Emoticons Control :)

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by whynot, Oct 31, 2011.

  1. whynot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    328
    It has come to my attention that there is a limit to how many symbols you use in a post. so my posts are limited their emoticons. why would there be that kind of control. come on...you allow pictures of fly sex, but not a persons emoticons? I could be expressing myself. how i am. who i am. come on, if tyrone from americas next top model is on here, well...I would want to know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :blowkiss:
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Yes, fly sex..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But also beetle sex:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And butterfly sex:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But never more than three images per post.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,742
    If you can't express yourself within a limit of three emoticons maybe you should look for another forum.
    Airheads.com might be worth a look for you.

    WTF has that got to do with a 3-image per post limit?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,520
    Image and Bandwidth Considerations

    The basic issue is image control for bandwidth purposes. The emoticons translate in the markup to an image designation. That's why only three are allowed—we cap posts at three images per.

    Consider, for instance, our political cartoons threads. I frequently use the allotment of three images, and I don't object to anyone else doing so. However, on the page that I've linked to, notice that one of our neighbors posted eleven times in quick succession, total of thirty-three images. I'm not about to begrudge him that, but in the long run, I can certainly imagine the overdose that would result if we could put those all into one post. To wit, there are seventy-nine new entries in my Cagle Post RSS feed. I'm pretty sure I could find at least twenty cartoons in those seventy-nine new articles, speak nothing of the over one thousand retained in the feed cache—

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    —that would in some way or another serve my political outlook. In that case, I'm probably glad I'm limited to three, as I must apply some sort of thematic or basic quality control criteria in preparing a post.

    Of course, that is something of an outstanding example, so ... yeah. But, in the long run, it does save a little bandwidth. Perhaps a bit more realistically, I could have gone on for a long time with the images concerning the recent "Niggerhead" controversy, but I think between the 19th century tobacco, the twentieth-century oyster tin, and the child's toy from 1959, I covered the point well enough. At some point, piling on the examples in image form just gets silly. And, besides, we would prefer people discuss things more with words than pictures. I mean, without the words accompanying the pictures, would you know what I was trying to say about "Niggerhead"? (Don't tell me that anybody could guess based on my posting history; while I would agree with the proposition, it doesn't actually work out that way in practice.)
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Expressing more than three emotions at once would make the poster ... at least triple schizoid - and SF cannot be held liable to support such pathology.
     
  9. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    The forum may possibly bill me then, for making free with their bandwidth in posting images, lol....

    In the absence of tone, inflection and body language, there are times when an image or emoticon may convey these parameters.

    As the forum guidelines suggest that posts be neither too short and cryptic nor of novel length, three emoticons covers my needs, save when replying to another poster who has also used emoticons.

    The emoticons in the quote are counted also, which requires the need to edit them out if one wishes to use emoticons or images of one's own.

    This sometimes results in a loss of the tone of the original content. My thoughts are that the emoticons in the quote should not be counted in such manner.

    As for bandwidth used, my gmail account offers me more bandwidth than I can imagine using, for free, and this amount increases daily.

    I rather presume that it is the 'scientific' aspect of the forum which lends itself to more neutral and objective expression in words, with images and illustrations presumed to be supportive of the content of the discussion.

    My thoughts are rather mixed as to what constitutes 'content' on this forum, as I observe many threads and posts that leave me with.......



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    I think we've got a pretty good idea already.:bugeye:
     
  11. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    If I can find a good image to use for what I hope is comedic effect...:shrug:
     

Share This Page