Huh...?
What do you have against linkbacks?
In this case I couldn't just say "I emailed that image to my daughter", because the image wasn't visible and people wouldn't have known what I was talking about.
More generally, the context isn't presented in the right place, and requires all the readers to actively chase the context. IMNSHO it is polite for authors to make things easy for their readers.
A good example of the problem is the message below. It is entirely unclear what is "making us look bad"!
todays catch...
(Attachment Link)
(Attachment Link)
(Attachment Link)
(Attachment Link)
car also doing fine... not bad, i was hitting 140 at times ,still economic...
(Attachment Link)
Wow, Tony. You're making us look bad.
Nice catch!
Ahhhh.... okay. I thought you were talking about the link I posted along with back to the author's site, not this particular aspect of the many ways in which SMF molests people's posts.
I don't USUALLY post fullsize images... so not a frequent offender. I usually only do it when something is already "just big enough to read" or when it rates full "Poster-Size" presentation.
I guess I've gotten so used to it, I don't even think about having to copy/paste at least one image link when someone else does it.
For me resizing pics to minimum required to identify source when I quote is just good etiquette; a thumb is enough when there's already a copy or three of a pic further back on the page, but for the sake of those jumping in at the end, or the "occasional lurker" who only tunes in once in a while... I think it's polite to give them the ability to click on it and see the full image.
Also, I have
a little stash of "commonly reused pics" on pages 1139 & 1140 (default pagination, not the way you usually count
) and this
is one I've added there for future mischief. I know it probably confuses the ever-lovin'
FUCK outta people actually slogging through the WHOLE thread when they hit those two pages; that knowledge just warms the cockles of my heart.
mnem
*toddles off to ded*