Same here - Imageshack, for example, enables you to have them automatically resize the image to a setting such as 320x240 and 640x480.

If there is a standard in the tests, great, otherwise I'd support the images as long as a standard is set. Personally, 320x240 with the option to click on it to open a full image in a new window is fine with me, with maybe larger images allowed on Travel Photography and CommunityBuzz.

Either way, the FT user will feel the delay more than without the image.

It could still be problematic anywhere on FT if this is widely enabled, even in or out of OMNI.

One-hit/"one-hit" fly-by-night kind of trolls can happen anywhere on FT. What happens if someone puts up a pornographic image? Ban them? Sure, but then what if that person puts up another using a new account? Either way, the image will have been up on FT already for some time.

This may not be a common occurrence and may not be reason enough to oppose this motion, but there will be some issues that arise going forward if this were to pass. It's just a matter of time until this kind of situation actually arises here on FT too.

If an FTer were able to disable the vieiwing of the images perhaps some of those concerns would go away at least in part.

You can set your options to disable viewing images & the suggestion has been made that "disabled" is the default; so you would actually have to opt-in to see the images.

OK, and as the moderator on a couple of forums, how am I meant to establish that - in a way which means that I don't have to take time to investigate each website for each posted image?

While image theft is to be frowned upon, I do think it puts an unbearable burden on the mods to check to see if images are legitimately available for use or not. I know it's not a check I've been making while Cbuzz was running the trial (in part because most of our images came in the Open Skies thread, and there just weren't enough mods and/or hours in the day to check each and every image).

If this motion is going to get approved, then I too would hope that the default setting is as you mentioned.

Your motion as drafted does not permit Moderators to exclude animated .gifs nor allow the wishes of the forum moderators and/or the forum regulars to be taken in to account. The motion needs amending to include this language, otherwise, it's all images everywhere.

I find that possibility to be somewhat troublesome. If a moderator is against images and yet most of the people who post to the forum are for them, how is this resolved?

The motion only permits static images; which would exclude animated .gifs.

It's true that registered FTers can choose to disable image views but the settings only kick in when the members log in. The universal default for all guests, including FTers not signed in, is image-enabled. I'd mentioned this fact in the discussion thread back in last May.

When I browse FT, I normally don't log in unless I am about to post or reply. That means if image view becomes a universal application on FT, I will have to see images, which does slow down the pageload from my laptop. I am on basic DSL, if that matters. Giving that FTers don't have to log in to view OMNI, I would assume that more folks choose not to sign in. In other words, there are more viewers visiting FT under "Guest" mode.

My only concern for enabling images across FT is whether it will slow down my FT visits. I don't care whether the bandwidth/image host issue imposes a challenge to FT servers or end users (or both). Whatever TB decides, all I am asking is not to slow my FT experience. I'll leave all the technical application to the experts. ;)

According to Cholula (see post#7), it's impossible to exclude animated images though.

It is impossible to set the vBulletin software to exclude them. However, I believe the wording of this motion would treat animated images the same as inappropriate text - moderators could delete the image & suspend repeat offenders.

You are absolutely correct. Thanks for the clarification. :)

Static images would make things much easier for everybody. Nice wording in this motion! ^

Sorry I haven't been more active in this discussion: just back from HNL and, well, FT wasn't at the top of my priorities. ;)

Anyway, I seconded this motion because I believe that photos add a GREAT deal of depth and clarity to FT posts. I've used photos extensively in the SPG and Luxury Hotels forums during the beta test and find they save a lot of time trying to explain things and add a lot of value.

This motion allows that ability in all forums. Is it a feature ripe for abuse? I don't think so. All of the TOS terms regarding relevance, family-friendliness and legal-right-to-post of a photo is identical to the current regulations of posting of words.

And a photo should be EASIER to moderate than words: all a mod has to do is look at it...no reading required. ;) Plus photos are much harder to post than words are.

I agree with Cholula that, just as moderation of our words takes on a different vibe in different forums, so too will moderation of our photos. That's not to say that moderation of photos will be any more (or less) capricious than words, but simply acknowledging the fact that each forum tends to take on its own character.

And, of course, at the end of the day if you absolutely cannot stand photos, you have the option of turning them off.

So I think this is a win-win-win. Value will be added to posts. Valueless photos will be moderated away. And if you don't like them, turn them off.

Long overdue, IMHO.

I would also include OMNI, but I can live with that not being included.

I think appropriate (to the topic) images are fine.

I do not want images in signatures or avatars posted under names.