all forums anytime you want.

As I have said before, I hope the Talkboard takes the decision to approve this motion.

I see no reason to treat OMNI and OMNI P/R differently than other forums in this area.

I do believe images add much to a conversation... just as it does in threads where potots are allowed. Just because one person can not see where a photo can add value another person can find much value in the same picture.

While I do not actively participate in the lounge threads, I have not seen "inappropriate" photos in those threads... and many of the posts are OMNI like. So I think our members understand what would and would not be allowed. If not, the able OMNI moderators certainly can take those decisions.

There is a point where we have to move Flyertalk along the technological journey that is available today.

At the end of the day, people who do not want to view images have two options at their disposal: turn off images or not open threads where images might be present.

Moderators who do not want to view images when not on duty can have a second handle (with CD approval) as others have done in the past.

While I expect most have probably already taken a decision and voted, I do hope it is for trusting members and enhancing the experience.

WOuld you be in favor of allowing posts counts in Omni as well?

Yes, I would.... I think all posts should count in ALL forums... including Coupon Connection and Omni's.

WOuld you be in favor of allowing posts counts in Omni as well?

My answer, as many other's, is a definite NO

On 6 June 2011 the TalkBoard passed 7-2:

Moved by Cholula and seconded by SkiAdcock:

Allow Images in both OMNI and OMNI/PR

Voting yes: Cholula, jackal, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, SkiAdcock, UA_Flyer

Voting no: bhatnasx, Spiff

Thanks to those who voted no, who actually listened to a large proportion of the OMNI usership.

Shame about the rest :(

Thanks to those who voted Yes, who actually listened to a large proportion of the OMNI usership.

Shame about the rest.

:)

Thanks to those Talkboard members who voted yes... and listed to the other arguments as well... and decided to move Flyertalk forward.

And... I will not say shame on the other two.... I just hope your concerns are not realized.

William

Thanks to those who voted no, who actually listened to a large proportion of the OMNI usership.

Shame about the rest :(

Thanks for all TBers who voted.

We'll see how it goes from here.

Thanks to the TB members for voting.

And if you want to view images in some forums, and not others, it takes 3 clicks of the mouse to turn images on or off.

Edit Options
Show Images (check or don't check)
Save

It's a lot easier to click on a link to view an image (if images were not allowed) than it is to constantly be turning images on and off. That's a ridiculous suggestion IMO

OK... now that Omni is to be treated like the rest of FT, how about making posts count again?

OK... now that Omni is to be treated like the rest of FT, how about making posts count again?

And removing the entry restrictions that were just added ;)

It's a lot easier to click on a link to view an image (if images were not allowed) than it is to constantly be turning images on and off. That's a ridiculous suggestion IMO

Once per session on FT is considered constantly? As I said before, you view those forums where you think photos are appropriate, then go turn them off and view the rest of the forums. That's 3 clicks. Will you be turning them off permanently across all forums so you avoid these 3 clicks then?

I wish we had better participation from the Talk Board members in this discussion. I checked one member I have not seen here in a while and he has not posted since March. I know you are not required to post in this forum, but could you at least check in and tell the members you are reading their comments, no matter what position they took on this issue?

I saw what the IB guy posted, and am wondering if disabling images in Omni for those users who don’t want it in Omni, is something that can be added to the forum software.. Right now the software doesn't allow images in omni, so can it be tweaked to allow the administrator to mask certain aspects of the forum, the way banning certain users from Omni and allowing them full access everywhere else, is currently available.

Well, disappointed in the vote, but oh-bla-di, oh-bla-da. For anyone wanting the quickest method possible to get directly to turning images on or off, I've made the link in IB-Dick's post below a bookmark in my browser that I go to immediately before (to turn them off) and immediately after (to turn them back on) visiting OMNI/OMNI-PR. Not a perfect solution, but it works:

Users are able to disable the displaying of images in their settings (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/profile.php?do=editoptions), but once again, that will affect all forums.

Thanks to the Talkboard members that voted yes. :)

Thanks to those who voted Yes, who actually listened to a large proportion of the OMNI usership.

Shame about the rest.

:)
What large proportion - every attempt to measure it was inconclusive :confused:

There was no mandate for change here.

Thanks to those who voted this in as it clears up one of the more glaring dichotomies on FT. Next up, restoring post counts to Omni !^^^

OK... now that Omni is to be treated like the rest of FT, how about making posts count again?

While counting posts would be a step in that direction of treating OMNI like most of the rest of FT, it takes far more than allowing images in the OMNI forums and making posts in the OMNI forums to count again to get to that point where the OMNI forums are treated like most of the rest of FT.

Getting rid of the entry restrictions in the form of post count+membership duration and "forum access masking" (or whatever it is called) would be necessary for the OMNI forum(s) to be treated the same as most of the rest of FT today.

What large proportion - every attempt to measure it was inconclusive :confused:

There was no mandate for change here.Hey, I was just teasing. ;)

Mandate? Perhaps not. Consensus? I would say so.

While counting posts would be a step in that direction of treating OMNI like most of the rest of FT, it takes far more than allowing images in the OMNI forums and making posts in the OMNI forums to count again to get to that point where the OMNI forums are treated like most of the rest of FT.

Getting rid of the entry restrictions in the form of post count+membership duration and "forum access masking" (or whatever it is called) would be necessary for the OMNI forum(s) to be treated the same as most of the rest of FT today.
You're not going to let this go are you? The entry requirement to certain, and few, forums is windy popular with just about everyone and has restored some peace there.

As for masking, that one is simple. Behave and you don't get masked. Most of those masked were real troublemakers and it was a relief to see them gone. Why should the community suffer because someone gets their jollies stirring the pot?

The topic was raised (allow images). A poll was done for a month in both Omnis. There were 2 threads asking for input that also stretched out over a bit of time, in both Omnis & also on public TB. The results were pretty much the same overall in 6 weeks whether it was polls or posts - 50for/50against, & some who didn't give two patooties (sounds more fun than I don't care :D).

There was a public announcement at the top of FT for the voting process, & the notice of voting was bumped up in both Omnis to make sure people knew. Guess what. On an individual basis, not that many posts. Obviously some folk felt strongly about the matter (in both directions) & posted many times, but overall Omni folk (which is more than 50 people) didn't seem to care enough to cast their votes or comment on the situation. Truthfully I'm not saying that's good or bad; just saying that's the reality.

I can't speak for other TB members, but I read every single post on the various threads, polls, and even went back a few years to read prior posts/arguments when the subject came up before. I took all that into consideration before casting my vote. I went back/forth before casting my vote.

But I did my due diligence & I'm ok w/ my vote. Some will agree w/ it. Some won't. That's not new on FT or TB. Shrug.

FWIW - I don't think Omni is going to turn into porn central. If there are problems there are multiple ways to notify the mods.

Also FWIW - I don't think just because Omni allows images everyone is going to start embedding them. The reality is it's still easier to just post a link than actually go to the trouble of embedding images.

OVMV, but them's my views.

Cheers.

You're not going to let this go are you?

Consistency counts, doesn't it? When consistency neither exists nor is pursued so as to make the OMNI forum(s) just like most of the rest of the FT, consistency doesn't exist. Just saying.

The more the OMNI forum(s) are treated just like most of the rest of FT, the more consistency there would be. Just saying.

Consistently, I'd welcome consistency on FT if that was being pursued and delivered. As long as consistency of approach is lacking and isn't being pursued in full, it's not just OMNI or opinions that get split approaches.

If consistency were actually being pursued in full, I'd be of the unhedged opinion that this move to allow images in the OMNI forum(s) is a good move. Just saying.

Consistency counts, doesn't it? When consistency neither exists nor is pursued so as to make the OMNI forum(s) just like most of the rest of the FT, consistency doesn't exist. Just saying.


Personally, I think that all posts ever made in Omni should be removed from post counts. That would certainly be more consistent than having those made years ago count but those made today not count.

I would also remove from post counts those made in Newstand, TS&S, and Lounge threads.

Just saying.

Personally, I think that all posts ever made in Omni should be removed from post counts. That would certainly be more consistent than having those made years ago count but those made today not count.

That would make things far more inconsistent, as a growing number of posts would be treated differently than most posts on FT.

I would also remove from post counts those made in Newstand, TS&S, and Lounge threads.

That would make things even more inconsistent, as a growing number of posts would be treated differently than most posts on FT.

Kudos to the TB.

I don't think the worst fears of the opponents will come true. But if they do, I'm sure the TB can reconsider. ^

Count me as another member disappointed with the TB vote.

FWIW - I don't think Omni is going to turn into porn central. If there are problems there are multiple ways to notify the mods. the fact you keep trotting out this tired response shows you didn't really get the argument being made. But please point to someone who argued that it was going to be turned into "porn central"?

When you don't agree with a particular argument made, I personally don't think it's good form to try to pretend that argument was something much worse/extreme than it actually was to make your vote seem reasonable. Calling the legitimate concerns raised by the (principally, but not entirely) female participants in OMNI that some threads would degenerate into people letching over scantily clad people and that this would make the environment less welcoming for them as members as "turning OMNI into porn central" suggests that a) you don't have much of an idea about porn and b) you really didn't get what we were talking about. Carrying on saying that 'we could alert the mods' when I've already highlighted that the kinds of images we are concerned about falls entirely within the TOS, so are not actionable by the mods, while trying to reassure us that you considered everything is really not a good message to be sending.

Hey, we get it. You're prepared to throw the members of OMNI who are concerned about what this change of policy may mean to how they are able to interact in OMNI under the bus of 'treating OMNI like the rest of FT' while it patently isn't because of a number of other policies, because you feel like our concerns aren't worthwhile. At least have the honesty to say that without making our concerns into a clownish pastiche :td:

the fact you keep trotting out this tired response shows you didn't really get the argument being made. But please point to someone who argued that it was going to be turned into "porn central"?

When you don't agree with a particular argument made, I personally don't think it's good form to try to pretend that argument was something much worse/extreme than it actually was to make your vote seem reasonable. Calling the legitimate concerns raised by the (principally, but not entirely) female participants in OMNI that some threads would degenerate into people letching over scantily clad people and that this would make the environment less welcoming for them as members as "turning OMNI into porn central" suggests that a) you don't have much of an idea about porn and b) you really didn't get what we were talking about. Carrying on saying that 'we could alert the mods' when I've already highlighted that the kinds of images we are concerned about falls entirely within the TOS, so are not actionable by the mods, while trying to reassure us that you considered everything is really not a good message to be sending.

Hey, we get it. You're prepared to throw the members of OMNI who are concerned about what this change of policy may mean to how they are able to interact in OMNI under the bus of 'treating OMNI like the rest of FT' while it patently isn't because of a number of other policies, because you feel like our concerns aren't worthwhile. At least have the honesty to say that without making our concerns into a clownish pastiche :td: The vote was made , the vast majority of the elected board did not agree with your position! Accept and move on :) !

Count me as another member disappointed with the TB vote. The vote was made , the vast majority of the elected board did not agree with your position! Accept and move on :) !

suggests that a) you don't have much of an idea about porn

I would think that speaks highly of Sharon and certainly is not an argument against her. :confused:

The vote was made , the vast majority of the elected board did not agree with your position! Accept and move on :) !

I'll save your inane comment for the next time you drag your axe out to grind on topics you feel should be addressed by TB. :rolleyes:

I'll save your inane comment for the next time you drag your axe out to grind on topics you feel should be addressed by TB. :rolleyes: I am happy with the decisions of talk board this time! I am glad there is some movement to change, and I support change for this board ! Next up will be to remedy the discrepancy on post counting !

I am happy with the decisions of talk board this time! I am glad there is some movement to change, and I support change for this board ! Next up will be to remedy the discrepancy on post counting !

Or you could just accept it and move on. Or can't you heed your own advice?

Or you could just accept it and move on. Or can't you heed your own advice?

I would think a decision has to be made first before moving on? The TB never voted on the post counts.. Only person that decided on it was Randy and he's not here..

I would think a decision has to be made first before moving on? The TB never voted on the post counts.. Only person that decided on it was Randy and he's not here..

Semantics and since previous poster was free with their opinions I was simply sharing mine that they haven't always been as accepting with good grace decisions they haven't liked in the past whether it be from RP or TB.

the fact you keep trotting out this tired response shows you didn't really get the argument being made. But please point to someone who argued that it was going to be turned into "porn central"?

When you don't agree with a particular argument made, I personally don't think it's good form to try to pretend that argument was something much worse/extreme than it actually was to make your vote seem reasonable. Calling the legitimate concerns raised by the (principally, but not entirely) female participants in OMNI that some threads would degenerate into people letching over scantily clad people and that this would make the environment less welcoming for them as members as "turning OMNI into porn central" suggests that a) you don't have much of an idea about porn and b) you really didn't get what we were talking about. Carrying on saying that 'we could alert the mods' when I've already highlighted that the kinds of images we are concerned about falls entirely within the TOS, so are not actionable by the mods, while trying to reassure us that you considered everything is really not a good message to be sending.

Hey, we get it. You're prepared to throw the members of OMNI who are concerned about what this change of policy may mean to how they are able to interact in OMNI under the bus of 'treating OMNI like the rest of FT' while it patently isn't because of a number of other policies, because you feel like our concerns aren't worthwhile. At least have the honesty to say that without making our concerns into a clownish pastiche :td:

If I had posted something like this, then this is the part where you would post something about teddies and prams. :p :D ;)

Jenbel, I'm a bit perplexed on why you're focusing on one line of my entire post.

That line is not the only reason I voted the way I did, and yes I did take into consideration FTers thoughts & views - on both sides of the topic before casting my vote. And nowhere did I say people's concerns (and remember, dif people against had different concerns; not all the same) 'weren't worthwhile', so that is a projection on your part re: me & not accurate.

As I mentioned:

"The topic was raised (allow images). A poll was done for a month in both Omnis. There were 2 threads asking for input that also stretched out over a bit of time, in both Omnis & also on public TB. The results were pretty much the same overall in 6 weeks whether it was polls or posts - 50for/50against, & some who didn't give two patooties (sounds more fun than I don't care ).

There was a public announcement at the top of FT for the voting process, & the notice of voting was bumped up in both Omnis to make sure people knew. Guess what. On an individual basis, not that many posts. Obviously some folk felt strongly about the matter (in both directions) & posted many times, but overall Omni folk (which is more than 50 people) didn't seem to care enough to cast their votes or comment on the situation. Truthfully I'm not saying that's good or bad; just saying that's the reality.

I can't speak for other TB members, but I read every single post on the various threads, polls, and even went back a few years to read prior posts/arguments when the subject came up before. I took all that into consideration before casting my vote. I went back/forth before casting my vote.

But I did my due diligence & I'm ok w/ my vote. Some will agree w/ it. Some won't. That's not new on FT or TB. Shrug.

FWIW - I don't think Omni is going to turn into porn central. If there are problems there are multiple ways to notify the mods.

Also FWIW - I don't think just because Omni allows images everyone is going to start embedding them. The reality is it's still easier to just post a link than actually go to the trouble of embedding images.

OVMV, but them's my views."

Sorry you're unhappy with the way that I (and 6 other TB members) voted. If you have further questions or need additional input re: the other 6's thought processes when casting their vote, please ask them.

Off-topic:

As TB members know, I'm on vacation for 2 weeks & will not be checking FT regularly, so responses to this and any other TB threads will be minimal until my return.

Cheers.

It's about a week since pictures have been allowed in Omni. I haven't noticed many, yet because I've been busy, but there have been a few.

Imagine my surprise when taking a few minute break and I get treated to the images below on my work computer for everyone around me to see.

Are these the types of images you want associated with FT?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16594634-post7.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16585028-post24.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16585558-post29.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16585804-post33.html

It's about a week since pictures have been allowed in Omni. I haven't noticed many, yet because I've been busy, but there have been a few.

Imagine my surprise when taking a few minute break and I get treated to the images below on my work computer for everyone around me to see.

Are these the types of images you want associated with FT?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16594634-post7.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16585028-post24.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16585558-post29.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16585804-post33.html

Speaking only for myself: Yes.

The first is PG at worst. Heck, the Little Mermaid wears less. It's the Miss Universe pageant...the one on NBC television.

The others prevent me from having to go to some potentially questionable sites to see the images in question.

So yes, these are the types of images I want associated with FT. ^

It's about a week since pictures have been allowed in Omni. I haven't noticed many, yet because I've been busy, but there have been a few.

Imagine my surprise when taking a few minute break and I get treated to the images below on my work computer for everyone around me to see.

Are these the types of images you want associated with FT?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16594634-post7.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16585028-post24.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16585558-post29.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16585804-post33.htmlThe first picture is from a poster that I put on ignore a long time ago. The other three are absolutely pertinent and relevant to the discussion.

The first picture is from a poster that I put on ignore a long time ago. The other three are absolutely pertinent and relevant to the discussion.

The first link has two pictures of Miss America contestants wearing bikinis in a thread discussing Miss America contestants, one of which appears to be a screenshot from a TV broadcast. So yes, that one is relevant as well. ;)

It's about a week since pictures have been allowed in Omni. I haven't noticed many, yet because I've been busy, but there have been a few.

Imagine my surprise when taking a few minute break and I get treated to the images below on my work computer for everyone around me to see.

Are these the types of images you want associated with FT?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16594634-post7.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16585028-post24.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16585558-post29.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16585804-post33.html


What’s wrong with posting photos that are relevant to thread? I suggested this already, perhaps IB can tweak the forum software to disabling images in Omni for those who don't want it, while allowing it in the rest of the site.. If that interests you, then you should take that up with IB..

Now the first photo, really, it’s that offensive? When CNN (or any news program) which is on at your works break room, or anywhere at your work place, or a doctor office or anywhere else, shows highlights/still photos, from the Miss USA pageant or some random girl in her bikini, do you make a complaint saying it was offensive to you?

First of all, I'm not offended. I just don't think they are the kind of images that are appropriate for display on my work computer. As a matter of fact, there are specific rules regarding type of pictures that are appropriate - and Miss America contestants, or anyone else in bikinis, are not appropriate. They could be considered harassment if there are too many of them.

Guys - I would strongly suggest you check your workplace rules. Seriously. In my husband's office, they could be considered grounds for firing. They are that strict.

As a matter of fact, there are specific rules regarding type of pictures that are appropriate - and Miss America contestants, or anyone else in bikinis, are not appropriate.

I cannot understand why someone would be surprised that there would be images of women in bikinis when the topic is a Miss America pageant. Why would you open that thread if you are in a sensitive environment. :confused:

Guys - I would strongly suggest you check your workplace rules. Seriously. In my husband's office, they could be considered grounds for firing. They are that strict.

I see my boss every time I shave; he says no problemo. :D If I'm at a vendor or customer site, I probably have more important things to do than kill time at OMNI. ;)

They could be considered harassment if there are too many of them.

I can't grasp what you mean by this comment. Are you saying that by viewing photos on FT you're being harassed, or that those in your office that look over your shoulder are being harassed? Neither of those? Seems like an easy solution, if you fear workplace issues, would be to not view either of the OMNI forums at work.

I agree with this assessment.... if your workplace would not allow these pictures... which are all on topic... perhaps OMNI PR should not be viewed where people can see the pictures.

Some workplaces probably prohibit looking at Flyertalk at all... but I do not think we are turning off FT as a result... :)

I can't grasp what you mean by this comment. Are you saying that by viewing photos on FT you're being harassed, or that those in your office that look over your shoulder are being harassed? Neither of those? Seems like an easy solution, if you fear workplace issues, would be to not view either of the OMNI forums at work.

We also have the ability to turn images off across all forums, so if you want to view OMNI without photos at work, because there might be a workplace issue, you can work around that.

I know that, but it leaves me not able to see any image when at work. You know, like those from trip reports, etc that are work appropriate.

I cannot understand why someone would be surprised that there would be images of women in bikinis when the topic is a Miss America pageant. Why would you open that thread if you are in a sensitive environment. :confused:You wouldn't be if you read the thread. The title is Miss America One of Only Two Contestants Who Believe in Evolution and has nothing to do with the competition.

I see my boss every time I shave; he says no problemo. :D If I'm at a vendor or customer site, I probably have more important things to do than kill time at OMNI. ;)what does shaving or being at a customer site have to do with anything I've said? I work in an office and don't want to risk someone seeing those pictures on my computer. What's more offensive is Obama compared to socialists and Bush as Hitler.

[QUOTE=tom911;16596509]I can't grasp what you mean by this comment. Are you saying that by viewing photos on FT you're being harassed, or that those in your office that look over your shoulder are being harassed? Neither of those? It means there's always a risk of someone who may see them finding them offensive and complaining.

I personally couldn't care less if they were in bikinis or naked - just not in the office.

Seems like an easy solution, if you fear workplace issues, would be to not view either of the OMNI forums at work.Ah, I see. I have to stop viewing Omni because some people want to compare Bush to Hilter via a picture or show Miss America contestants in bikinis. Got it.

[QUOTE=wharvey;16596580]I agree with this assessment.... if your workplace would not allow these pictures... which are all on topic... perhaps OMNI PR should not be viewed where people can see the pictures.Did you actually read the topic or do you really think they were discussing the contestants and how they looked?

Some workplaces probably prohibit looking at Flyertalk at all... but I do not think we are turning off FT as a result... :)Now if that's not a stretch, I've never seen one :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]
Ah, I see. I have to stop viewing Omni because some people want to compare Bush to Hilter via a picture or show Miss America contestants in bikinis. Got it.

Or just take your chances viewing all of those at work. What do you want the Talk Board to do for you here? I can't see them passing a resolution that OMNI should not be viewed at work. You don't want to turn off photos. Sounds like you want to them to revote on the issue?

[QUOTE]Did you actually read the topic or do you really think they were discussing the contestants and how they looked?



http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16595936-post12.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16596243-post15.html

Or just take your chances viewing all of those at work. What do you want the Talk Board to do for you here? I can't see them passing a resolution that OMNI should not be viewed at work. You don't want to turn off photos. Sounds like you want to them to revote on the issue?
I'd like them to revisit the issue because exactly what a few of us said would happen didn't take more than a week to happen.

You wouldn't be if you read the thread. The title is Miss America One of Only Two Contestants Who Believe in Evolution and has nothing to do with the competition.

The 2011 internet is a visual medium, the Miss America pageant involves bikinis, so it's no surprise to me. If you are in a sensitive area, I would suggest not perusing subjects when the integral part of the activities involves wearing bikinis. If you felt the post was OT, then you should hit the RBP button.

what does shaving or being at a customer site have to do with anything I've said?

I'm sorry you missed my humor. :o

What's more offensive is Obama compared to socialists and Bush as Hitler.

Again, probably more topics to avoid on the 2011 internet if you are in a sensitive environment.

This was suggested before, but there may be a way to disable OMNI images only and not the rest of FT by using AdBlock Plus in conjunction with FireFox. Have you looked into that further? @:-)

This was suggested before, but there may be a way to disable OMNI images only and not the rest of FT by using AdBlock Plus in conjunction with FireFox. Have you looked into that further? @:-)

Of course not. There are many out there who would rather complain than find an actual solution, or even realize that the world may not revolve around them.

Actually, I'm not permitted to use firefox or adblock on my work computer. Everything is locked up. But why even consider that when you can just bash away? :rolleyes:

It seems that legitimate concerns are trivialized around here. What's amusing is many of those so strongly supporting images don't even post in Omni.

[QUOTE=N965VJ;16596885]The 2011 internet is a visual medium, the Miss America pageant involves bikinis, so it's no surprise to me. If you are in a sensitive area, I would suggest not perusing subjects when the integral part of the activities involves wearing bikinis. If you felt the post was OT, then you should hit the RBP button.the topic was about the beliefs of the contestants, not the pageant, that's why it was posted in PR. How do you Rbp
for off topic in the off topic area?

This was suggested before, but there may be a way to disable OMNI images only and not the rest of FT by using AdBlock Plus in conjunction with FireFox. Have you looked into that further?
I can't or I would.

I'd like them to revisit the issue because exactly what a few of us said would happen didn't take more than a week to happen.

Fair enough. Maybe we can get some input from the Talk Board members that haven't participated in this thread so far.

I'd like them to revisit the issue because exactly what a few of us said would happen didn't take more than a week to happen.

Why should the majority suffer for a select few who shouldn’t be surfing FT while at work.. Don’t use Omni..

Next you’ll be complaining photos in trip reports shouldn’t contain any beach shots as it might contain someone in their bikini and that might be considered harassment. :rolleyes:

Fair enough. Maybe we can get some input from the Talk Board members that haven't participated in this thread so far.
I'd like to see that as well. It seems that the TB doesn't much care for Omni. They seemed interested in making it more like the rest of FT, except for the post count issue. ;).

It will be interesting this election season :)

Fair enough. Maybe we can get some input from the Talk Board members that haven't participated in this thread so far.

I have no problem discussing this issue, but look at it from a real world, outside Mary’s work perceptive. Go to a news site you can see people bloodied up on the main page.. As always there’s going to be someone sensitive to that view and because of that one person, should news site be banned?

There will always be someone complaining about little things.. To revisit this issue to make a certain few happy while disenfranchising the majority isn't fair.. The majority of TB voted to allow images and it should be left as that.

If anything, Mary and anyone else offended should be pursuing with IB to tweak the BB software to mask Omni of images for those that wants to

I'm curious as to where reading Flyertalk, let alone threads about Miss America contestants, is considered legitimate use of company time and property.

Actually, I'm not permitted to use firefox or adblock on my work computer. Everything is locked up.

I suppose you could bring a personal laptop snagging a WiFi signal or tethered to your cell phone, but if I was in an environment with all these restrictions I would have to consider my own use of the internet with equipment that does not belong to me, certainly before making whatever restrictions I am under an issue for others. ;)

Yes, I actually did read the thread... I find it valuable when I am responding to actually read what is being discussed.

Where would you draw the line? It sounds like you just do not like images in OMNI...

You have the ability to change your behavior in a few ways if it is getting in the way at work:

1. Do not view OMNI and OMNI PR threads at work.

2. Turn off all images when at work.

3. Turn off images before going into the OMNI forums.

4. Take your chances that someone at work will see something they should not see.

None of those infringe on the ability of other FTers to see images...

Of course, you might also want to have a conversation with those colleagues who seem so interested in what is on your screen... :)

[QUOTE]Did you actually read the topic or do you really think they were discussing the contestants and how they looked?

Now if that's not a stretch, I've never seen one :rolleyes:

I suppose you could bring a personal laptop snagging a WiFi signal or tethered to your cell phone, but if I was in an environment with all these restrictions I would have to consider my own use of the internet with equipment that does not belong to me, certainly before making whatever restrictions I am under an issue for others. ;)
I could, but I don't have a data plan :) As well, we are permitted to use the internet for personal use. There are just serious restrictions as where we can go and what we can see.

I could, but I don't have a data plan :) As well, we are permitted to use the internet for personal use. There are just serious restrictions as where we can go and what we can see.
No expensive data plan required!

Here's a $40 solution! (http://www.amazon.com/3M-Privacy-Filter-PF14-1W-Widescreen/dp/accessories/B000CATRMK) :D

Ah, so I have to jump through hoops all because some people want to post pictures of women in bikinis, and some really offensive political pictures.

Koko - I guess you're finally getting your men's forum :D :D :D

Ah, so I have to jump through hoops all because some people want to post pictures of women in bikinis, and some really offensive political pictures.

Koko - I guess you're finally getting your men's forum :D :D :D

I wouldn't blame FT or the TB or posters who support treating OMNI the same way the rest of FT is treated for your having to jump through hoops.

I'd blame your apparently draconian IT policy.

And/or your management who apparently have created an open-office design such that your computer screens are visible to other coworkers.

And/or nosy yet overly-sensitive co-workers.

And suggest that until you get a privacy screen you avoid NBC's home page, certain MSNBC pages as well as the Daily Mail and many others all of which have photos of Miss USA Alyssa Campanella during the swimsuit competition.

Seriously, though, most consultants and others who spend time at client sites have a privacy screen on their computer. Mine is for when I fly. They also have the added benefit of reducing glare. ^

Ah, so I have to jump through hoops all because some people want to post pictures of women in bikinis, and some really offensive political pictures.First, I would note that those pictures of women in bikinis appear on major news media sites that cover the Miss USA contest. Though I agree that the pictures have nothing to do with the topic of the thread, there is nothing inappropriate about them -- it's not as if the poster had linked to a porn site. The political pictures were not offensive -- the signs carried by the people depicted in them were offensive, which was exactly the point the poster was trying to make. Again, these kinds of pictures have been carried by all the major news media sites.

I don't understand why you feel that FT must be watered down to lowest-common-denominator, safe-for-the-kiddies pap because of the rather draconian personnel policy at your place of work. Frankly, the discussion in many FT threads is far, far more offensive than those pictures -- we regularly have posts from anti-semites, homophobes, racists and other bigots (not to mention the OMNIcons*) that include absolutely hateful things, yet it's not, apparently, such an issue as to provoke a policy change demand.

*Just kidding! Really! Some of my best friends are OMNIcons (though I wouldn't want my sister to marry one.) :)

Koko... Since you don't know where I work, you can't say the IT policy is draconian. It's on par with other companies in the industry. All of them are very tight, and for good reason.

There is a difference between viewing a news page with a person in a swimsuit and being on a message board where said image pops up in the middle of a thread. Ditto for the Bush is Hilter picture.

*Just kidding! Really! Some of my best friends are OMNIcons (though I wouldn't want my sister to marry one.) :)

How would her husband feel about it?

There is a difference between viewing a news page with a person in a swimsuit and being on a message board where said image pops up in the middle of a thread. Ditto for the Bush is Hilter picture.

Why? I am asking this seriously. What is the difference between, say, that Bush picture on a website and the exact picture in the New York times?

Why? I am asking this seriously. What is the difference between, say, that Bush picture on a website and the exact picture in the New York times?

I would guess that, at least here, if the photo was on the NYT website, our IT people wouldn't blink at it. However, if/when it shows up on a message board, suddenly, they're not only questioning if they should block said message board, but also, they're questioning the political leanings and concerns of the user viewing said photo. I could easily see that sort of photo being viewed on a message board leading to discussions between IT, the employee's boss, and HR, as to if the person has political views that would perhaps, lead them to associate with those who might not have the most sanity, and if the employee might pose a threat if disciplined, etc.

Let's face it--there are a lot of looney toons out there, associated with every political view and party. It's not a far stretch to say that someone who views message boards with images like the ones Mary posted (with the exception of the Miss USA photo) that are offensive to many might have a screw or two loose, and might be looking for a reason to snap. At my company, after one employee's position was terminated, said employee had some nasty words and views to share, and as such, my company increased security. They might view those images, viewed on a message board, to be an indication that the employee viewing them is a bit unstable.

If the image is on the NYT website, then it's easy to understand that the person viewing the images was only trying to view the news.

If the employee who viewed such a photo is already on thin ice, and a co-worker saw said image, I could also see that being used as a reason for termination, if the co-worker was offended by the image. Again, if the image is viewed on the NYT website, it's a non-event, because the employee was only trying to read the NYT news.

Thank you Kipper - for beating me to saying it and for saying it far better than I would ^

I would guess that, at least here, if the photo was on the NYT website, our IT people wouldn't blink at it. However, if/when it shows up on a message board, suddenly, they're not only questioning if they should block said message board, but also, they're questioning the political leanings and concerns of the user viewing said photo. I could easily see that sort of photo being viewed on a message board leading to discussions between IT, the employee's boss, and HR, as to if the person has political views that would perhaps, lead them to associate with those who might not have the most sanity, and if the employee might pose a threat if disciplined, etc.I understand your point but, frankly, I don't want corporate IT departments driving what is and is not acceptable on FT. As our corporation is small, we use an outside company for IT support. As General Counsel, I set the computer usage policy for the company. Our IT company was eager to implement all sorts of usage controls -- net-nanny software, usage monitoring, etc. I vetoed all of it. We handle hostile-workplace concerns through policy, not technology, e.g. our employee handbook says, essentially, "Look at porn and you're fired." My only concern regarding personal computer usage at work is people not chew-up bandwidth watching too many videos or streaming video. Accordingly, I get a bandwidth-usage report by station and, if one looks excessive, I ask the employee to avoid visiting bandwidth-consuming sites.

I couldn't care less if our employees visit sites like FT (and, of course, I do :)). It's up to their managers to ensure that they get their work done. As long as they're doing it, what difference does it make?

I would guess that, at least here, if the photo was on the NYT website, our IT people wouldn't blink at it. However, if/when it shows up on a message board, suddenly, they're not only questioning if they should block said message board, but also, they're questioning the political leanings and concerns of the user viewing said photo. I could easily see that sort of photo being viewed on a message board leading to discussions between IT, the employee's boss, and HR, as to if the person has political views that would perhaps, lead them to associate with those who might not have the most sanity, and if the employee might pose a threat if disciplined, etc.

Let's face it--there are a lot of looney toons out there, associated with every political view and party. It's not a far stretch to say that someone who views message boards with images like the ones Mary posted (with the exception of the Miss USA photo) that are offensive to many might have a screw or two loose, and might be looking for a reason to snap. At my company, after one employee's position was terminated, said employee had some nasty words and views to share, and as such, my company increased security. They might view those images, viewed on a message board, to be an indication that the employee viewing them is a bit unstable.

If the image is on the NYT website, then it's easy to understand that the person viewing the images was only trying to view the news.

If the employee who viewed such a photo is already on thin ice, and a co-worker saw said image, I could also see that being used as a reason for termination, if the co-worker was offended by the image. Again, if the image is viewed on the NYT website, it's a non-event, because the employee was only trying to read the NYT news.

It is not the job of FT to determine what is appropriate for your work. It is up to you (the individual user) to determine if you want to visit sites (not related to your work) on your companies pay and if you choose to, then you should pay the consequences..No one is forcing you to surf FT when at work.. Don’t like the discussions, then stay out of Omni or the entire site until you get home. :rolleyes:

It is not the job of FT to determine what is appropriate for your work. It is up to you (the individual user) to determine if you want to visit sites (not related to your work) on your companies pay and if you choose to, then you should pay the consequences..No one is forcing you to surf FT when at work.. Don’t like the discussions, then stay out of Omni or the entire site until you get home. :rolleyes:
My employer is usually pretty tolerant about sites, other than what would fall under BAFTE, especially if one visits at lunchtime, etc. However, when you add photos like those, on a message board, rather than on a news site, it raises questions.

Other than the first link Mary posted, I would not expect to see photos in those threads, and as such, would consider them generally appropriate for work sans photos.

I would guess that, at least here, if the photo was on the NYT website, our IT people wouldn't blink at it. However, if/when it shows up on a message board, suddenly, they're not only questioning if they should block said message board, but also, they're questioning the political leanings and concerns of the user viewing said photo. I could easily see that sort of photo being viewed on a message board leading to discussions between IT, the employee's boss, and HR, as to if the person has political views that would perhaps, lead them to associate with those who might not have the most sanity, and if the employee might pose a threat if disciplined, etc.

Let's face it--there are a lot of looney toons out there, associated with every political view and party. It's not a far stretch to say that someone who views message boards with images like the ones Mary posted (with the exception of the Miss USA photo) that are offensive to many might have a screw or two loose, and might be looking for a reason to snap. At my company, after one employee's position was terminated, said employee had some nasty words and views to share, and as such, my company increased security. They might view those images, viewed on a message board, to be an indication that the employee viewing them is a bit unstable.

If the image is on the NYT website, then it's easy to understand that the person viewing the images was only trying to view the news.

If the employee who viewed such a photo is already on thin ice, and a co-worker saw said image, I could also see that being used as a reason for termination, if the co-worker was offended by the image. Again, if the image is viewed on the NYT website, it's a non-event, because the employee was only trying to read the NYT news.

Maybe it's just me, but if your IT department seriously spends its days reviewing photos from the internet sites that employees visit...and especially if photos from the off-topic site of a frequent flyer site leads to major HR interventions....well then I would love to be in competition with your company! Because in most successful companies results matter more than process, and IT is working on efficiency and innovation, not on babysitting. ;)

As for an employee on thin ice....well any employee on thin ice ought not be on FT during work hours at all...this place can be addicting, after all! :D

I know that, but it leaves me not able to see any image when at work. You know, like those from trip reports, etc that are work appropriate.
I would hazard a guess that not one thing posted in OMNI/PR is "work appropriate."

It is not the job of FT to determine what is appropriate for your work. It is up to you (the individual user) to determine if you want to visit sites (not related to your work) on your companies pay and if you choose to, then you should pay the consequences..No one is forcing you to surf FT when at work.. Don’t like the discussions, then stay out of Omni or the entire site until you get home. :rolleyes:
Why has TB changed the policy for members using FT which is resulting in us being told to stop using FT?

We all could use FT/OMNI with no problem previously. Now, when we point out how the change in policy on images has the potential to limit our ability to access FT, the response seems to be 'well you shouldn't be looking anyway'.

Why on earth has the member elected body, which is supposed to represent me, put in place barriers to my being able to access FT, resulting in me having reduced usage, so that you could post pictures of semi-dressed women. I don't get why your ability to post images of semi-naked women is more important than my ability to actually spend time browsing FT. Do you think your ability to post images of semi-naked women is more important than ensuring a forum's users are still able to use that forum?

Why is TB enacting policies which are preventing members from being able to access FT? Shouldn't they be doing things to ensure that members are retained, not driven away?

Why has TB changed the policy for members using FT which is resulting in us being told to stop using FT?

We all could use FT/OMNI with no problem previously. Now, when we point out how the change in policy on images has the potential to limit our ability to access FT, the response seems to be 'well you shouldn't be looking anyway'.

Why on earth has the member elected body, which is supposed to represent me, put in place barriers to my being able to access FT, resulting in me having reduced usage, so that you could post pictures of semi-dressed women. I don't get why your ability to post images of semi-naked women is more important than my ability to actually spend time browsing FT. Do you think your ability to post images of semi-naked women is more important than ensuring a forum's users are still able to use that forum?

Why is TB enacting policies which are preventing members from being able to access FT? Shouldn't they be doing things to ensure that members are retained, not driven away?

Before this change I could have posted photos of women in bikinis in any number of forums: trip reports, hotel forums photos of folks enjoying the hotel pool, community forum of photos from a beach do, womens travel forum photos of swimsuit comparisons, or even in the airline forums in the lounge threads. There are also ads on FT that feature women in bikinis.

This is not about posting images of women in bikinis. There are photos of women in swimsuits all over FT. No one has made a fuss about it until now, nor has anyone's IT department that I am aware of.

This is about being able to look at any photo relevant to an OMNI discussion and it is also about treating the OMNI twins the same way the rest of FT is treated, including but not limited to being able to post relevant photos of men or women in bikinis, burkas or anything in between.

Why has TB changed the policy for members using FT which is resulting in us being told to stop using FT?

We all could use FT/OMNI with no problem previously. Now, when we point out how the change in policy on images has the potential to limit our ability to access FT, the response seems to be 'well you shouldn't be looking anyway'.

Why on earth has the member elected body, which is supposed to represent me, put in place barriers to my being able to access FT, resulting in me having reduced usage, so that you could post pictures of semi-dressed women. I don't get why your ability to post images of semi-naked women is more important than my ability to actually spend time browsing FT. Do you think your ability to post images of semi-naked women is more important than ensuring a forum's users are still able to use that forum?

Why is TB enacting policies which are preventing members from being able to access FT? Shouldn't they be doing things to ensure that members are retained, not driven away?

Koko pretty much sums it up..

It is not the job of FT to determine what is appropriate for your work.

Indeed. But it is the job of some people in some companies to determine what is inappropriate for work and the consequences of inappropriate involvement. Where images may be an issue at work -- and I know it has been an issue for some FTers -- an FTer can choose to block all images in posts and that aspect of images becoming an issue with the employer (and/or their designated person/party) should pretty much bite the dust.

This move, however, still does nothing to fully normalize the OMNI forum(s) and participation therein. It does, however, move things in that direction.

We haven't seen a single Talk Board member post in this thread for 14 days. I'd say the chance of them revisiting images in OMNI topic is pretty much dead at this point. We can debate among ourselves until the cows come home, but we're not the ones that vote.

I personally feel the image in omni is a nonissue now.. Simply because the said images can be seen on the tv and numerous websites besides FT. Why is it so hard to disable the images before going into omni, if you have strict rules at work?

Why is it so hard to disable the images before going into omni, if you have strict rules at work?

Don't you have better things to do at work ? :D

I'm so grateful that TB allowed images to be posted in OMNI, which gave members the chance to raise the tone of the conversation in there by posting images such as this one:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16796647-post14.html

That completely sums up for me why images should not have been allowed in OMNI - the members don't have the maturity of conversation - as expected - to actually consider what might be appropriate.

And before anyone does the tired old refrain, yes, I did, and no, they didn't :td:

Completely well worth it in my opinion :rolleyes:

I'm so grateful that TB allowed images to be posted in OMNI, which gave members the chance to raise the tone of the conversation in there by posting images such as this one:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16796647-post14.html

That completely sums up for me why images should not have been allowed in OMNI - the members don't have the maturity of conversation - as expected - to actually consider what might be appropriate.

And before anyone does the tired old refrain, yes, I did, and no, they didn't :td:

Completely well worth it in my opinion :rolleyes:
Ok, between agreeing with you on this image (because the image added so much to that thread and was so necessary... :rolleyes:), and agreeing with Mary on several things, I've realized that one of three things has occurred:


There's a tear in the time space continuum, and we're all in trouble
I've suffered some sort of head injury
This is all some sort of strange dream.

:D

I'm so grateful that TB allowed images to be posted in OMNI, which gave members the chance to raise the tone of the conversation in there by posting images such as this one:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16796647-post14.html

That completely sums up for me why images should not have been allowed in OMNI - the members don't have the maturity of conversation - as expected - to actually consider what might be appropriate.

And before anyone does the tired old refrain, yes, I did, and no, they didn't :td:

Completely well worth it in my opinion :rolleyes:Without getting into specifics that would violate the FT TOS, I'll just say that there's only one or two posters (really just one) who indulge in this kind of thing -- put them on ignore and you won't be missing anything.