Special User Sections > DC Website Help and Extras

Can't post a post with just a video

<< < (3/3)

IainB:
Not necessarily.  The youtube linking code is an add on to SMF, while the image code is inbuilt.  Therefore, there could have been allowances made for images that would not have taken into account the youtube markup.
____________________________
-wraith808 (May 19, 2016, 09:30 PM)
--- End quote ---

Ah, I see. So, if that is possible, then who would be in a position to determine whether there were "allowances made for images that would not have taken into account the youtube markup."?
@mouser seems to think is is a "bug" of some sort. Presumably he would know?

Curt:
I think Deozaan gave the answer. If you people would go and test Recommend some music videos to me!, you'll find that an aweful lot of video links are empty by now. When I did, I felt disappointed each time. I mean, the video link was uploaded for a reason, right? But how is that reason justified, when there is no video? Such a post is now without meaning. If the post at least had the video's title, I could go search for it - and the post would then still have a meaning.

----------
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 ---

Deozaan:
I think Deozaan gave the answer. If you people would go and test Recommend some music videos to me!, you'll find that an aweful lot of video links are empty by now.-Curt (May 20, 2016, 02:12 AM)
--- End quote ---

Oh my gosh! Ha ha! Sorry for the off-topicness of this, but I followed that link to the first page of that thread and I was confused by the weird images people (including myself) were including with their posts. Finally I realized they were screenshots of what YouTube looked like in 2008!

wraith808:
Not necessarily.  The youtube linking code is an add on to SMF, while the image code is inbuilt.  Therefore, there could have been allowances made for images that would not have taken into account the youtube markup.
____________________________
-wraith808 (May 19, 2016, 09:30 PM)
--- End quote ---

Ah, I see. So, if that is possible, then who would be in a position to determine whether there were "allowances made for images that would not have taken into account the youtube markup."?
@mouser seems to think is is a "bug" of some sort. Presumably he would know?
-IainB (May 20, 2016, 12:30 AM)
--- End quote ---

A bug is a defect or imperfection, as in a mechanical device, computer program, or plan; glitch.  However, that does not cover all of what a bug or defect is.  A bug is any an unexpected defect, fault, flaw, or imperfection found in a program.  Just because it can be capitalized on, doesn't make it not a "bug".  That's what mouser meant.  He wouldn't even necessarily know, as it seems that he didn't before I brought it up.  But I think this conversation is descending into the highest form of pedantry.

It is an unexpected flaw that mouser sees as a feature, and will not correct, as the general consensus is that it is useful to explain any video post (more than an image) as they, not being hosted on the server, can disappear, leaving a gap in the flow of the thread.  In addition, text can be indexed for later retrieval by a simple text search- videos can't.

That seems to be enough to answer the question brought up in this thread, so I will leave it with that.

IainB:

and the reality is that this is a bug in the forum software, but not one that i think is worth the trouble fixing at this time.  simple as that :)
__________________________
-mouser (May 19, 2016, 09:29 AM)
--- End quote ---
@mouser: Ahh, I understand now. Thankyou for explaining. I are now no longer confuzzled:

* (a) It is effectively a rule - and it apparently sits within the software for whatever passes for the CMS (Content Management System) for this website - that some text (any text, whether relevant or not) must accompany the posting of a video, otherwise the post cannot be published.
* (b) The same rule, however, does not apply to the posting of images, which can be published without any accompanying text whatsoever....
...This leads me to the suggestion that there is an opportunity here to improve/expand the capture of Indexable knowledge in the forum, and improve the ease of location of and access to that knowledge by DC Forum members and the wider community, if we:

* (a) consider putting the same/similar "must have some relevant text" rule in place for posting images, as a matter of good/best practice.
* (b) we consider recommending to people who post images containing text that they post the images as .TIFF files, and that we add an iFilter for .TIFF files (if not already done) to enable Indexing to pick up the text from the relevant .TIFF images (as per Windows Index/Search).(Just a thought.)
-IainB (May 19, 2016, 08:34 PM)
--- End quote ---
Given the earlier and subsequent comments by @Deozaan and @Curt, I would reiterate the suggestions (a) and (b) as above, but only if taking the "...opportunity here to improve/expand the capture of Indexable knowledge in the forum, and improve the ease of location of and access to that knowledge by DC Forum members and the wider community" is seen as a necessarily useful or even desirable objective from the perspective of the overall direction envisioned for the DC Forum. For example, I am unsure whether that direction might include contributing to the improvement of the gestalt knowledgebase that is the www/Internet.

In any event, this deliberate or accidental "bug" (or "unintended feature", or whatever it should properly be described as - and my apologies if I did not use the correct terminology earlier) seems to be something which could usefully be extended as a rule to cater for the posting of images, as well as YouTube videos, as discussed.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page