Sophie 22,712 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Any chance of this being implemented? I'd rather not see photos of people being pissed on every time I look at the homepage. I like the idea of it but it would be nice if you could minimise or collapse it. Something like this - Quote Link to post
steve25805 120,695 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I would support Sophie in this. Whilst many of us - myself included - are not all that bothered by such imagery, I can understand that not everyone wants it in their face all the time. Especially since not every pic is everyone else's cup of tea. Sophie, for example, is not big on people being pissed on. Some might not appreciate some of my contributions featuring ladies pissing on carpets or stuff like that. Giving members the option to collapse these vids out of sight can surely do no harm? Quote Link to post
Scot_Lover 1,765 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Anything happen with Sophie's and my post regarding the Webm file type? Quote Link to post
bpb 782 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I have been fascinated by the numbers under Notable Members in the Members section. I sure would like to be able to see the next twenty, and maybe even the 20 following that. Quote Link to post
Admin 14,329 Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 WebM support would be quite nice. I wouldn't mind larger filesizes for avatars either so I could use a gif but no biggie. I can increase the maximum avatar size if you like, but avatars don't support animated images, so a gif wouldn't really be worth it. Any chance of this being implemented? I'd rather not see photos of people being pissed on every time I look at the homepage. This feature has been moved to the sidebar so is more out of the way now. If you still wish to remove it (although it's now set to 'random media' so it should never just be peeing on people but a mix), you'll see a 'Disable?' link underneath. Click this, then at the bottom of the Preferences pages there is a 'Remove' checkbox. Agree with webm, much longer video in a smaller file size, I convert most of my downloads to webm now. Can I just ask, how would this benefit you or members? I can understand you're saying it would save space, but I'm just wondering what you would gain from this? I have been fascinated by the numbers under Notable Members in the Members section. I sure would like to be able to see the next twenty, and maybe even the 20 following that. Is there something you're specifically looking for or is it just curiosity? Quote Link to post
bpb 782 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Is there something you're specifically looking for or is it just curiosity? It is just curiosity. It is interesting to see what is going with the Notable Members. I was surprised to find myself on the list with just 169 posts. Then I was displaced from the list by more active people. Then when I started making all my entries to Vikka's posts I find myself back on the list. At this point it is going to takes some doing to displace anyone off the top twenty now. I would like to see how the next 20 people are coming along in activity. Some of them must be very close to making the list, but they will have to displace someone on the list. I only see two that seem to have dropped into inactivity. Quote Link to post
Admin 14,329 Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 It is just curiosity. It is interesting to see what is going with the Notable Members. I was surprised to find myself on the list with just 169 posts. Then I was displaced from the list by more active people. Then when I started making all my entries to Vikka's posts I find myself back on the list. At this point it is going to takes some doing to displace anyone off the top twenty now. I would like to see how the next 20 people are coming along in activity. Some of them must be very close to making the list, but they will have to displace someone on the list. I only see two that seem to have dropped into inactivity. Just checked for you. In terms of post count, the next two on the list would be @Sophie and @CrissyP. :) Quote Link to post
CrissyP 787 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Just checked for you. In terms of post count, the next two on the list would be @Sophie and @CrissyP. :) Woohoo!!!:thumbsup::woot::biggrin::kiss: Quote Link to post
bpb 782 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Just checked for you. In terms of post count, the next two on the list would be @Sophie and @CrissyP. :) I knew that CrissyP was getting close, but I had no clue as to how many others are tucked in there close. Quote Link to post
Sophie 22,712 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I can increase the maximum avatar size if you like, but avatars don't support animated images, so a gif wouldn't really be worth it. I was hoping for an avatar image so there wouldn't be much point, thanks anyway :) This feature has been moved to the sidebar so is more out of the way now. If you still wish to remove it (although it's now set to 'random media' so it should never just be peeing on people but a mix), you'll see a 'Disable?' link underneath. Click this, then at the bottom of the Preferences pages there is a 'Remove' checkbox. Much better, thank you! Can I just ask, how would this benefit you or members? I can understand you're saying it would save space, but I'm just wondering what you would gain from this? The reason I asked was I was going to post something in one of the threads, I can't remember what it was but the file was a webm. Imgur likes to use these instead of gif and I know of at least one website which has got rid of gif altogether and all their images are converted to webm instead. Quote Link to post
F.W 5,645 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I aint got a clue what any of this imgur and gif crap is about..Does it mean we see less or more pics of peeing?:laugh: Quote Link to post
Scot_Lover 1,765 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Can I just ask, how would this benefit you or members? I can understand you're saying it would save space, but I'm just wondering what you would gain from this? Longer online video, lol. Your file size limit of 50 meg is ok for 5 - 10 min video, an equivalent webm could run for 30 - 45 min with minimal loss of quality. It maybe more hassle than benefit, webm codecs would need to be installed on the end users PC. Have a look at some webm examples when you get some time, see what you think. Quote Link to post
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.