Photo Limit: LeeLau and Amar's

OOOps. Sorry Ron didn't mean point any fingers and the EXISTING moderators do a fine job and the'll be no application from me as I think the task would suck and I would be terrible at it.
Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, just asking what I think is a valid question given that both Amar and LeeLau are two of the most active and respected skiers in the region whose posts are valued by many of us.

To clarify, I think the admin and moderators do a great job especially considering they are volunteers and have done a remarkable job in keeping the tone of this site what it is, "a shining beacon of civility" in the cesspit of ski websites
BUT
I don't think that makes them off-limits either when they make decisions that appears ,at leasty to me, to be unequitable. Even the umpires at the Superbowl make bad decisions every once in a while and have to look at the replay.

Forgive me if my post seemed like you offended me Scotty. Certainly no umbrage was taken.
I just see your point, as again so eloquently made, which makes it difficult for me to believe that you would not make a great moderator give your penchant for fairness and equality.

As you obviously already suspect and Marcus hit on, we are woefully understaffed. And to make matters worse, I have evolve into the exact opposite of fairness. I let my friends get away with whatever they like (you included), while I tend to berate those that I do not personally know and rule them with complete bitterness and a total lack of patience. Since we lost Mark our task has become increasingly burdensome which drives me to extreme depression each time I log on. I'm not quite sure how it will all end if we don't get more moderators.

If you are sure you won't consent to be a moderator how about just submitting to becoming the official "Picture Counter"?
You would then at least be helping to relieve this one travesty of equity.
How 'bout it?
C'mon mate, be part of the solution instead of part of the problem 

Ron, may I suggest you post a "help wanted", thread. Given the rising unemployment and number of recent posters seeking mid-week partners, I suspect that there are many with sufficient time to moderate although few could aspire to the high standards you have set.

As to your self-proclaimed bitterness and intolerance for strangers, xenophobia is understandable in these troubled times, so don't beat yourself up. As Bob Dylan says" People are crazy and times are strange."

As to me;well I like being part of the problem and think you should clamp down on my excesses hard, it's perfectly obvious that I need adult supervision.
No picture counter needed as my point was not that Amar's should have been truncated but that LeeLau's allowed. I have consistently posted that the photo limit is too small and should be extended to a greater number, say 5 or 6.

Chris,

I'm just a bit annoyed to see my name in the subject of a TAY thread, especially in this context, and feel compelled to reply even though I don't want to.

Since the TAY photo guidelines were set up (and since the thumbnailing feature was added), I've been occasionally bending the rules by posting more thumbnails than the limit of 6. I tend to do this only for really significant and important trips, never for run-of-the-mill trips. In addition, I try to never violate the 3 full-sized photo guideline, although I think I have sometimes posted a TR with 4 full-sized photos and 0 thumbnails, which seems like an OK compromise (== similar bandwidth to 3 full + 6 thumbnails).

The key point is that the thumbnailed images are tiny compared to the full sized photos: in my Juneuary 17-18, 2009, Mt Rainier, Fuhrer Finger thread which you refer to above, the two full-sized photos in the brief original post are a total of 246kB in size.  On the other hand, the 25 thumbnailed photos in the follow-up full TR are a total of only 307kB in size, barely more than the two full-sized images. Thus, the grand total for all my photos is only 553kB, which is still less than the maximum of 600kB permitted by attaching 3 full-sized photos, each at the 200kB limit. So despite superficial appearances to the contrary, my post in no way violates the intent of the guidelines, which is to keep the page fast-loading on slow connections. The sum total of the photos is less than the allowed limit, and thus keeps the page sufficiently fast-loading, unlike including numerous full-sized photos.

I've always treated the posting guidelines for what they are: guidelines. I've tried to stay within their spirit and original intent, while still trying to bend the rules often enough (as a subtle form of protest) to encourage Charles to relax the guidelines somewhat. I think the moderators (mainly Charles) have not deleted photos from any of my posts because I do such bending rarely, only when it truly enhances an important TR, and in a way which does not violate the original intent and purpose of the guideline by producing an excessively sluggish-loading page. The numbers above prove this to be true, even in the extreme case of 25 thumbnailed images.

Chris, you are clearly in favor of increasing the photo limit. So am I, to some extent, but at the same time, I think a typical TGR-type thread with dozens of huge, repetitive, super-SLOW-loading photos is somewhat annoying (e.g. who needs 20 face shot photos???), and TAY should never go there. Most TGR posts aspire only to be ski porn, while most TAY posts aspire to be something more. Yet I also think that Charles should not discourage and drive away contributors by deleting photos from their posts, as he has done to posts by Powdherb and LeeLau (and perhaps others). But when someone grossly disregards both the letter AND the intent of the guidelines with numerous large photos, I'm not sure what other course of action is available, or how else to handle the situation.

However, I fear that in this case your post (i.e. this thread with my name in the title) may have sabotaged our common cause. I may be less likely to bend the guidelines in the future, although I still think that if I stay under 600kB of photos in a single post, then I am following the intent of the guidelines and there is no real need to edit my posts or delete any photos from them. If I exceed that threshold, then I guess it would be fair to edit my posts in the same manner as LeeLau's was.

(By the way, I started writing this post before you edited your previous post just above to add the words "my point was not that Amar's should have been truncated but that LeeLau's allowed", or maybe I just missed those words. So I'm sorry if it comes on a bit strong, but I thought you might be advocating the deletion of photos from my post as fair play, until your last post clarified that.)

Chris, you are clearly in favor of increasing the photo limit...

However, I fear that in this case your post (i.e. this thread with my name in the title) may have sabotaged our common cause.

My understanding is that the photo limit is not just to keep page-loading fast, but also to encourage posts that balance text and photo content. This helps to keep the information content high.

Amar's trip reports are in keeping with that spirit, even if they've bent the guidelines from time to time. Lee Lau's recent post was very different. Given the current guidelines, and the history behind them, Lee's post was almost begging to be chopped.

RonJ's offer of a moderator's job to Scotsman, and Scotsman's unwillingness to take it, should remind us of the thankless but essential job that Charles and RonJ do. (They are the only TAY moderators I'm aware of.) Please accept my thanks, guys. For today, at least, your job isn't completely thankless. 

Well, good points both Amar and Lowell and thought provoking.
I'm trying to understand your position, which I think is;

1) What you are saying is that if the poster feels his/her TR is of sufficient significance or journalistic worthiness then they should be allowed to post more pictures than the guidelines.
and
2) it should be then left to the moderator to judge whether this is the case and either allow the post if they judge it worthy or delete/modify it if they deem it not.

3) posts with a" balance" of pictures and text should be allowed but a photo essay of 6 carefully chosen pictures telling a story should not.
Who determines if it's balanced, the moderator or is it self policing by the poster?

4) The poster can post more pictures if in their opinion it will not detract from the load up speed and storage space of the website.


I am not calling for a strict adherence to the rules but I was hoping for some clarity and was pointing out the inequity of the situation when the moderator is called upon to make judgment calls  and therefore have to act as a defacto editor and decide who gets chopped.

Amar admits to bending the rules or interpreting the guidelines, whatever you want to call it and justiies it by the high editorial content of your posts ( which they are in my opinion, and I love reading them) but then says I've undermined this be pointing out the fact that this happens. I thought you did too Lowell but then I think you modified your post as we where all writing at the same time.

I'm sorry but that sounds to me like elitism," my posts are more worthy than others due to the significance of my descent or the high journalistic content  I have acheived and my stretching of the guidelines should be ignored  and others less worthy should adopt a more strict interpretation of the rules. Noblisse oblige!

Well so be it and I think it has been a worthy discussion as now I at least know these are just guidelines, open to interpretation by the poster with the ultimate arbiter of the post being the moderator.  Hard job for a moderator!

No one wants a stream of TGR type posts, but the current "GUIDELINES" are too restrictive given the advances in technology and the development of the visual age we are in. What about videos , how many of them are allowed ??

See the very latest Wallowa TR for the predicament this puts the moderator in.

Thanks for your comments, I hold both of you in high respect and welcome the discussion.

As to RonJ's offer of the moderator job and my "unwillingness to take it", I think he was being sarcastic as nobody in their right mind that knows me( as he does, and well) could ever imagine me as a moderator. I come from The John Bolton school of diplomacy!