revisited: photos per thread limit

The original question was on the rule change of "one photo per thread". Nobody suggested that if more then one picture was to be added that all text would be removed. If someone wants to write a novel then that is their choice. If dial-up folks don't want to view photos then turn off that option on the browser and you won't have the delay. <br><br>People can configure their own settings fairly easy to their needs. I don't think the culture of this forum would radically change if more then one photo was allowed to be posted. I also don't think everyone should be held to the standards of the slowest connection. <br><br>FWIW

Well, the status quo contingent seems to have found a voice. Still, I count about twice as many in favor of expanding the photo posting rule as opposed.<br><br>To help me better understand, could some of you who are in favor of allowing more photos to be displayed in a thread elaborate on the following:<br><br>(1) The current rule specifies that only one photo is allowed to be displayed in a thread. This does not mean that posters are not allowed to include links to more photos. Including links makes the additional photos instantly available for viewing at the descretion of the reader, but does not require that those photos load in order to view the text. To me this seems like an already-implemented, low-tech version of the kind of filter decribed by username. My question then: <br>- given what is already possible under the existing rules (eg. including links to additional photos), why do you feel that it is important to allow more than one photo to be displayed in a thread?<br>- a different way to ask this question: given what is already possible under the existing rules (eg. including links to additional photos), why would this lead you to not post a trip report here?<br><br>(2) If the photo posting rule were to be revised, there would still need to be some kind of guidelines. What do you think these guidelines should include?<br>- maximum number of displayed photos: 2, 4, 6, judgement of poster, unlimited?<br>- maximum size of displayed photos: 640x640, 800x800, unlimited?<br>- display of photos limited to the person starting the thread (original trip reporter)?<br><br>From an administrative point of view, I'd like to avoid any changes which would increase the amount of time I was required to spend dealing with this. Right now, I don't have to spend much time. I don't go on patrol looking for "violations". Often someone else will have mentioned the limit in a thread with multiple photos displayed and the original poster will have edited their post. Very infrequently do I go into a post and convert the extra displayed photos into links for those photos.

4-6 photos would be nice. One for the approach, a few ski shots, and a summit shot. 800x800 and only pics by the poster shown. <br><br>I have a dial up and don't mind waiting for photos to load. It is more difficult to push a bunch of links. By the time I'm done reading a story the photos are loaded. <br><br>We can always change back if it becomes a problem.

If the photo posting rule were to be revised, there would still need to be some kind of guidelines. What do you think these guidelines should include?<br>- maximum number of displayed photos: 2, 4, 6, judgement of poster, unlimited?<br>- maximum size of displayed photos: 640x640, 800x800, unlimited?<br>- display of photos limited to the person starting the thread (original trip reporter)?<br>

<br>My suggestions:<br><br>- Maximum 3 photos per thread (anticipation, climax, denouement   ).<br>- Maximum size 800x800 pixels or 100 kbytes, whichever is smaller, for each photo.<br>- Anybody can post photos, but the originator gets the first shot at it, and once you reach 3 per thread, that's it.<br>- No limitations on posting links to photos, as is currently the case.<br><br>

...given what is already possible under the existing rules (eg. including links to additional photos), why would this lead you to not post a trip report here?

<br><br>"The one lies in the freedom of the reader, while the other in the purposeful domination of the author." --J.R.R. Tolkien<br>

I agree with Lowell. 3 seems about right.

Pictures transcend hyperbole, critiques of style and safety that rely heavily on interpretation, and inadequacies in the author's vocabulary. They can also immediately ameliorate gaps in the audience's knowledge of an area's geography in ways that words simply cannot. <br><br>There are obviously exceptions to my first statement.