No.2269
Define. How are these images displayed? It's one (really cool) thing to have a bunch of images per post, it's something entirely different and highly irritating to have somebody just troll a thread off the page by filling the page with thumbnails.
No.2271
i think it'd be a pretty interesting feature. i think 3 or 5 should be the max. Not sure what it'd be like though. probably wouldnt hurt to try. might spice up things around here.
No.2272
>>2269I actually haven't tested the feature yet. I'll enable it on /test/ later to play with.
Edit: I don't think it can be enabled per-board.
No.2273
By the way sei, the announce link to this thread is through mod login, so users can't really come unless they go first to /sugg/ and then click on this thread.
No.2275
cant see the point in that, its not like most images dont already seem forced.
No.2276
I mean I'm likely never going to use this feature, but you could allow up to 3-4 images per post, just to try it. Right? What's the worst that could happen?
No.2277
It'd make life on /h/ and /o/ pretty easy since people like to dump pictures en mass onto them.
No.2278
For sure!
No.2279
I'm going to try to enable this site-wide and see what happens.
No.2280
i can already see the new level of shit posting. i love it.
No.2296
I think URL images aren't necessary. If anybody wants to post a pic they can just download it and post the classical way. We've been doing for years, I don't think anybody would really complain at this point.
If anything, it makes it easier for spammers to post their CP.
No.2297
>>2296It's new untested imagebread technology, it hasn't been done on 4chan even so who knows if spambots will pick up on it or not.
It also takes out that unnecessary step of downloading it to repost it because the server handles it for you, so tbh I think it's useful for the convenience.
No.2299
>>2297Well, I think that the best we can do for now is just test and see what happens. If it doesn't bring any problem I think it's alright for it to stay.
By the way, unrelated question for this thread, but, is it really necessary to wait 5 seconds to delete your posts or this is just some default pre-built feature of the software?
No.2300
>>2299I don't know vichan that well, but as far as I know it's a flood prevention measure so the server isn't hit with too many things a second. Most large scale sites have something like that, like twitter won't let you post another tweet until a couple seconds have passed but most people don't run into it because of how long it takes to type.
