Novabreaker said:

First of all, this post was copied over from the Prince: Music & More forum to this one as Novabreaker brought up some brilliant points, and I wanted to address them publicly here in depth, and in a more appropriate forum for such a discussion. None of the following should be misconstrued as an 'attack' (or whatever you would wish to term it as) against him in anyway, Im actually really touched someone's taken the time out to take an interest and wishes to engage with me about it - so I'm simply going to answer the points raised as best I can from MY p.o.v then we'll open it up and I'll try my best to answer anything else thrown my way as and when I can.

Forgive me also if any of the following comes across as curt or any other way than 'just the facts' - that's not my intention, but after losing 1 post and 2 long org notes that took me about 20minutes each to write up ealier today at an accidental click of a button, im sure you'll understand i'm more than a little p*ssed right now! So let's address the questions/issues/points one by one and see where we end up...

I have been meaning to start a sticky thread in the org discussion forum on this for the past month or so, but what with losing my job and being in london around the bombings on 7/7, it hardly seemed remotely important at the time - it could wait. That will be rectified asap however with a proper 'GALLERY FAQ' thread in this forum sometime very soon, as lord knows it's going to be easier on my personal time in the long run - as well as everybody else here Im sure, to simply re-direct them to my post there.

I'm not asking for blood, sweat or tears, I'm asking for a little respect for the hard graft I've put into (and continue to) put into the Org gallery. Yes, it is something that i'm passionate about - i've sacrificed a lot of personal time, not to mention money (little known fact!) to make it what it is today. I've even appealed in the past for Orgers to start scanning whatever they may have and upload it - things like old gig reviews for example (I know i'd certainly be interested in reading an old gig review from a Purple Rain show from Houston etc, etc) but to no avail.

Time for those who don't want to listen to place their earplugs in now, as I'm going to blow my own trumpet here as it's the plain simple truth - at least 70% of that gallery (if not more) was uploaded by myself. I know how arrogant and petulant that may sound or come across, but screw it - I've asked for help and involvement from Orgers time and time again since the gallery's inception, and little if anything has ever come of it. The usual thing is that I'll get a pic of Diana Ross, boobies or a photo of space uploaded great, thanks for those whomever you were! But whether you think me arrogant for saying that or not - my point is a simple and plain one: if I can do that - one person... imagine what we could do combined if Orgers made an effort to contribute what they have wherever possible. Food for thought - chew that over for awhile.

Like it says in the upload section of the gallery:

Images should be on-topic, that is, somehow Prince-related! Off-topic images will be removed.

It can be very frustrating at times because I know there is some great stuff out there just sat in someone's scrapbook, folder, dusty old box in an attic etc. Don't get me wrong, I am pleased with the gallery and how unique it is in it's own way, but it still has the promise of being so much more - but to become that it needs more interaction from all of y'all.

[/rant button off]

Yes, there are copyright issues, there are copyright issues with pretty much everything nowadays. Hell I think if P really wanted to make an issue of it, he could claim 'intellectual copyright' and that would be that - but I think as long as things are appraoched with some sense of decorum and respect, all should be cool. I think there is also a fair use policy, and I try my best to cover the Org's ass by trying to uncover who the copyright holder is. Old skool orgers will also know that for a long time there was no love lost between Housequake and us due to Orgers using their work etc - and maybe even NPGMC to some small degree. Those days are long dead and buried as far as im concerned, because I really have to take my hat off to those guys - especially Aaron, Camron, and Marika, because before I took on the gallery job, I had no idea of the work involved, and can now truly appreciate what they've had to put up with all this time. Now, if I see it, I will pounce upon anyone who posts a photo from HQ or other fansite without taking the time to credit them at the very least. It's a simple matter of respect, and I'm not standing for it being overlooked anymore, we're supposed to be a community.

There's just no need for it anymore - plain and simple.

I have to admit, if I'm pushed on the subject, I'm not so bothered by hotlinking to a site like CNN/MTV or some other big corporate entity, as they can afford the juice, but directly linking to other fansites gallery photos so you can use them here is wrong - it's their bandwidth that's being used, and I'm sure they'd much rather you view that photo at their site knowing that they gave you a few minutes of enjoyment. And if you do post photos from other sites (even if they are uploaded to your own space) a simple credit as to where they came from will take you 5 seconds to type at the end of your post.

If orgers want/need to post photos from other sites, they can utilise great sites like Photobucket or ImageShack both are free upload tools that you can link directly to here - from there. Both are really simple and intuitive to use, (although both differ in many ways) and are free (although photobucket carries certain restrictions, which are lifted for a small annual fee). I've used photobucket for the past two years, and it's been a Godsend in many ways. I'd advise any Org newbies to go and check it out, you won't regret it if you're a regular here or on any other message boards on the web.

I know that 'we mods' won't be able to address every issue that crops up 24/7, but we do try - but sometimes it's hard when although it may not be in the Org rules or FAQ (yet) we are trying to adhere to some semblance of order. If we didn't their would be chaos. This is what I'm starting to now find, is that if people don't know - they're gonna just keep on keepin' on. Believe it or not, I've addressed this issue more times than I'd care to remember over the past year or so, (so Nova, I just hadn't caught you at it yet!) and always give people the chance to edit their post correctly of their own volition first. I'd rather not have to do any snippage. Although I will if there's a willful show of flagrant disregard after being asked nicely to do so. I'm sure Jacqui who owns the wonderful PurpleHouse is more than a little fed up of people eating up her bandwidth allocation too.

Also, although no longer a mod, Handclapsfingasnapz has (like myself), long frowned upon hotlinking to other fansites - becuase the tools are now out there (and free too). So this should no longer be an issue - period.

Also, the main reason gallery hotlinking gets me very annoyed (and even more annoyed when people still choose to ignore it) is because I spend a lot of time researching information on the photos that get uploaded. Not everyone, but a very large percentage of them have some information attached to them. I'll show you exactly what I mean with the following example:

CLICK ME & READ:


Now here's the same photo 'hotlinked':


If this was linked directly to the larger photo behind the thumbnail image, it completely bypasses any and all information that I've spent time researching/looking up and typing up (thank God for you Mr Nilsen!) often (to my shame) until 3am or later in the morning. Hell, I even used to do this on worknights too - I must be mad. So yeah, you can imagine I'm going to be a little p*ssed at that happening, as it's basically sending me the signal that all that personal time and effort I set aside has been for absolutely nothing, and simply...wasted. Not only that, but by not addressing this, it sends out the message to any Org newbies that that's the way to post Org gallery pix - and it isn't. I hope that people can see my point here now I've explained it in more depth. Exactly the same size photo lies behind the thumbnail - just click it, the reason it's there is to cut down on thread loading times.

The only time I'll overlook it is when using the Org Forum Spam section, as it was designed specifically for use within forum posts in that way, and there's no pertinant information on those photos. It certainly hasn't happened over-night, it's just become more prevalent, and it's obvious that the softly-softly approach ain't working, so what to do, what to do... I really can't s-p-e-l-l it out any clearer i'm afraid.

Final thing (we're getting there!) Regarding site changes/updates. These happen infrequently, and there are good and valid reasons for this.

1) We all know what happens when the site goes offline for a few hours for these changes to be made - panic. Ben has to weigh up what is important enough to warrant doing that, and the confusion (albeit temporary) that will entail. I have a feeling he waits until there are a small handful of issues to correct before doing so - which makes sense.

2) Like many of us, Ben works full-time, and also has become a proud father, so has a family he'd like to spend some quality time with - not tinkering around reprograming this site. I think we can all identify with that.

3) The point however of ammendments to the Org rules, and at the top of forums etc has been brought up with Ben previously, so it is in hand - it'll happen when he can justify the time to action them I guess.

Personally, what I hope/aim to do is to have an entrance page to the gallery with the rules/FAQ of such posted up in bulleted points that are plain, clear and simple to read so no-one has any excuse then for not saying they had no idea about this rule or that rule.

I've been meaning to post something a little akin to this for sometime, and hope this helps shed some light on matters as least. If there are any further questions/queries/ideas etc - post them here and I'll address them as best as I can. I'll then quantify this feedback when making the upcoming gallery FAQ.

I know the gallery isn't perfect, and there are little bits and pieces over the site that need to be dealt with (and in time, they will -can somebody say 'search engine') But bear with us, we are trying - but sometimes we need you guys to help us to help you, y'know?

My thanks to Novabreaker for the proverbial boot up the ass!

with Metta,
BananaCologne
- Org Gallery Moderator.

BananaCologne said:

That is what I always preached. When it comes to the photos and scans we only have copyright to a few pics, for all others it is the photographer who has the rights and when you know the name of the photographer mention it!(When you take a scan from another fansite, copy the name of the photographer too) But between fansites there should also be some respect. People simply say you should share the pics. Yes, but sharing is giving and taking. And so far almost all scans come from BC and some members of Housequake. When I see some prince.org scans on HQ I always will make the remark that the source should be named.

But I still hope more people will start scanning. We are certainly not the only losers who have kept their scrapbooks

Thanks for some nice remarks BC! Do you think it is time for another scan challenge?

Excellent points have been raised, but I think I may know why people continue to hotlink to pic in the gallery instead of using the thumbnail provided.

It's simple, hot linked pics are bigger. If there was some way to prevent the hotlinking all together (for example, some sites have it so hot linked images cannot be seen or are replaced with a diffent pic alltogether) that might be the way to go. Would that be possible?

Nikster said:

Well, what I've found is more often than not that there is a lot of confusion about what the thumbnails actually DO - with nOObs especially so.

The purpose of the thumbnail software was specifially created/used to cut down on thread loading times. I know that old skool Orgers will remember those dreaded threads that started out well, but even with a fast connection could take a considerable time to load. The thumnails cut all of that out.

Where the actual confusion arises I think is that many people who don't use the gallery that often think that the thumbnails are just that - tiny pictures. I know this sounds really silly, but trust me on this, you'd be surprised how often it's come to light!

Personally speaking, I can't see the problem with copying and pasting the [img#] tags beneath whatever photo/s you choose to use, it's a system that when used properly works increadibly well - giving people freedom of movement around a thread without being restricted by photos having to load. If you're anything like me, trying to reply to a thread sometimes with nearly a hundred or more photos on in the GD forum can be a pain in the a** sometimes!

I think people just need to realise that the thumbnail image that they copy and post contains the bigger/hi-res image behind it, and that they're not missing out on anything - not to mention the benefits to others. When it's missused (intentionally or not - the result is the same) it can be time-consuming to sort out. An example being today - someone hotlinked to a gallery pic, then someone else quoted them in their next post. 1st Orger complied and edited their post, yet the quoted image still remained...

As for hotlink prevention, I'll talk to Ben about it when he contacts me about this - as I'm sure he'll come across it in his own good time, but I think he's done (to my knowledge anyway) all he can do in that respect, I know that the images can't be viewed outside the site if hotlinked - so I would imagine that's not possible, but it's worth discussion and seeing what he says. Definately no harm in asking.

I make no bones about the fact that my main concern (in this context at least) is the personal time given up to type all that information in being wasted. For at the end of the day, there may as well be no information at all in the gallery at all if we were to go down that route and just plain ol' photos. If that was the case, there would be no filing by year, or tour, or anything else - it would all be rather pointless, and we'd just be a.n.other gallery, and that's not gonna happen if I can help it.

I have a nagging suspicion the way i'm coming across is as some 'martyr for the cause', and that's not what I want to put across at all - I don't wanna come across all 'Joan of Arc' about it and fall on my sword but unfortunately, it's how I feel right now. To be honest, I feel a little embarassed for even trying to put across how I feel about it, as I know that all the mods here spend hours of their personal time, and I know that comes with the territory - and I'm fine with that, I'm not special. But it can be increadibly disheartening sometimes when your hard work is squandered away with not a second thought for what you have done, and why you have taken the time to do it - and especially galling if a polite Mod request via Org note is ignored, and it continues unabated.

Anyway, my

im soo kd lang right now for nana's.....


"constant craving"...


for those who dont know...constant craving was written for wendy cause kd knew she could never have her due to the fact that wendy and lisa were married....

sosgemini said:

keep your hand off my craving you.

BananaCologne said:

i know i know....

"always will.....always will"..

props and pounds to 'Nana!



the gallery is a major piece of almost scientific work, put together by lots of Prince fans, but he is the one that's organizing it, as well as adding a lot of unique pictures with info himself.

so i feel for his words.

and...

the other moderators have put a lot of energy and time in this site too!

thank you.

absolutely right on.

the things with the gallery that bother me the most is that not a lotta people are doing much contributing. that, and there's always those who are like "is there such-and-such picture in existence?" and the person doesn't even bother to look in the fuckin gallery first, and someone else (the majority of the time it's 'nana) has to post up the picture and tell the person, "hey--we've got a gallery."

the picture contribution bit shouldn't be that hard to fathom, and neither should the usage of the gallery. a gallery FAQ would be of much help, i think. and those of you with scanners and scrapbooks at home--get to scanning! contribute, contribute, contribute and let's see whatcha got!

First off, hats off to Banana for what he's done and is doing with the gallery.

Realistically, it may be a rather thankless task. Most people who use the org are not aware of how it is run or who does what, they just wanna chat and get info. What you are doing Banana is a charitable labour of love, and this may sound harsh but if you expect everyone to pat you on the back when they use it, you will be disappointed time after time. The gallery is a resource that is just... there, to most orgers. Do it if you want to do it, or don't, it's upto you really. If you 'resigned' and it all fell apart, it would be perfectly understandable.

Every photo is owned by someone. But as images are dispersed across the net, the info on their original sources and owners are inevitably lost. I've downloaded lots of photographs, but after a while you forget where it originally came from. And simply because a site is hosting a photo doesn't mean it belongs to them either. I'm sure the gallery is breaking hundreds of copyright laws technically - but unless someone who owns a particular photo complains, I don't see the problem - it's just the nature of the internet.

In an ideal world, everyone would check to see if the photo they wanna post is in the gallery - but actually, it is getting so big, it is getting harder to do. You have to wade through page after page of thumbnails, and that's even if you're looking in the right section. So I think it is quite understandable that orgers just hotlink directly to a photo they want to share or comment on without checking the gallery, and people are generally lazy enough not to state where they are linking to. That's just human nature. Never underestimate the power of laziness!

As far as uploading new images to the gallery - I'm not sure how it works at the moment, but I'd rather have a method where all submissions go through Banana - so that he can veto irrelevent photos and avoid duplications. It would inevitably be a lot of work for him but it stops the gallery descending into chaos. I've not uploaded images because I assumed there would be copyright issues or the scans exist somewhere else on the web - but if we're not going to worry about that, I could definately scan a few magazine reviews and articles I've kept - it is definately interesting to see how concerts and albums were originally received.

I occasionally visit Housequake and occasionally they have some fantastic photos over there - but I don't really see that it is 'stealing' from them if one of 'their' photos ends up over here, since they don't actually own the copyright either and once it is on the net it is 'out there' and free for everyone - neither would I be concerned if something I scanned for the org gallery ended up over there or on any other site. Because I scan something doesn't mean I own it, and the point of posting it is to make it available to anyone who wants it. If that's a problem, you shouldn't post it.

I would hate to see watermarks over our gallery images - I think it would be kind of petty and very annoying.

At the moment, when you click a thumbnail from the gallery, it loads a bigger image in a box but also the page behind changes to the image, which I don't like and seems unnecessary.

Also, I would like clear instructions on how to use the gallery on the initial page (using the search function with tagged images, how to upload your photos, for instance) and how to actually post thumbnails in threads (I can never remember if you're supposed to put the img code in brackets or url or whatever).

In conclusion, I would say that almost no one bothers to read or check the rules or faqs anymore than we read all the license agreement info or read me docs when you install a new bit of software. Again, that's just human nature. The current method of simply reminding people on the etiquette of posting images, unfortunately time and again, is the only way to go, and ultimately does get through to the majority of people.

I'm sure people do look through the gallery often, and the occasional bit of advertising like the occasional thread with an interesting image that Banana occasionally posts is a good thing.

Wonderful post...



You've said it all sweetie.

I do want to make one little point here...(or maybe a big point)

I started the purplehouse gallery as a place where everyone could download pix (or just take a look around) if they wanted to.
I didn't understand this whole "bandwidth" stuff in the beginning when I started it...so I wasn't really concerned. Now...it's a different story.

I'm not taking ANY credit for any pictures I have on the gallery. NONE..I didn't take them personally...I didn't buy them, I scanned them from mags, books or got them off the net. I really have a hard time with ppl saying "I scanned it..give me some credit"... I will probably never understand that shit...but alas, that's how alot of ppl feel...so be it.

James Tarver who has taken alot of concert pix from the very beginning of P's career asked me to take down pictures that I've had in the gallery...so I did.

Now...if you see, some of the pix in my gallery (I have a "leave a comment" option) have a comment saying "Scanned by..so and so"...(these comments are left by other ppl..anyone can leave a comment) I delete those instantly whenever I find them. You scanned something...

That's been my only issue with this whole "picture" shite... You scanned a pic from a magazine...or book...you didn't take the damn picture!! It's nothing special...trust me! James Tarver is a different story all together.

Those are my 2cents...

Oh..and stop HOTLINKING!!


*doesn't anyone know that you can right click on any picture, click on properties to see where the picture comes from?!*

metalorange said:

Thanks for your in-depth post Mark and taking the time out to do it - your feedback is appreciated. I'll address some of the points you have raised as best I can, and as above, there are no personal 'slights' here, just my p.o.v, and addressing whomever may be reading this.

First off, I have to start by reiterating my main post here, as this is exactly how I didn't want to come across. If I have come across as begging for praise, then I really haven't managed to explain myself succinctly enough. I really do appreciate people’s kind thoughts they have posted here, but I don’t want this to become some form of ‘BC appreciation’ thread - that’s not what this is about, it's about THE ORG and our members enjoyment of it - but there have to be some guidelines.

When I talk of 'credit' - I'm not talking about me there, I'm talking about at the very least someone taking the time to acknowledge where the photo came from IF they have taken it from somewhere like HQ, Princefams or Purplehouse - same goes for any other fansite. It just keeps things smooth, and is a nice gesture to make. I'm not asking for someone to post beneath every photo in a post, just at the end, a simple mention or link. It really isn't much to ask I don't think - otherwise it ruffles people's feathers, and whether people agree with it or not, that issue is never going away, so why rock the boat? It's a catch 22 situation that can easily be rectified by something as simple as an acknowledgement.

Also, when I mentioned in my main post about a 'little respect for the hard graft' - i'm not asking anyone to fall to their knees and praise me What I was trying to put across were two points:

1) I don't think it's wrong for wanting the Org to be recognised as playing a pro-active role within the community. Other sites get their props - so should we!

2) The other point regarding 'respect' was more to do with people using the gallery how it was built and intended to be used. Yes, there are thousands of photos in there, and I agree - it can be quite overwhelming to sift through at times I'm sure. But that will be dealt with in time. I can only do my best with what I have to work with until such a time Ben and I have the opportunity to brainstorm together, and for him to action the changes. In the meantime, there are couple of points I’d like to raise that will maybe help make the time spent by Orgers in the gallery a little easier:

a) I took into account many months ago that people were asking for individual sections ranked by year - It took some time to build these sections up, as I had to sift through the gallery myself evening after evening assigning them - I'm still doing so, and it may take awhile longer to complete, but I'm getting there, and I'm glad it was brought up because it's a good idea that works and is a quick and easy port of call.

b) As the gallery Mod, I have an admin option tool at my disposal, whereby I can change the number of rows per page, and how many images per row are shown. Normally, 30 rows x 4 images per row can bring up a couple of hundred thumbnails on one page alone, which obviously makes my job easier. Now, until Metalorange mentioned about having to wade through page after page, I had someone without mod status look into it - who informed me they did not have such a thing. All this time, and I never realised that you guys did not actually have this tool at your disposal! So I shall speak with Ben about this, and if at all possible, this will go on his ‘to do’ list because it will change the way you will be able to navigate your way around in there considerably. So thanks for bringing that to my attention Mark.

With regard to people being ‘too lazy’ - I’m not entirely convinced that’s the case - I think it’s more to do with confusion than anything - again, this is something I very much wish to clear up - hence this preliminary thread prior to me arranging a ‘Gallery FAQ’ sticky thread here - and hopefully in the not-too-distant future, an entrance page to the gallery that will explain everything in a direct, simple manner. I have no doubt that there are a large number of images that are not in our gallery - I am under no illusions there whatsoever, HQ have a great vault of pix, and if we don’t have it - you can bet your bottom dollar they do. But photo bucket is so easy to use and reference, (not to mention free, and a small fee for unrestricted access) that I can’t see how people manage without it. Check it out.

I want to state for the record here and now, I have always been steadfastly against watermarking photos - but I do understand HQ’s point now, 16 months after being made mod. I could truly care less if another site credits me as the scanner or not, but to not credit the Org, I personally think sucks. But that’s just my That will only ever happen if it gets to the point where people are just taking the piss - I really hope it doesn’t go down that route. Anyone who has ever spent a little time scanning, you’ll know how much time is involved. But with all due respect, until you’ve scanned 100 photos in one marathon session sacrificing personal time (of my own volition I know) for others enjoyment, and then seeing someone just walk off with them and 'take the credit' for them - that can be a little hard to swallow sometimes. It’s hard to explain without soudning like I want the props - I don’t. [i]I JUST want the props for the Org - plain and simple, no hidden agenda.[/u]

A good example being the photos for the ‘95 tour in the Ultimate Live Experience tour section - there were around 80 photos in all, and to scan them all, resize them, crop them, tidy them up in photoshop, upload them, add info to them, and then assign them to their respective sections - took a whole day - and I’m really not kidding.

In the Orgs current situation, I have no choice but to scan what I have, as contributions are few and far between. And nobody should come at me with ‘well, you don’t have to’ - sorry...I do. Because trust me, if I didn’t, the gallery would stagnate and get left behind in the dust simple fact. I firmly stick by my point in my main post that if just ONE person can contribute that much, imagine what we could all do if we just pulled our fingers out and scanned a few things each! Unfortunately, the truth is that there is a lot of apathy here - it’s not laziness, it’s apathy. Now if I were to take the ‘Oh, well maybe I won’t bother then’ attitude with regard to not scanning anything, it would get us nowhere fast, and we’d all lose out - there’s certainly no sense or logic in that mindset in my eyes.

metalorange said:


That's what I already do! Nobody else authorises or moderates photo uploads or anything else to do with the gallery - it's all moi. Luckily, I have a good memory for what's already in there, so unless it's a better quality pic, the new upload would get vetoed.

metalorange said:


I really don’t understand that buddy, that doesn’t happen to me, and I’ve never heard of that happening before - what browser do you use? Very odd. Anyone else have this same problem? If you do, shout and be heard.

metalorange said:


Yeah, that is something I have long wanted to address, and as mentioned in the above post, I’d like an entrance page that explains the FAQ/‘how to’ guide etc. I think it would be a good thing to have to lessen any possible confusion.

Finally, the copyright question. This is the one question I probably get asked more often than all others - but the best person to discuss that here would be Matt, so I shall ask him for his input for you all to read. Yes there are issues, it comes with the territory, but all I can say is that we try and keep our noses clean as best as we can, and hope for the best.

There’s room for all in the Prince community - but it’s time for the Org’s chops to get its props.

So who’s with me - or am I alone on this?


[Edited 7/27/05 11:10am]
[Edited 8/16/05 19:34pm]

FiveFootNine said:

I agree on all your points, and I'm still of the belief like yourself, that scanning isn't the be-all and end-all of everything - but I think it is proper to at least give credit as to where the pix were sourced from - I think Housequakers would agree that it's a good thing to have Prince-related photos in one place as apposed to dotted all over the internet - that's what you, HQ, and ourselves are here for.

At the end of the day, it's supposed to be fun, but as mentioned in my above post - sometimes you just feel like doing this:

Props BC!

Reading your post made me enthusiastic enough to flip through some albums on the attic to see for some, hopefully, original Dutch scrapbook stuff.

Laterrrr.

AlfofMelmak said:

That's the spirit! Nice one!

Maximum res of 800x600 though - anything higher than that, drop me an org note and we'll discuss it further.

Thanks.

if i want to post a picture without all that text nonsense below it (because it has nothing to do with why/where i'm posting the picture), then i'll do so. but then, i've never had the need to post any pictures from the org



but it's good to see people getting bent out of shape over inane shit. same old org. love it!

Tessa said:

Thanks for your constructive contribution. Noted.

Tessa said:

yeah, it's almost as if this is a site discussion forum or something, sheesh!

lighten up, people!

ok whatever, nana.

I'll play by your rules.

especially if I get more pix of you in leather.

Imago777 said:

BananaCologne said:

Imago777 said:

Anxiety said:

Stop it, the both of you, or i'll get my Batnana out, see if I don't.

BananaCologne said:

what's the difference between that and when you're just happy to see us?

Anxiety said:

dork!

BananaCologne said:

I think in all honesty you'd just really wanna shove your boot up my proverbial ass.

Technical issues are one thing and those are the ones most concerned here, as common sense would - and should! - tell us. Bandwith, netiquette etc. - However, as far as copyright issues go nothing we quote or link on fan sites is totally cleared of the danger of being an infringement at least somewhere across the globe. Hell, the only really safe way to post a pic of your favourite artist on these sites would be to print out that picture, press it on a t-shirt, wear that t-shirt next to your friends (make sure you don't stand in the middle, so it doesn't look like your promoting the pic), have a photograph taken of the whole even and post that instead. And then you might get away with it. Really, all I personally wanna do is to hot-link images of cute little bunny rabbits that I've found from the web.

(http://images.usatoday.com/tech/_photos/2004/07/30/lucky-main.jpg)

I am just terribly afraid that little bunny rabbit is going to sue me.

'Nana, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

You can point out the avantages of using the gallery and netiquette, but you can't force people to use it. like Tessa. All you can do is offer the occasional reminder and hope it gets through to the majority of people - don't worry about the people you can't change, worry about those you can.

Same with people who leech all your hard work. Ultimately those pics you upload are available to all and we can't force someone who puts them on their own site to take them down - we will just have to tut tut and stare at them crossly. Maybe you could shame them on the org, but that might act as publicity for their site!

What you need to know is that you are doing a great job and the gallery is a great resource. But don't kill yourself over us ungrateful sods! Upload material when you feel in the mood.

Yeah, I still get pics loading in the same window plus a seperate box. I'm using the standard Internet Explorer. I think it started around the time the avatars started working again. It's not a big problem, as I just have to hit the back button, but I don't know why it would only be me suffering this - it doesn't happen on other sites.

metalorange said:

Thanks Mark.

I don't know how my points have been percieved here, but I just decided the best thing to do was just to be as succinct and honest as possible how I see things in all manners pertaining to the gallery, and just put it 'out there' and sit back and see what happened.

By getting little or no feedback in the past hasn't really helped matters, but I've had some really interesting and constructive points raised on this thread, and I've taken them on board - so thanks to all who have contributed (well, mostly all) so far - it means a lot. Hopefully more will be raised too - especially so with regard to the point, do we even need a gallery FAQ if we're gonna just let things slide I certainly don't wanna toil over such a thing if that's the case, I'd rather know in advance!

I know what you're saying about 'leading a horse to water' - and quite right you are too. I guess my 'fear' (if that's the word) is that if I don't stand up and say something, then eventually, chaos would ensue through people going: 'well, you never told us before, so what's the problem now?' So... here it is, warts and all.

I guess one of the most important things to take into account here are that there are 'tools' placed there to be used, and that at the end of the day - I can only work with what I've been given!

Hopefully, we'll be able to action some changes in the future, but until then I can only do my best with what I have. I'm not going to sit here and promise that those changes will happen overnight either, as that's something entirely out of my control, but it's all being taken into consideration.

Keep 'em coming.

Tessa said:

Eye wouldn't worry about this "1", nana.
She, & her co-whore-t, GrayKing, lack relational ntelligence.

love