topics
GreenCine General
	Feedback Have suggestions, criticism or praise for the GreenCine community? Post them here. Please maintain a sense of decorum here.	1040

File upload for icons
	Topic by: autarch Posted: December 1, 2003 - 10:06 AM PST Last Reply: December 17, 2003 - 9:55 PM PST

page  1  2      prev | next

author	topic: File upload for icons
autarch	post #1  on December 1, 2003 - 10:06 AM PST   I sarcastically refer the GC developers to RFC 1867, titled "Form-based File Upload in HTML". This RFC dates from November of 1995. The proposed standard has been implemented by ever browser and every CGI handling library on the planet. Writing file upload handling code that would check that the icon was the right size and store it for review should take about 1 hour. So why do we have to email our icons? Yes, I know most of will only do this once or twice, but it still seems ridiculous.
hamano	post #2  on December 1, 2003 - 10:52 AM PST   I second this suggestion by autarch! It sounds like a really good idea, based on personal experience. I think GreenCine should set some size and content rules, and make it easy for members to upload any icon they choose or manufacture, subject to management review. Judging from past forum activity, I think there will be quick action (complaints etc.) if someone puts up an icon that other members find offensive (a burning cross animated gif?) I don't want to have to needle that sweetie in Support everytime there's a problem with a new icon I send in! (Not that I mind having to write to her... she always sends nice replies.) In a community where even GC staffers in a creative mood can put up an animated gif of a grouch giving viewers "the finger" the currentl system for updating icons seems cumbersome and inefficient.
JBellows	post #3  on December 1, 2003 - 1:13 PM PST   Its the foreigners. No, wait. Forget that. My rant in the 8 out topic thread sucked anyway and no one got the sarcasm. In all rainy weather seriousness, I'm for a way to upload individual icons.
dpowers	post #4  on December 1, 2003 - 3:56 PM PST   they do talk funny, tho, you were right
underdog	post #5  on December 2, 2003 - 11:36 AM PST   I'll ask our techies about this, but I can almost guarantee that this isn't as much a code issue as it is a safety issue. In other words, we like to make sure the icons people are uploading are appropriate (i.e. inoffensive) so we don't have to go in and delete an icon later. For the most part everyone has been great about picking cool icons that aren't racist/pornographic/etc, but every once in awhile... But anyway, thanks for the idea! In a better more trustworthy world, this would be a fine plan. Craig GreenCine Associate Editor craig@greencine.com
Cinenaut	post #6  on December 2, 2003 - 2:10 PM PST   Nice fuligin cloak, autarch.
hamano	post #7  on December 2, 2003 - 5:29 PM PST   Wasn't dh22 saying that "The Underdog" was a Nietzschian canine symbol of white dog supremacy or something? The only ideal of perfect super-doghood?
JBellows	post #8  on December 2, 2003 - 11:19 PM PST   > On December 2, 2003 - 5:29 PM PST hamano wrote: > --------------------------------- > Wasn't dh22 saying that "The Underdog" was a Nietzschian canine symbol of white dog supremacy or something? The only ideal of perfect super-doghood? > --------------------------------- I would like an animated icon of my private parts going in and out of the private parts of someone else, kinda like those animated gifs that show up in my email inbox. How do they get the people so tiny? And aren't they at all embarrassed? But they seem to enjoy it so I might, too.
hamano	post #9  on December 3, 2003 - 7:15 AM PST   These boards are NOT strictly moderated, and I haven't come across any cases of offensive or unacceptable speech that go beyond community standards. I have a feeling that personal icons would adhere to a similar level of decency, ashram's recent little red man notwithstanding. Now that underdog has put it in black and white, "we like to make sure the icons people are uploading are appropriate" sounds rather paternalistic and smacks of censorship. 1) Why is there a presumption that members will put up offensive pictures? 2) Has it been definitively established that it is technically difficult to immediately remove an offensive icon, should one appear? 3) Why can't we just post a warning, similar to the standards for discussion content, and maybe prescribe an appropriate penalty that doesn't affect any other terms of membership? (If a member knowingly uploads an offensive icon, he/she is stuck with GreenCine's "Old Woody Allen" icon for a year!)
artifex	post #10  on December 3, 2003 - 9:06 AM PST   > On December 3, 2003 - 7:15 AM PST hamano wrote: > --------------------------------- > These boards are NOT strictly moderated, and I haven't come across any cases of offensive or unacceptable speech that go beyond community standards. I have a feeling that personal icons would adhere to a similar level of decency, ashram's recent little red man notwithstanding. > > Now that underdog has put it in black and white, "we like to make sure the icons people are uploading are appropriate" sounds rather paternalistic and smacks of censorship. > > 1) Why is there a presumption that members will put up offensive pictures? > > 2) Has it been definitively established that it is technically difficult to immediately remove an offensive icon, should one appear? > > 3) Why can't we just post a warning, similar to the standards for discussion content, and maybe prescribe an appropriate penalty that doesn't affect any other terms of membership? (If a member knowingly uploads an offensive icon, he/she is stuck with GreenCine's "Old Woody Allen" icon for a year!) > --------------------------------- Autarch's suggestion was that the files be uploaded FOR REVIEW. Which makes all this talk on both sides about the problems censoring pictures kinda moot.
Cinenaut	post #11  on December 3, 2003 - 9:29 AM PST   How is uploading them for review any easier than emailing them for review?
artifex	post #12  on December 3, 2003 - 9:45 AM PST   > On December 3, 2003 - 9:29 AM PST Cinenaut wrote: > --------------------------------- > How is uploading them for review any easier than emailing them for review? > --------------------------------- point and click, instead of opening mail program, addressing, etc.
hamano	post #13  on December 3, 2003 - 11:15 AM PST   Sorry, you're right about autarch's original post. However, my own preference would be for a way to edit one's own icon directly from the "profile" page, whether to choose a GC standard icon or upload a custom icon. The icon should be implemented immediately, like the generic icons, while remaining subject to management review. This will require just one staffer to keep an eye on incoming icons for offensive content. If the icon is acceptable, everything else should be automatic. I bring this up because on 2 occasions icons that I sent by e-mail to the designated address were converted and not implemented as intended. On both of these occasions I had to ask support to intervene on my behalf and change the icon an additional time. This seems inefficient. That said, I wouldn't mind too much if things just stay the way they are, as long as GreenCine doesn't mind me nagging them to put up my icons as intended. So far they've responded with great care and speed, for which I am grateful.
dpowers	post #14  on December 3, 2003 - 12:21 PM PST   i bet the number of hours for support staff on this issue so far is still under how long it would take to install a magic doorway
hamano	post #15  on December 3, 2003 - 12:44 PM PST   > On December 3, 2003 - 12:21 PM PST dpowers wrote: > --------------------------------- > I still risk on the bottom of how much it starts that the number of the time for the support staff about this problem so far installs the door of magic at a certain thing.
dpowers	post #16  on December 3, 2003 - 12:50 PM PST   what socket did you plug for that?
autarch	post #17  on December 3, 2003 - 4:26 PM PST   > On December 3, 2003 - 12:21 PM PST dpowers wrote: > --------------------------------- > i bet the number of hours for support staff on this issue so far is still under how long it would take to install a magic doorway > --------------------------------- I have written code to do this sort of thing in under an hour. Handling file uploads is trivial. Writing additional code to let the admin staff browse a list of pending icons with approve/reject buttons should take an additional 30-60 minutes, tops. In general, database-backed web sites like this are not rocket science, unless you're doing something really interesting (mapquest, maybe).
autarch	post #18  on December 3, 2003 - 4:26 PM PST   > On December 2, 2003 - 2:10 PM PST Cinenaut wrote: > --------------------------------- > Nice fuligin cloak, autarch. > --------------------------------- It's the in color several thousand years in the future, ya know.
dpowers	post #19  on December 3, 2003 - 5:05 PM PST   there's probably some sample code out there somewhere, too
pelikan	post #20  on December 4, 2003 - 9:32 AM PST   It's not a code issue, it's a policy issue. There was in fact a way to upload icons via HTML that we took out a long time ago (and never publicized) for the reasons Underdog mentioned. If the policy changes, so will the code.... pelikan, general gc tech monkey

page  1  2      prev | next