Special User Sections > DC Website Help and Extras

Can't post a post with just a video

(1/3) > >>

wraith808:
I don't know if this is intentional, but you have to post spurious text when posting just a youtube video, but you don't have to do the same when posting an image.

mouser:
interesting.. well i suppose it helps encourage people to describe the video so i won't worry about fixing it :)

Deozaan:
For what it's worth, I do think it's a good idea to describe videos when you post them. That way in a couple of years when someone is trying to remember what they were, a search for related terms will bring something up.

wraith808:
For what it's worth, I do think it's a good idea to describe videos when you post them. That way in a couple of years when someone is trying to remember what they were, a search for related terms will bring something up.
-Deozaan (May 19, 2016, 02:58 AM)
--- End quote ---

Many videos, because they have the text in the title of them, and even in the first frame, don't require that.  For example, the ocelot one.  Are you saying that I should just repeat the title? It felt spurious having to put text.

IainB:
I don't know if this is intentional, but you have to post spurious text when posting just a youtube video, but you don't have to do the same when posting an image.
___________________________
-wraith808 (May 18, 2016, 06:08 PM)
--- End quote ---
I are confuzzled by this.
The category for this thread is DC Website Help and Extras - yes?
What is intended to be the subject of the statement "I don't know if this is intentional..."?
Is there a DC Forum rule that one must post spurious text when posting just a youtube video, but one does not have to post any spurious text when posting an image?
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but, if there is such a rule, then would it not likely have been "intentional" to have that rule in the first place, and if it was not intentional, then why was the rule established and allowed to remain?
If "spurious text" was also intended, then why on earth was that so?
"Spurious" means:

* not genuine, sincere, or authentic
* based on false ideas or bad reasoning
Why would that be required?
Surely a video or an image could be potentially more informative if accompanied by relevant/contextual text and references, rather than by spurious text or no text at all - no?

My view is that posting just static images on their own, or just YouTube links/videos on their own, without any explanatory text would probably be more appropriate for (say) the DCF silly humour section(s), or Pinterest, for example, rather than a pukka discussion forum like DCF.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page