Tweet Image heavy posts-- feedback requested

[Mike Gebert]

There's some discussion going on behind the scenes about the recent quantity of posts which consist mainly of collected images. It's clear that some people are bugged by them because they're not what NitrateVille has typically been (back and forth discussion). On the other hand, it's clear that some people think they're kinda cool, because there are others participating by posting their own images. Personally, I lean toward the latter point of view, but I think I'm better at screening things out than a lot of people when they don't interest me, and I can see that there might be a management/organization issue here that could make them less bothersome to those who don't like them, and easier to find for those who do.

So we're talking about moving primarily image-based threads into their own subforum under film preservation (most likely); this would also include things like the colorizing images thread and, well, I'm not sure what all offhand, but I'm sure there are other things. I think the way we consolidated the colorization posts into a single thread is an example of how better organization helped with something that people were similarly polarized over— it made them easier to find if you liked such points, and easier to ignore if you didn't.

I guess the feedback we're looking for before doing something like that is... 1), how do you feel about these posts in general, 2) do you have bandwidth restrictions that make pages like this a pain to load, and 3) if you don't like them, would you nevertheless find it all working better for you if they were better categorized. Thanks in advance for any feedback.

I think they're sort of cool, since we're discussing a visual medium and they often provide a good referent. Still, I often find a long series of them distracting in the middle of a text discussion, having to scroll down them.

I also have the feeling that the ones that are just about a series of cool posters are not what we are about -- although these things evolve, so I don't wish to rule them out. Would it make sense to give them their own section? Perhaps one for "Cool Posters & Magazine Images" and other "Identification requested" section?

Bob

Mike, I agree with your points. While some do like viewing and sharing images, others don't, and it has no part in discussions about films or personalities. Making it it's own topic in the film preservation like colorized photos is a way to keep everybody happy. How about calling it Poster or Graphic Arts?

They can be nice, but I'd like a little discussion too. The Silent Comedy forums have special sections for pictures- might be a good thing here. I don't mind an image or two in a thread but this stuf lately is a bit much.

I say move 'em into their own thread. Judicious use of a few images works a lot better in discussion and making points than a stream of 5 or more images in a single post (and usually the same posters will make many such contributions in a given thread). Something else that irks me occasionally: could this new photo thread also be used for "who is this?" queries? We've had SO MANY of those in the last few years and while they can be interesting, the sheer number of them (again, usually from a handful of posters) gets tiresome.

I'm going to bring up something else, too, because I think it's lurking in the background of this discussion. One or two posters starting half a dozen discussion threads at once in Talking About Silents and Talking About Talkies is something that really should be discouraged, because it unfairly draws attention to them and buries others' posts under a mountain of chatter. This habit has the potential to derail serious(-ish) discussion of film-related matters at Nitrateville and I'm concerned about it possibly driving people away.

-HA

I enjoy seeing the various posters, but if I'm following a discussion on a topic I don't like have to scroll down to search for the next post.
In a lot of ways, I agree with Harold.
I say, give them their own section.

A separate section for the image posts would be a good idea. Also some of the obituary posts we have been getting here lately do not seem appropriate for the subject matter of this forum.

I don't really mind them, but they do cause a problem. When I click on the icon that's supposed to take me to the first unread post, it seems to get messed up by the graphics loading. Not a big problem, but it can be annoying.

I'm going to bring up something else, too, because I think it's lurking in the background of this discussion. One or two posters starting half a dozen discussion threads at once in Talking About Silents and Talking About Talkies is something that really should be discouraged, because it unfairly draws attention to them and buries others' posts under a mountain of chatter. This habit has the potential to derail serious(-ish) discussion of film-related matters at Nitrateville and I'm concerned about it possibly driving people away.

-HA

I agree with this, I miss other folks posts because there so many of one persons many threads of not much discussion or interest. Also am tired of the poster 'dumps' and no longer look at them. Give them their own section. Thanks for asking.

While i enjoy seeing the posters, i'm often looking at Nitrateville on an iPad on a bus with an iffy WiFi connection, and i'm often going through as fast as i can. It really is a bandwidth issue for me, i can't take the time for them to load and i can't scroll down to the text without it jumping round. That's largely why i've stopped looking at the colorization thread. With limited time, it just takes too long to deal with. If they were in their own thread, i could at least not click on them until i have time for them to load. It would be a help.

greta

If I had a dollar for every complaint
received concerning my image heavy posts,
could they be sent to my PayPal account?

(I thought the gathering of images, all
under various themed threads, would provide
fun- and perhaps bring new eyes to Nitrateville.
I was wrong and will stop all posting)

I'm glad JFK joined this discussion. Most of the posters are easily found by cruising around the 'net. I post a fair amount of images myself but I limit the stuff to images that I believe to be uncommon at least, or relatively rare. The solution to the colorized photos controversy worked out well by moving everything to its own thread under "Collecting and Preservation" - although I can't help noting that it's one of the most viewed threads in all of N'ville, over 23,000 hits since it was started only ten months ago. So SOMEBODY is interested in seeing that stuff.

I am in favor of moving image-based topics, as opposed to discussion-based topics supplemented by a few images, to their own thread.

Let me supply some trademark German bluntness here. In recent weeks one could have been excused for getting the impression that Nitrateville had been taken over by JFK, who is positively inundating the site with posts. And these are of a different nature from the posts I normally expect on the forum. A lot of them seem to be in the "LOOK AT ME!"-vein (use of capitals no coincidence).
I prefer posts that are communicative, i.e. that ask for a response and start a discussion. In my view that is what a forum is for. There are uncounted websites out there where people display their collection of pretty pictures or their razor-sharp wit, but they are not forums, and a forum is not that.
If you ask me, please confine picture-rich posts to one thread rather than one sub-section, so they do not mess up the "View unread posts" function, as these mass posts have been doing in recent weeks.

I'll join the chorus saying put them in their own thread. They are often fun, yes, but disruptive to threads of discussion.

And Bob, the main reason the colourizing thread has 23,000 hits is because it consists of about 23,000 pages now.


Jim

I pretty much agree with Arndt here. To me, the most important thing about Nitrateville is discussion. Torrents of images often seems to have a chilling effect on the (often unrelated) discussion at hand, and image-heavy posts do little to stimulate meaningful discussion in and of themselves.

I wouldn't oppose the creation of a new section as suggested, but sites like Flickr, Photobucket, Tumblr and Pinterest are free to use, designed mainly to share images with other interested people, and remain the best and most appropriate venues for this purpose, IMHO. If people want to see tons of pictures from my collection, great - they can visit my blog, because that's what it's for. If they want to see a range of different images relating to a particular film or personality, they might do a Google Image Search.

If a new section does go ahead, I also second Bob's suggestion of a subsection for the numerous 'Please Identify Unknown Person In This Picture' threads.

And Bob, the main reason the colourizing thread has 23,000 hits is because it consists of about 23,000 pages now.

Jim

Ho-ho. The colorizing thread does have 23 pages to date, but 1,000 posts per page? I don't think so.

Let me supply some trademark German bluntness here. In recent weeks one could have been excused for getting the impression that Nitrateville had been taken over by JFK, who is positively inundating the site with posts. And these are of a different nature from the posts I normally expect on the forum. A lot of them seem to be in the "LOOK AT ME!"-vein (use of capitals no coincidence).
I prefer posts that are communicative, i.e. that ask for a response and start a discussion. In my view that is what a forum is for. There are uncounted websites out there where people display their collection of pretty pictures or their razor-sharp wit, but they are not forums, and a forum is not that.
If you ask me, please confine picture-rich posts to one thread rather than one sub-section, so they do not mess up the "View unread posts" function, as these mass posts have been doing in recent weeks.

I use the "View unread posts" function too, and hadn't noticed that this doesn't show the section that they are in, so it wouldn't be easy to avoid clicking on them unless they had the same or similar subject line.

They are cool and i enjoy looking at them when i have the time, it's just that they are too disruptive when you are trying to quickly skim through the new postings.

greta

Add me in as a vote for moving them to a separate sub-forum.

As I tend to access Nitrateville via 'Unread Posts' it may not help me much, but yes, separate subforums for poster/advertising imagery, photographs to be admired, and a third for identification of people or films from stills/frame enlargements would be entirely logical.
JFK, in the UK we have a saying.....If the Cap Fits....

[Mike Gebert]

(I thought the gathering of images, all
under various themed threads, would provide
fun- and perhaps bring new eyes to Nitrateville.
I was wrong and will stop all posting)

A reasonable belief. They also brought with them some technical problems for certain users-- and also some changes that some didn't like, which is their right.

I'm glad to see that our attempts to find an organizational way to make them work better for everybody have been greeted with an open mind and appreciation for our efforts...

I'm with those who have mentioned the bandwidth on mobile devices, which take ages to display images if they show them at all. I like the image posts, but gathering them all together makes sense.

[Mike Gebert]

Okay, it seems like there were good reasons to have an image forum, related either to individual preference or bandwidth on mobile devices, and no real reason not to. So there's one now. We'll move things into it as we have time to do so.

As usual around here, I don't think we need a strict rule (X images, go to this forum!) so much as, if you write about a movie and illustrate it with a few stills, put it in the usual place. If the stills are numerous or central enough to be mainly what your pst or the thread's about, put it in Image Gallery. If there's an existing discussion thread on Snitz Edwards and you want to create a whole gallery of Snitz beefcake shots, I suggest creating the photo-heavy one in Image Gallery and linking to it within the other.

Speaking as one whose posts have often been profusely illustrated, I would agree with the main tenet of this talk so far: Post them on a separate forum if they're going to be only, or mainly, about images.

On the other hand, I've seen quite a few threads here that manage to feature lots of images and interesting discussion at the same time. With a little common sense from us "image freaks," there's no reason why text and images can't go hand in hand.

As an example, I've been planning to scan and post a few pages from a publication I recently acquired, the British "Picture Show Annual" of 1929, which would seem a natural for the Talking About Silents forum. If I selected about 15 pages to present, how would it be if I put three or four sample pages up as images, and just posted url links for the rest?

Also, I'll second Harold Aherne's comment above on the danger of "thread-starting overkill." Discretion is the better part of valor!

For me, the amount of images here on Nitrateville have never caused any download problems — I think because of the limited number of posts per page — but I definitely sympathize with those who experience such problems because I've experienced them elsewhere. Personal blogs can be especially troublesome, being so image-ridden and slow that sometimes I just give up and hit the return button.

[Danny Burk]

As an example, I've been planning to scan and post a few pages from a publication I recently acquired, the British "Picture Show Annual" of 1929, which would seem a natural for the Talking About Silents forum. If I selected about 15 pages to present, how would it be if I put three or four sample pages up as images, and just posted url links for the rest?

As you say, the key here should be "common sense" when choosing the right place to post. If a thread is intended mostly for discussion, post it to the traditional places; if it's mainly to display images, the image area would be the way to go. The intent isn't to set down rules about a precise number of images, and the occasional difference of opinion on "correct place" shouldn't ruffle too many feathers as long as it's not being overdone.

That said, your specific example is mainly one to illustrate pages, so I'd consider the image forum the best place for it.

[Christopher Jacobs]

I very much enjoy the posts of rare stills, posters, old fan magazine pages, book pages, memorabilia, scans of rare personal letters, etc., but I'm also one of those with a slow connection -- dialup internet speeds of typically about 48 Kbps, but often (especially over the past few days for some reason) as low as 14.4 Kbps. I'm on campus a few days a week with a 50 to 100 Mbps broadband connection, and try to catch up on all the image-heavy threads then, if I have time.

It can be very useful to include a few pictures within a discussion thread, but when there are numerous images (or even one or two that are large files), then I recommend Rollo Treadway's suggestion of "teasing" them with a few samples (preferably lower-resolution files) in the thread under the regular topic in the Talking About Silents, Talking About Talkies, Silent Film Music, or whatever, with a link to or mention of a separate thread within the Image Gallery forum to see the whole collection (and higher-quality scans).

The same thing should probably apply to many of the stand-alone embedded video threads, which could all go to the Image Gallery, as well as the multi-image threads. This would both make them easier to find (as those now scattered among various other forums can be hard to track down once they move down in the list of topics), and, as others have noted, will also help avoid clogging up the discussion threads with slow-loading pages that keep jumping up and down while you're trying to read the newest post, besides rendering the various "view unread posts" functions effectively useless for those who chose to ignore the threads with images. The problem gets worse and worse to the point where even a fast broadband connection may slow to a crawl for those threads where virtually every single post contains one or more images and/or videos that need to reload every single time you check the thread. For videos directly related to a topic discussion, it still might be more convenient for many readers to put the video itself in the Image Gallery forum and link to it within the regular discussion.

If there's an existing discussion thread on Snitz Edwards and you want to create a whole gallery of Snitz beefcake shots, I suggest creating the photo-heavy one in Image Gallery and linking to it within the other.

and then get yourself to a qualified therapist.

If there's an existing discussion thread on Snitz Edwards and you want to create a whole gallery of Snitz beefcake shots, I suggest creating the photo-heavy one in Image Gallery and linking to it within the other.

and then get yourself to a qualified therapist.

And Bob, the main reason the colourizing thread has 23,000 hits is because it consists of about 23,000 pages now.

Jim

Ho-ho. The colorizing thread does have 23 pages to date, but 1,000 posts per page? I don't think so.

Not to be persnickety, Bob, but those are 23,000 viewings, not 23,000 postings. 1,000 people viewed each of the 23 pages. Or one person viewed each of the 23 pages a thousand times. Or something like that!

Jim