revisited: photos per thread limit

Microsoft Word tells me that on the 0-100 scale of the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Test Skye scores a 13.5 and on the F-K Grade Level Test its a whopping 12th grade. No wonder I had to read it several times and am still not sure exactly what he said.<br><br>Ummm.....3 or 4 photos, 640 pixel max, sounds like it should cover the bases.<br><br>

And thus I prove my point. A picture would have been much better. <br><br>I'm assuming you meant me by 'Skye'. You could have just posted a picture of an ass.<br><br>Sky

I say keep the status-quo. The one photo limit encourages posters to be more creative and write more meaningful text. If posters can get away with just posting a bunch of their porn they will be less inclined to write useful text and will also be less inclined to choose photos which represent the best work from their trip. I cite TGR as a case in point. There are a lot of threads with just photos and little verbiage.<br><br>Does this make me a retrogrouch? Most certainly <br><br>That said, I would like avatars to be turned on. I think they can quickly convey a lot of personality. <br><br>Also, re 800x600 being the max resolution, has it been ensured that doesn't cause horizontal scrolling on 1024x768 on this board? 1024x768 I think is a reasonable lowest-common denominator resolution in 2006. Whatever max resolution is chosen we should ensure horiz scrolling doesn't occur there--horiz scrolling really kills a thread.<br>

Horizontal scrolling is the pits and it should definitely be avoided.<br><br>I must question this implication about<br>more photos -&gt; worse writing.<br><br>Jeff cites TGR for evidence. I claim it is easy to find many examples of <br>no photos -&gt; poor writing<br>and<br>many photos -&gt; good writing<br>all over the web.<br><br>If a poster enjoys the challenge of choosing only one photo, what is to stop them from doing it in the future? Also, what is to stop anyone from disabling images in their browser? The one-photo rule affects everyone. A multiple-photo allowance doesn't stop posters from using only one photo, or none at all. <br><br>Lowell said:<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><br>Care to provide context, or expand? I don't get it. How do photos dominate the reader? <br><br>Freedom, FREEDOM, give it to me<br>(Sing it like Jimi!)<br><br>As someone who posts elsewhere (partially) because of the photo rule, I'll tell you why. The medium allows both photos and text. I feel that well-written text and carefully-selected photographs synergistically combine to create an experience far richer than text alone. <br><br>There is nothing to stop anyone from writing a chef d'oeuvre sans photographs. Please don't restrain the whole BB on some atavistic crusade for the written word. Pretty please with sugar on top, from an illiterate yahoo...<br><br>

I'm with Sky on this. Check out Wright Morris if you want an inspirational example of someone who blended words and photos quite effectively. <br><br>Why aren't links as good - well, they're close, but as Wright Morris' work shows, there's something powerful about the juxtaposition of words and image in one place (can't quite see that from the link I shared, but go get one of his books from the library...). Communication is visceral; not just logical.<br><br>I'm dubious as to how much the one-photo rule has helped this forum's signal:noise ratio. There was lots of crap on the text-only usenet back in the dark days, and there were good boards too, and a lot had to do with the formal and informal moderation. I think that's the key here as well. <br><br>If a rule seems prudent, make the limit as many photos as you can bear - if it's 3, fine, if it's 5, better. At least on my browser, when the connection is slow the text still comes up before the photos, and so I can read while I wait, as Jason suggests. For dial-up folks (including those in the PNW, since those in the third world don't seem to spend much time on TAY, but I know that even here in the first world there are plenty of 56K folks out there...), there's always the additional answer of using your browser setting to turn off loading of photos - a minor hassle for sure but not that tough. Keep size to what works on common screen resolutions (everyone seems to agree about horizontal scrolling so no need selling that one) - not sure if you have good data on that Charles (best to know for your specific audience since general #'s may be way off your audience), if not you know how to reach me to ask me to dig that up...<br><br>Keep this a ski forum - not a writer's workshop. Good communication takes many forms.

rec.climbing became rec.arguing became cascadeclimbers.com (your mamma is a *$%#*#$&)<br>TAY is a pleasure thanks to Dr. Eldridge, I'm for whatever it takes to keep his management efforts at a minimum, and the site free of chaff.  <br><br>Limiting size and number of photos, hmm, who will be the police and who will be the pushers of the envelope?  I like the one photo limit, with links to more elsewhere.  Ron J, JW, Maddog, philfort, and others do a great job of entertaining us with trip reports, photos, and video without overloading TAY; even if one is too lazy to set up a free site somewhere for photos, s/he can always post them to telemarktips or cascadeclimbers and link from TAY.<br><br>Skye is not a donkey, it is a beautiful place in a land far away across "the pond."  And as for Sky's writing skills, the mechanical tools that give him a low score may miss much of his subtlety (as I sometimes do on first reading.)   Heck the guy is nearly a PhD, yikes!<br><br>Again thanks to Charles for building this great community, and for finding me many new ski partners.