Your Favorite Forum Quotes

[formulanone]

I know my tab count is excessive (I usually try to keep it somewhere around 150 or so), but I'm not going to take the time to unfuck it to just view someone's GSV link. (Especially since windows 2 and 3 are work-related, so I can't exactly drop everything there on a whim.) GSV links are sometimes even a major share of that tab load when I'm on the forum for a longish session–I don't have to open a new tab to view a photo, after all!

Your computer must have one metric shitload of RAM.

Never mind the computer, I'm not that good at multitasking. After 7-8 tabs, I'm accidentally re-launching a new tab for something that's probably five tabs to the left of it.

[kphoger]

I couldn't get a link to copy on Flickr.

1.  Open up the photo's page.
2.  Click on the Share icon (a curved arrow).
3.  Choose BBCode.
4.  Highlight the code, then copy (right-click to choose or Ctrl+C).
5.  Paste the code into the thread of your choice.
6.  If you want to, get rid of everything except the bare URL and the [img tags surrounding it.

Code Select Expand

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/3429/3406915396_39eb3b91fd_k.jpg[/img]

[J N Winkler]

Regarding the last few posts:

*  I'm curious as to what would drive tab usage to 400 spread over three windows.  I think I max out at about 30 in one window, typically when engaged in a Wikipedia crawl.  (Those are fun!)  The navigation overhead becomes excessive after a certain point.

*  As noted, Flickr is free up to about 1000 photos, and Imgur can be used without an account (which is how I use it).  But if we are to be serious about addressing the "dark period in the historical record" problem, then I would suggest we need verbal contextualization even for embedded images.  (I say this knowing I'm one of the worst offenders at letting images speak for themselves.)  Yes, Google can deem GSV unprofitable (and the odds of it doing so go up with interest rates), but image hosting sites going offline or requiring payment (à la Photobucket) are another source of URL rot.

[Scott5114]

I know my tab count is excessive (I usually try to keep it somewhere around 150 or so), but I'm not going to take the time to unfuck it to just view someone's GSV link.

Then don't open the link.

It's because if we wanted to look at GSV images, we all know how to load GSV up and look at it, so a GSV-based post is not really much of a value-add. There's also the fact that GSV hogs way more computer resources than loading a simple JPEG image does. I use my browser to do a lot of stuff (current tab count: exactly 400, across 3 windows), so I'd much rather see a photo than have to load the GSV interface.

You deep frying your computer is not my problem.

Ah, but see, now you're posting links and I'm not viewing them. That's kind of more of a problem for the author than the intended recipient, isn't it? Everyone has to meet their audience where they are, or they're not going to be heard.

I know my tab count is excessive (I usually try to keep it somewhere around 150 or so), but I'm not going to take the time to unfuck it to just view someone's GSV link. (Especially since windows 2 and 3 are work-related, so I can't exactly drop everything there on a whim.) GSV links are sometimes even a major share of that tab load when I'm on the forum for a longish session–I don't have to open a new tab to view a photo, after all!

Your computer must have one metric shitload of RAM.

Not really. 16.3 GB. I have a Firefox extension that unloads tabs from memory after they haven't been interacted with for, I think, five minutes. When I click on them it reloads the page. I also periodically run a script that forcibly kills Firefox subprocesses (but keeps the interface and all of its tabs loaded) to deallocate RAM whenever it starts getting full. The result is that right now I have 335 tabs open across 3 windows, and total memory usage on the system (Firefox and the other processes) is only 9.3 GB physical and 5.0 GB swap.

Six open tabs is top of the line for me. 

I couldn't even have breakfast with only 6 tabs open.

Part of this is that rather than using bookmarks, I just leave frequently-visited sites open and revisit them from time to time as needed. So any daily use tabs like Facebook Messenger, my four email accounts, this forum, Wordle, the product directory on the website I manage, my business accounting system, etc. just permanently stay open at the top of the tab heap. I think I have 30 such never-close tabs. Most of these are Web applications that would have been their own separate programs 20 years ago, but these days the best way to handle them is through the browser. (For example, 20 years ago we would have been using POP3/SMTP to push and pull all four accounts' email to/from a mail reader like Outlook, mutt, or kmail. This is still an option, but given that three of the four mail accounts are Gmail accounts, doing so results in a lack of transparency as to what is going on on the server end, e.g. if Google errantly flags an email as spam, I'm not sure if there's a way to get at it through POP/SMTP.)

The accounting system is a particularly stupid example–it's a system coded in PHP that runs on an Apache httpd instance running on my computer. So whenever I interact with it my web browser is fetching a website that is entirely contained within my own computer. There's no reason that this shouldn't just be a regular application program with its own window...except that this software package is the only one I can find that both does what I want and will run in some form on Linux. So I get to carry another tab with me for all eternity.

The rest I can usually do without, and tend to be things like old Reddit threads where I was reading through the comments, had my fill, but then got distracted and forgot to close the tab. I usually just wait until about 30 or so tabs from one site like that amass and then mass-close them (thus how I was able to get rid of 45 tabs between last night and now).

[thspfc]

I know my tab count is excessive (I usually try to keep it somewhere around 150 or so), but I'm not going to take the time to unfuck it to just view someone's GSV link.

Then don't open the link.

It's because if we wanted to look at GSV images, we all know how to load GSV up and look at it, so a GSV-based post is not really much of a value-add. There's also the fact that GSV hogs way more computer resources than loading a simple JPEG image does. I use my browser to do a lot of stuff (current tab count: exactly 400, across 3 windows), so I'd much rather see a photo than have to load the GSV interface.

You deep frying your computer is not my problem.

Ah, but see, now you're posting links and I'm not viewing them. That's kind of more of a problem for the author than the intended recipient, isn't it? Everyone has to meet their audience where they are, or they're not going to be heard.

There are hundreds of active forum users. I'm not going to concern myself with the unique preferences of 1 of several hundred. Especially if that one person is so indifferent to what I have to say that they won't even bother to open one more tab on top of the 400 they already have.

This is honestly one of the most bizarre hills I've ever seen anyone die on.

[hbelkins]

^^^

This whole thing is a good argument for allowing the use of embedded GSV images in posts. Is that function called "iframes" or something? At any rate, GSV gives the option to produce an embedable (is that even word?) link that will work for many web pages and forums, but not this one. I think perhaps once upon a time, one of the tech-savvy admins said allowing them might pose a security risk.

I have a few tabs open (and only one screen, since I browse the forum on a laptop) but honestly am not a fan of clicking a GSV link to see a sign goof or an unusual sign. I tend to click them, they open a new tab, and then go on to another forum topic and by the time I get around to viewing the GSV image in its own tab, I've forgotten why I opened it in the first place.

If you can embed YouTube videos or Flickr images, why not GSV pages?

[hotdogPi]

This whole thing is a good argument for allowing the use of embedded GSV images in posts. Is that function called "iframes" or something? At any rate, GSV gives the option to produce an embedable (is that even word?) link that will work for many web pages and forums, but not this one. I think perhaps once upon a time, one of the tech-savvy admins said allowing them might pose a security risk.

This would cost money for AARoads. I did it a decent amount for a while and even told other people how to use it, but when Google said their API would no longer be free, the images broke. I don't remember anything about a security risk.

It's not 100% intuitive (you need to get the camera angle and zoom right using trial and error), and you can lose the intent of the image if newer imagery appears and the sign or signal has been replaced, but I was able to do it.

The documentation is here, but there was no required API key back when I used it.

[webny99]

Then don't open the link.

Ah, but see, now you're posting links and I'm not viewing them. That's kind of more of a problem for the author than the intended recipient, isn't it? Everyone has to meet their audience where they are, or they're not going to be heard.

I see the likelihood of someone opening a link as strictly a function of their interest level in the post. That's why I normally make the text clickable, or at least state what the link is of.

[J N Winkler]

I see the likelihood of someone opening a link as strictly a function of their interest level in the post. That's why I normally make the text clickable, or at least state what the link is of.

I appreciate the descriptions.  Convenience in the moment is a factor too, since it is (using my own case as an example) a lot more trouble to launch the Google Maps app to view a GSV link on my underpowered tablet than on my entry-level gaming laptop.

[kphoger]

I see the likelihood of someone opening a link as strictly a function of their interest level in the post.

Agreed.  If you aren't interested enough in my post to even click on a link, then apparently I don't really need to worry about it.

[JoePCool14]

I think the points about GMSV links are fair. I know I enjoy seeing a photo more than clicking a link. But I'll also accept that it's not always feasible to grab a photo. If I see the interesting thing and it's too late to get my phone out to grab a photo, I'm not likely to circle back just to get a photo. I'm not quite that committed when GMSV exists. I can certainly try to make a better effort to take photos, but it simply isn't always possible. I do make an effort when I want to get a photo to use in a forum game. That's a great way to encourage more photo-taking in the community.

There's also the fact that I sometimes plop down randomly in GMSV in another state, like Colorado or Florida, and I find something interesting, and I have to post GMSV since I'm not driving 24 hours just to take one photo.

Things that would help are always providing good descriptions in the case the links go dead, and also just for context within the thread, and another idea would be to take a screenshot of GMSV and re-upload it. I know I've done that a handful of times, but I know that's not really the right idea either.

Keeping 400 browser tabs open on the other hand, I can't understand that. Sorry, Scott.

[kphoger]

Things that would help are always providing good descriptions in the case the links go dead, and also just for context within the thread

Yes, absolutely.  Unless the context is blaringly obvious, then please provide some description.  I have a general rule of not clicking on links unless someone gives some hint as to why I'd want to.

[JoePCool14]

Things that would help are always providing good descriptions in the case the links go dead, and also just for context within the thread

Yes, absolutely.  Unless the context is blaringly obvious, then please provide some description.  I have a general rule of not clicking on links unless someone gives some hint as to why I'd want to.

Really? So you won't click this one?

[kphoger]

Really? So you won't click this one?

I'll mouse over it and see what URL it links to.

YouTube link?  Nope.  No clue if it's worth my time or not.

[JoePCool14]

Really? So you won't click this one?

I'll mouse over it and see what URL it links to.

YouTube link?  Nope.  No clue if it's worth my time or not.

Good choice. It wasn't worth it anyway.

[hotdogPi]

I had to give up 15 seconds of my time to see what it was. Now I'm let down.

[J N Winkler]

I tend to be choosy about YouTube links since I won't pay for ad-free YouTube and hate dealing with the ads.

[Max Rockatansky]

I tend to be choosy about YouTube links since I won't pay for ad-free YouTube and hate dealing with the ads.

The ads don't usually bother me since they mostly tend to be 8-15 seconds.  What gets me is when there is suddenly a 3 to 30 minute ad that pops up on YouTube which requires I press skip.  Who the hell randomly decided to watch a 3-30 ad on YouTube in the middle of a video?

[kphoger]

The thing is...  I'm not about to sit through a couple of ads, then watch the video for a while in order to find out if it's even anything that interests me.

[J N Winkler]

The ads don't usually bother me since they mostly tend to be 8-15 seconds.  What gets me is when there is suddenly a 3 to 30 minute ad that pops up on YouTube which requires I press skip.  Who the hell randomly decided to watch a 3-30 ad on YouTube in the middle of a video?

I think it's a ploy to push you to pay by taking away the expectation that the video will play to the end without ads.

[Max Rockatansky]

The ads don't usually bother me since they mostly tend to be 8-15 seconds.  What gets me is when there is suddenly a 3 to 30 minute ad that pops up on YouTube which requires I press skip.  Who the hell randomly decided to watch a 3-30 ad on YouTube in the middle of a video?

I think it's a ploy to push you to pay by taking away the expectation that the video will play to the end without ads.

Perhaps, but it's obviously not working.  There is no way I'm paying for a service I've been able to get free for much of the past two decades.

[Scott5114]

Things that would help are always providing good descriptions in the case the links go dead, and also just for context within the thread, and another idea would be to take a screenshot of GMSV and re-upload it. I know I've done that a handful of times, but I know that's not really the right idea either.

Posting a screenshot of interesting bit of the GSV is much appreciated, and solves many of the problems inherent to GSV (and a few others I didn't mention, like new imagery causing links to often not show what the poster intended to show, and the glitch that was finally fixed that caused GSV links generated on mobile devices to always point the camera directly at the ground).

I still prefer roadgeek-created images just because I appreciate the artistry and heart behind a well-executed photograph, which is absent in GSV imagery. Even so, I too resort to posting GSV sometimes when it's something I don't feel motivated enough to go take a photo of myself, or if it's somewhere I've been to and have no desire to return, but I didn't get a photo of my own when I was there.

Keeping 400 browser tabs open on the other hand, I can't understand that. Sorry, Scott.

I suspect it's a symptom of undiagnosed ADHD, to be quite honest.

I tend to be choosy about YouTube links since I won't pay for ad-free YouTube and hate dealing with the ads.

I'm in the same boat, but I handle it with the Adblock Plus extension for Firefox. (I don't have any equivalent on mobile, so I must put up with ads when browsing YouTube on my phone, but in that context I am usually watching specific videos, not clicking links.)

I still normally do not click links to videos because the ratio of information presented vs. the amount of time it takes to consume it is far worse for me than than for text. (I could probably read the transcript to a 20-minute video in about 5 minutes.) So if I am looking for, e.g. a how-to guide on something, I will normally scroll past all of the video-based search results to try to find a textual description of the same thing. Text is also easier to refer back to later, since I can do an in-page search with the browser's search function, rather than having to scrub back and forth looking for the relevant section of video.

[Takumi]

Really? So you won't click this one?

I'll mouse over it and see what URL it links to.

YouTube link?  Nope.  No clue if it's worth my time or not.

Good choice. It wasn't worth it anyway.

I'd have rather it been a Rickroll. At least then I'd have a good song to listen to.

[kirbykart]

Part of this is that rather than using bookmarks, I just leave frequently-visited sites open and revisit them from time to time as needed. So any daily use tabs like Facebook Messenger, my four email accounts, this forum, Wordle, the product directory on the website I manage, my business accounting system, etc. just permanently stay open at the top of the tab heap. I think I have 30 such never-close tabs. Most of these are Web applications that would have been their own separate programs 20 years ago, but these days the best way to handle them is through the browser.

  That's really something. I understand keeping work-related tabs open and easy to access, but not Facebook or Wordle. And the other hundreds of tabs probably do not need to be open.

[Max Rockatansky]

Really? So you won't click this one?

I'll mouse over it and see what URL it links to.

YouTube link?  Nope.  No clue if it's worth my time or not.

Good choice. It wasn't worth it anyway.

I'd have rather it been a Rickroll. At least then I'd have a good song to listen to.

I have Never Gonna Give You Up on my playlist only because it became way more memorable due to Rickrolling.