Annoying web page postings

I've got no trouble with people posting that they've
got an astro image they want people to see and posting
the actual image location, but I dislike it when they insist
on posting the home page location and forcing people
to wade through whatever else they have on it to get
to the image or worse yet, to get people to see
advertising on their websites.
Show the images, save the shill.
-Rich

wrote in message
...
I've got no trouble with people posting that they've
got an astro image they want people to see and posting
the actual image location, but I dislike it when they insist
on posting the home page location and forcing people
to wade through whatever else they have on it to get
to the image or worse yet, to get people to see
advertising on their websites.
Show the images, save the shill.
-Rich

Nothing can be more annoying than to have a large number of posters post
image files. First of all, I wouldn't open an attachment unless I'm sure it
comes directly from God...and even then I would ask him to give me a
telephone call. Most people that I know share my sentiments about opening
attachments, so including attachments would be a gross waste of band width,
time and effort. Did you dream up this idea all by yourself?

Al

"Al" wrote in message et...
[...[
Nothing can be more annoying than to have a large number of posters post
image files. First of all, I wouldn't open an attachment unless I'm sure it
comes directly from God...and even then I would ask him to give me a
telephone call. Most people that I know share my sentiments about opening
attachments, so including attachments would be a gross waste of band width,
time and effort. Did you dream up this idea all by yourself?

You have totally missed the point of Rich's article.

Consider: someone posts notice they have a picture of the canals on Mars
and cites either:

a) http://www.xyz.com/foobar/bletch/mars_canals.jpg

which you can just click upon and see the picture NOW, or

b) http://www.xyz.com/

which is some crap home page requiring wading through eleventy-seven
bazillion ads just to begin to ascertain how to proceed to where the
specific picture is located after wasting 30 minutes' time

(a) is good, (b) is bad. Rich was NOT suggesting a binary attachment to
a Usenet article.

I agree with Rich. And if someone is/was courteous to use form (a) I might
just visit their home page out of curiousity; if someone uses form (b) I will
NEVER follow the link and I'll NEVER visit their home page.

I have a photo here
http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/phot...reenbrier2.htm what do you
think?

You're right, Thad, I missed the point! Thanks for the heads up.

Al


"Thad Floryan" wrote in message
m...
"Al" wrote in message
et...
[...[
Nothing can be more annoying than to have a large number of posters post
image files. First of all, I wouldn't open an attachment unless I'm
sure it
comes directly from God...and even then I would ask him to give me a
telephone call. Most people that I know share my sentiments about
opening
attachments, so including attachments would be a gross waste of band
width,
time and effort. Did you dream up this idea all by yourself?

You have totally missed the point of Rich's article.

Consider: someone posts notice they have a picture of the canals on Mars
and cites either:

a) http://www.xyz.com/foobar/bletch/mars_canals.jpg

which you can just click upon and see the picture NOW, or

b) http://www.xyz.com/

which is some crap home page requiring wading through eleventy-seven
bazillion ads just to begin to ascertain how to proceed to where the
specific picture is located after wasting 30 minutes' time

(a) is good, (b) is bad. Rich was NOT suggesting a binary attachment to
a Usenet article.

I agree with Rich. And if someone is/was courteous to use form (a) I
might
just visit their home page out of curiousity; if someone uses form (b) I
will
NEVER follow the link and I'll NEVER visit their home page.

Here is a good photo
http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/phot...zzardroast.htm you avoid
seeing all the icky astronomy crap to see it as well.

"Shawn Grant" wrote in message ...
Here is a good photo
http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/phot...zzardroast.htm you avoid
seeing all the icky astronomy crap to see it as well.

Very nice picture(s), and I'll amend my previous comment to include "or a
direct URL to the picture's page" since there's merit having annotation
describing the picture (contrasted to just a "raw" picture).

I was originally thinking more of what Eric Ng does with his incredible
planetary photos: annotation added in non-obtrusive areas of the JPEG.

Personally, I prefer Eric's approach since I can download a single JPEG
of interest to me to my laptop and later display it on a large screen to
share with others even when not connected to the 'Net, but what you did,
Shawn, is more appropriate for those kinds of pictures.

Another approach that works (for archiving and later display) is to save
both the JPEG-only and the Usenet article together as 2 files; for example,
mars_20030716.jpg and mars_20030716.txt

I have a photo here
http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/phot...reenbrier2.htm what do you
think?



Those are some beautiful photos. Say are there any trout in that river? It
looks mighty inviting.
rat
~( );

email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address

First off, this is a text only newsgroup. Images are not allowed.
Second off, some webpage providers don't allow the accessing of an image
from another source outside of their server. This makes things more
difficult. In addition, some providers also do redirection so any subpages
are not shown as to their proper location on the web. That means that you
can't point towards an image or a subpage of the that site.

--
Bob May
Losing weight is easy! If you ever want to lose weight, eat and drink less.
Works evevery time it is tried!

Shawn Grant wrote:
I have a photo here
http://www.shawngrantsworld.com/phot...reenbrier2.htm what do you
think?

Pretty good stuff, all around your site ...

If I didn't know better, I'd say some of those nature photographs were
taken with _refractor lenses_