Ummm... would we want to allow for external links to pics/videos ?
> On 2 February 2011 15:20, steve dunkley <
steve.dunk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > not too sure about 2.1.7, the problem with allowing users to include images
> > from an upload is that there's no control over it really. sort of.
> > it could open up a whole can of copyright/legal worms. Plus it'd kill a lot
> > of bandwidth with users uploading stupidly large files that would then kill
> > the processors resizing them down.
> > I agree there should be a method to get user images into the guide, but I
> > think a better solution would be to have a proper Guide Image Library. Have
> > it on a separate server, allow users to upload images there. And then have
> > them go through an approval process (a quick tick box by an admin should do)
> > at which point the images get moved over to the main image servers and
> > become available.
>
> > So, I suppose yes the wording is sort of right, but I think I'd be tempted
> > to change it to "It should be possible for users to submit images for
> > inclusion in the h2g2 image library" or something.
>
> > We'd also need to keep an eye on the amount of diskspace it all uses. do we
> > restrict that to "for illustrating guide entries" so that it's not just a
> > load of photos of their dog.
>
> > Pastey
>
> > On 2 February 2011 15:14, steve dunkley <
steve.dunk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I agree that the front page should link to non-factual entries. I think
> >> this could be a very good draw/selling point for the guide.
>
> >> Pastey
>