18,280
pages
ALL POSTS
All posts by Tanhamman
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>ThumpLeaf wrote:
@Tanhamman: We haven't? Don't think so.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>Interesting, because this seems a little rude imho </p>
<p>Interesting, because this seems a little rude imho </p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>ThumpLeaf wrote:
@Tanhamman: We haven't? Don't think so.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>Oh, sorry. Let me just sort thru the thousands of moronic comments to find where you said it whenever you said it. </p>
<p>Oh, sorry. Let me just sort thru the thousands of moronic comments to find where you said it whenever you said it. </p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<p>Happy Birthday ESB! I'm so glad we've all been able to work so hard together to make this a positive and thriving place!
</p><p>Here's to 12 more years
</p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Spongebob456 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>The gamer 987654321 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Spongebob456 wrote:
We'll be measuring multiple things here, whether article views go up/down in comparison with other articles without the change and how long users stay on the page for. You asked for evidence, that's what I'm offering. Let's be civil please.</i></div>
<p>Why should page views come into this? The point of this website is to create a complete encyclopedia about SpongeBob, which is becoming less complete due to these edits which can only be described as vandalism. As a normal user, why should you care about page views? Why does it matter if we have all the information here for anyone to see? </p> </div> <p>To make a community grow (as everyone should aspire to) then we need more viewers to do this. I started viewing the wiki then I joined. These changes will be good for growing the community. If you're happy to settle for no growth while other websites grow around you, then there is no point in being here. </p> </div> <p>Eventually we reach a point where we peak. This is true for everything, people, YouTube channels, countries, life, the planet, this wiki. We are one of the biggest wikis on the network, and one of the most functional. What you're proposing doesn't expand or allow growth, it inhibits growth. </p><p>No one on here except for you and perhaps AMK supported this change. And now you're going to go through with it, even though there was no consensus, vote, proposal, or process to actually gain support from the <i>community</i>. We all have voiced our opinions and support the idea of removing duplicate images, low quality images, etc. Not removing half the gallery because "it's for SEO guys". I'm glad to see the process is used when it's something you don't want to see, but you completely ignore the process that has taken years to build just because <i>you</i> and only you thinks that this will somehow improve the wiki. As many others have said before, it will not </p>
We'll be measuring multiple things here, whether article views go up/down in comparison with other articles without the change and how long users stay on the page for. You asked for evidence, that's what I'm offering. Let's be civil please.</i></div>
<p>Why should page views come into this? The point of this website is to create a complete encyclopedia about SpongeBob, which is becoming less complete due to these edits which can only be described as vandalism. As a normal user, why should you care about page views? Why does it matter if we have all the information here for anyone to see? </p> </div> <p>To make a community grow (as everyone should aspire to) then we need more viewers to do this. I started viewing the wiki then I joined. These changes will be good for growing the community. If you're happy to settle for no growth while other websites grow around you, then there is no point in being here. </p> </div> <p>Eventually we reach a point where we peak. This is true for everything, people, YouTube channels, countries, life, the planet, this wiki. We are one of the biggest wikis on the network, and one of the most functional. What you're proposing doesn't expand or allow growth, it inhibits growth. </p><p>No one on here except for you and perhaps AMK supported this change. And now you're going to go through with it, even though there was no consensus, vote, proposal, or process to actually gain support from the <i>community</i>. We all have voiced our opinions and support the idea of removing duplicate images, low quality images, etc. Not removing half the gallery because "it's for SEO guys". I'm glad to see the process is used when it's something you don't want to see, but you completely ignore the process that has taken years to build just because <i>you</i> and only you thinks that this will somehow improve the wiki. As many others have said before, it will not </p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Spongebob456 wrote:
For what it's worth, AMK agrees with the change also.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>No offense, but the two of you don't comprise the majority. The majority does not support this drastic (radical) alteration to the galleries. Again, we should focus on low quality images before number of images. </p>
<p>No offense, but the two of you don't comprise the majority. The majority does not support this drastic (radical) alteration to the galleries. Again, we should focus on low quality images before number of images. </p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<p>Each of us has an ideal number in mind, with some being wayyy too low. 25 is not good. Like where did you pull that number out of? 75-100 is still not long enough because you cut out crucial images.
</p>
<div class="ajax-poll" id="ajax-poll-5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB"><div class="header">How many images is enough for you? </div><div id="wpPollStatus5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB" class="center"> </div><form action="#" method="post" id="axPoll5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB"><input type="hidden" name="wpPollId" value="5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB"><div id="ajax-poll-area"><div class="pollAnswer" id="pollAnswer2"><div class="pollAnswerName">0 </div><div class="pollAnswerVotes" onmouseover='span=this.getElementsByTagName("span")[0];tmpPollVar=span.innerHTML;span.innerHTML=span.title;span.title="";' onmouseout='span=this.getElementsByTagName("span")[0];span.title=span.innerHTML;span.innerHTML=tmpPollVar;'><span id="wpPollVote5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB-2" title="9.09% of all votes">2</span><div class="wpPollBar5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB" id="wpPollBar5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB-2" style="width: 9.09%; border:0;"> </div></div></div><div class="pollAnswer" id="pollAnswer3"><div class="pollAnswerName">1-100 </div><div class="pollAnswerVotes" onmouseover='span=this.getElementsByTagName("span")[0];tmpPollVar=span.innerHTML;span.innerHTML=span.title;span.title="";' onmouseout='span=this.getElementsByTagName("span")[0];span.title=span.innerHTML;span.innerHTML=tmpPollVar;'><span id="wpPollVote5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB-3" title="13.64% of all votes">3</span><div class="wpPollBar5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB" id="wpPollBar5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB-3" style="width: 13.64%; border:0;"> </div></div></div><div class="pollAnswer" id="pollAnswer4"><div class="pollAnswerName">101-200 </div><div class="pollAnswerVotes" onmouseover='span=this.getElementsByTagName("span")[0];tmpPollVar=span.innerHTML;span.innerHTML=span.title;span.title="";' onmouseout='span=this.getElementsByTagName("span")[0];span.title=span.innerHTML;span.innerHTML=tmpPollVar;'><span id="wpPollVote5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB-4" title="27.27% of all votes">6</span><div class="wpPollBar5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB" id="wpPollBar5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB-4" style="width: 27.27%; border:0;"> </div></div></div><div class="pollAnswer" id="pollAnswer5"><div class="pollAnswerName">200+ </div><div class="pollAnswerVotes" onmouseover='span=this.getElementsByTagName("span")[0];tmpPollVar=span.innerHTML;span.innerHTML=span.title;span.title="";' onmouseout='span=this.getElementsByTagName("span")[0];span.title=span.innerHTML;span.innerHTML=tmpPollVar;'><span id="wpPollVote5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB-5" title="4.55% of all votes">1</span><div class="wpPollBar5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB" id="wpPollBar5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB-5" style="width: 4.55%; border:0;"> </div></div></div><div class="pollAnswer" id="pollAnswer6"><div class="pollAnswerName">There should be no limit </div><div class="pollAnswerVotes" onmouseover='span=this.getElementsByTagName("span")[0];tmpPollVar=span.innerHTML;span.innerHTML=span.title;span.title="";' onmouseout='span=this.getElementsByTagName("span")[0];span.title=span.innerHTML;span.innerHTML=tmpPollVar;'><span id="wpPollVote5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB-6" title="45.45% of all votes">10</span><div class="wpPollBar5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB" id="wpPollBar5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB-6" style="width: 45.45%; border:0;"> </div></div></div>
<div>The poll was created at 21:37 on April 1, 2019, and so far <span class="total" id="wpPollTotal5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB">22</span> people voted. </div></div>The poll is closed now. </form></div>
<div>The poll was created at 21:37 on April 1, 2019, and so far <span class="total" id="wpPollTotal5E5DD55C2571B151B885EA97A53DAAEB">22</span> people voted. </div></div>The poll is closed now. </form></div>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<p>There is no real reason to do this. Until there is definitive proof that galleries need reduction for whatever technological, aesthetic, or legal purpose, it would just be best to let this "problem" go
</p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>EarthlingnAkumi wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Golfpecks256 wrote:
Regardless of that, the mobile skin isn't perfect. These issues with the mobile skin shouldn't just make ESB remove so much work that users put in to the galleries over the years to satisfy a minor preference/issue with that due to large quantities of pictures.
</p><p>Perhaps Fandom should make the image appearance smaller on mobile so more can be seen at a time, hence reducing the amount of scrolling you have to do. If viewers want to see the image enlarged, they can click it. Simple. If this is a desperate issue, Fandom should be aware. It's just not fair we have to delete images for it to work on mobile. We've done some work to have infoboxes operate well, why can't Fandom do some work to make large galleries work out as well? This constant adaption we have to do because of a wiki skin is really ridiculous because the mobile skin has many flaws, including that one. Fandom should be working on improving them rather than trying to impose some sort of agenda to try and delete colossal amount of images. I am aware it's mainly sb456 who's suggesting this but FishTank has shown some support for this in the past before this was brought up on this thread.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>The image sizes are based off of
</p> </div> <p>Fandom literally comes in and changes what they want/need for the mobile platform quite often. </p><p>Images are subjective. It all depends on who is viewing what. Limiting or overextending ourselves does not provide adequate images nor a good user experience. So instead of mowing down the images we have, we should be focusing on galleries that are still incomplete (or have low quality images) and then worry about which images should stay and which should go. </p>
<p>The image sizes are based off of
[[File:filename.jpg|<u>250px</u>]] or the size that the user uploaded them as. Therefore, Fandom has no reason to change any sizes because it's completely based on the community members how large the images are.
</p><p>The same goes for most other factors of the gallery. It's not Fandom's fault at all and has <i>nothing to do with the mobile skin</i>.
</p><p>While I understand you and many other users are trying to find alternatives to the problems that the wiki is having, we should look for more realistic answers and do things that our community can solve on its own. Fandom staff is not going to change the mobile skin just because of the needs of one community, nor should they be expected to.
</p><p></p> </div> <p>Fandom literally comes in and changes what they want/need for the mobile platform quite often. </p><p>Images are subjective. It all depends on who is viewing what. Limiting or overextending ourselves does not provide adequate images nor a good user experience. So instead of mowing down the images we have, we should be focusing on galleries that are still incomplete (or have low quality images) and then worry about which images should stay and which should go. </p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>EarthlingnAkumi wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Tanhamman wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>EarthlingnAkumi wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Spongebob456 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Figmeister wrote:
Honestly, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a problem to fit the policy that you want to add. Is there evidence that shows that the galleries are negatively affecting the wiki? I think removing tons of content from 400+ of the more popular pages on the wiki would be worse than keeping the images. I've read through the document you provided several times and I don't see any solid proof of this. Every argument for a gallery restriction is hypothetical and there doesn't seem to be any problems with what we've been doing for years and years.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>If not evidence that it's hindering the wiki, there's evidence that viewership would improve as I linked above due to better use experience and improved SEO. I think what we've been doing for years and years is part of the problem and we need to move with the times, ie, accounting for mobile devices. </p> </div> <p>This. More and more users are using mobile as an alternative, and these images do not display well on mobile. Draw your own conclusions from these screenshots. </p><p>Edit: Sorry about the hard to read text on the last screenshot, i didnt realize it until now. It says "On mobile, Fandom just gives up after a while" </p> </div> <p>Only a quarter of viewers come on mobile devices. Nearly half remain on desktop and another quarter on tablets. </p> </div> <p>A quarter is still a lot for an average of 10,500+ views daily. In fact, the Gary & Spot gallery page got nearly 2000 views last week, meaning that around approximately 500 users viewed that on mobile. See the problem? </p> </div> <p>And what about the 1,500 that were using other means to view the gallery? Do they not matter? Statistically, the likelihood of suddenly gaining more mobile viewers isn't going to increase dramatically because we change the number of images in a gallery. </p>
<p>If not evidence that it's hindering the wiki, there's evidence that viewership would improve as I linked above due to better use experience and improved SEO. I think what we've been doing for years and years is part of the problem and we need to move with the times, ie, accounting for mobile devices. </p> </div> <p>This. More and more users are using mobile as an alternative, and these images do not display well on mobile. Draw your own conclusions from these screenshots. </p><p>Edit: Sorry about the hard to read text on the last screenshot, i didnt realize it until now. It says "On mobile, Fandom just gives up after a while" </p> </div> <p>Only a quarter of viewers come on mobile devices. Nearly half remain on desktop and another quarter on tablets. </p> </div> <p>A quarter is still a lot for an average of 10,500+ views daily. In fact, the Gary & Spot gallery page got nearly 2000 views last week, meaning that around approximately 500 users viewed that on mobile. See the problem? </p> </div> <p>And what about the 1,500 that were using other means to view the gallery? Do they not matter? Statistically, the likelihood of suddenly gaining more mobile viewers isn't going to increase dramatically because we change the number of images in a gallery. </p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>EarthlingnAkumi wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Spongebob456 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Figmeister wrote:
Honestly, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a problem to fit the policy that you want to add. Is there evidence that shows that the galleries are negatively affecting the wiki? I think removing tons of content from 400+ of the more popular pages on the wiki would be worse than keeping the images. I've read through the document you provided several times and I don't see any solid proof of this. Every argument for a gallery restriction is hypothetical and there doesn't seem to be any problems with what we've been doing for years and years.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>If not evidence that it's hindering the wiki, there's evidence that viewership would improve as I linked above due to better use experience and improved SEO. I think what we've been doing for years and years is part of the problem and we need to move with the times, ie, accounting for mobile devices. </p> </div> <p>This. More and more users are using mobile as an alternative, and these images do not display well on mobile. Draw your own conclusions from these screenshots. </p><p>Edit: Sorry about the hard to read text on the last screenshot, i didnt realize it until now. It says "On mobile, Fandom just gives up after a while" </p> </div> <p>Only a quarter of viewers come on mobile devices. Nearly half remain on desktop and another quarter on tablets. </p>
<p>If not evidence that it's hindering the wiki, there's evidence that viewership would improve as I linked above due to better use experience and improved SEO. I think what we've been doing for years and years is part of the problem and we need to move with the times, ie, accounting for mobile devices. </p> </div> <p>This. More and more users are using mobile as an alternative, and these images do not display well on mobile. Draw your own conclusions from these screenshots. </p><p>Edit: Sorry about the hard to read text on the last screenshot, i didnt realize it until now. It says "On mobile, Fandom just gives up after a while" </p> </div> <p>Only a quarter of viewers come on mobile devices. Nearly half remain on desktop and another quarter on tablets. </p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<p>The EU is messing up more than just Fandom related online activity. And thanks to Brexit, the EU is becoming much less of a union, and very hostile towards its people. Their politicians don't even know what they vote for, they, like many others, are told what and how to vote, which is why the EU is getting into this worse mess with the Internet and literally everything else.
</p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Spongebob456 wrote:
I think we can prepare for a law that could get us shut down while changes are made. The implications are unclear, but we should be prepared.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>Why would we get shut down? The EU doesn't have jurisdiction over this wiki, it's under Fandom control which is under California law which is superseded by US law </p>
<p>Why would we get shut down? The EU doesn't have jurisdiction over this wiki, it's under Fandom control which is under California law which is superseded by US law </p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Spongebob456 wrote:
With the EU laws changing, no guarantees of that.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>Ah but you're in Britain, some of us are in the United States. Also, I pay taxes which is not relevant to this argument, but throwing it out there for when the people that get paid by my tax dollars say we're a problem </p> <figure class="article-thumb tleft show-info-icon" style="width: 180px">
<figcaption> </figcaption></figure>
<p>Ah but you're in Britain, some of us are in the United States. Also, I pay taxes which is not relevant to this argument, but throwing it out there for when the people that get paid by my tax dollars say we're a problem </p> <figure class="article-thumb tleft show-info-icon" style="width: 180px">
<figcaption> </figcaption></figure>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<p>DMCA has more important problems to deal with than one little wiki that doesn't link to episodes or distribute illegal copies. There are many more severe crimes that need to be dealt with before they decide to waltz in on us and say that we're a problem.
</p><p>As for US copyright and patent laws, intellectual property is owned by Nick and Viacom (SpongeBob) and will remain protected under the distribution laws where applicable. Since we aren't showing the episodes, rather still clips, there would be little to no problem for copyright. And it's also important to capture the important parts of an episode, and nowadays, the motion is a part of the story
</p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>The gamer 987654321 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Spongebob456 wrote:<div class="quote">
<p>Tanhamman wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Spongebob456 wrote:
He folks, so I have some evidence here for this change. Take a read of the content and see what you think, thanks.
</p>
</i></div>
I think we follow these guidelines pretty well. As it said in the conclusion, too few and it limits memorability. Too many and it confuses people. We have to find that balance, so 50 is not a good number as that is definitely too few. And SpongeBuddy Mania with 500+ is too many, so we need a range of images rather than a strict number, imo </div>Hey, ok thanks, that's a start. At least we've said some kind of guideline is needed. Here's an interesting point from the evidence: <p>"Regarding pages that are nothing but galleries of images, there are things that we can learn from e-commerce sites about how good images can be presented. The key lessons are that those pages can be effective if the images are sufficiently distinct, have good organization and clear captions for context, and have limits on how many images are presented at a single time (to avoid clutter)." </p><p>I think that definitely suggests we need to be removing images on here that look too similar to one another. The evidence justifies making changes like this for example: </p> <div class="center"><div class="floatnone">
</div></div>
<p>"Not all images improve the reader's experience. Some of them just take up space or, in the worst case, confuse the user with noise. Cluttering a page overloads a reader with too much information — every added image and line of text makes the screen more complicated, compounded on mobile devices with smaller views and bandwidth."
</p><p>This is an important point too. Having 100s of images on a page isn't going to do mobile viewers any favours with endless scrolling to reach an image they want. Same on desktop too being honest. It also suggests that if you complicate the page, you reduce the quality of the reading experience. That of course means users are less likely to return to the wiki or to those articles. That's surely something we need to remedy.
</p>
</div>
<p>Those images that you listed as an example show differences in the characters' facial expressions, and are therefore a vital part of telling the story in that way. While images that are strictly duplicates of another should be removed, there is no reason to remove images like that if they're not. The point of this website is to create an encyclopedia about SpongeBob. If there is a lack of information or "noise" on a website that calls itself an encyclopedia, then a terrible encyclopedia it is. Even if removing images would make it lightly easier for the odd visitor (if they're lucky to find that the image they want hasn't been culled), this will make it significantly harder for editors (the people who actually improve this site) and would reduce the amount of information significantly. Any visitor to this wiki is looking for information, and by not having the information that they want, we are discouraging return visitors, reducing the amount of ad revenue for FANDOM, which is obviously what you are seeking to improve given your mentioning of nigh redundant statistics such as SEO that you mentioned here and in other places. Why would someone who just wants to be a contrubutor care about that at all? If you are not begging to be employed by FANDOM then what you are trying to do is very odd indeed...
</p>
</div>
<p>I fully support removing the redundant images that have very little motion or action happening. Something like Patrick doing that doodle loo thing in "To SquarePants or Not To" would be a waste of space and images. However, especially with the newer seasons, the motion is more fluid and captures more in each frame, so limiting the images for those limits the expression of creativity and limits the person uploading the images as well
</p>
I think we follow these guidelines pretty well. As it said in the conclusion, too few and it limits memorability. Too many and it confuses people. We have to find that balance, so 50 is not a good number as that is definitely too few. And SpongeBuddy Mania with 500+ is too many, so we need a range of images rather than a strict number, imo </div>Hey, ok thanks, that's a start. At least we've said some kind of guideline is needed. Here's an interesting point from the evidence: <p>"Regarding pages that are nothing but galleries of images, there are things that we can learn from e-commerce sites about how good images can be presented. The key lessons are that those pages can be effective if the images are sufficiently distinct, have good organization and clear captions for context, and have limits on how many images are presented at a single time (to avoid clutter)." </p><p>I think that definitely suggests we need to be removing images on here that look too similar to one another. The evidence justifies making changes like this for example: </p> <div class="center"><div class="floatnone">
</div></div>
<p>"Not all images improve the reader's experience. Some of them just take up space or, in the worst case, confuse the user with noise. Cluttering a page overloads a reader with too much information — every added image and line of text makes the screen more complicated, compounded on mobile devices with smaller views and bandwidth."
</p><p>This is an important point too. Having 100s of images on a page isn't going to do mobile viewers any favours with endless scrolling to reach an image they want. Same on desktop too being honest. It also suggests that if you complicate the page, you reduce the quality of the reading experience. That of course means users are less likely to return to the wiki or to those articles. That's surely something we need to remedy.
</p>
</div>
<p>Those images that you listed as an example show differences in the characters' facial expressions, and are therefore a vital part of telling the story in that way. While images that are strictly duplicates of another should be removed, there is no reason to remove images like that if they're not. The point of this website is to create an encyclopedia about SpongeBob. If there is a lack of information or "noise" on a website that calls itself an encyclopedia, then a terrible encyclopedia it is. Even if removing images would make it lightly easier for the odd visitor (if they're lucky to find that the image they want hasn't been culled), this will make it significantly harder for editors (the people who actually improve this site) and would reduce the amount of information significantly. Any visitor to this wiki is looking for information, and by not having the information that they want, we are discouraging return visitors, reducing the amount of ad revenue for FANDOM, which is obviously what you are seeking to improve given your mentioning of nigh redundant statistics such as SEO that you mentioned here and in other places. Why would someone who just wants to be a contrubutor care about that at all? If you are not begging to be employed by FANDOM then what you are trying to do is very odd indeed...
</p>
</div>
<p>I fully support removing the redundant images that have very little motion or action happening. Something like Patrick doing that doodle loo thing in "To SquarePants or Not To" would be a waste of space and images. However, especially with the newer seasons, the motion is more fluid and captures more in each frame, so limiting the images for those limits the expression of creativity and limits the person uploading the images as well
</p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Qwertyxp2000 the second wrote:
No Tan.
</p><p>How about we just try to implement my suggestion of the 200-image gallery limits on 400+ main episode galleries to reduce the potential piracy grey area?
</p>
</i></div>
<p>As for piracy grey area, there is no grey area. It either is piracy or it is not piracy. And again, a strict number of images limits creative capacity and what we are able to showcase. Especially with episodes like Feral Friends or Squirrel Jelly that are 15 minutes long </p>
<p>As for piracy grey area, there is no grey area. It either is piracy or it is not piracy. And again, a strict number of images limits creative capacity and what we are able to showcase. Especially with episodes like Feral Friends or Squirrel Jelly that are 15 minutes long </p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<div class="quote"><i>
<p>Spongebob456 wrote:
He folks, so I have some evidence here for this change. Take a read of the content and see what you think, thanks.
</p>
</i></div>
<p>I think we follow these guidelines pretty well. As it said in the conclusion, too few and it limits memorability. Too many and it confuses people. We have to find that balance, so 50 is not a good number as that is definitely too few. And SpongeBuddy Mania with 500+ is too many, so we need a range of images rather than a strict number, imo </p>
<p>I think we follow these guidelines pretty well. As it said in the conclusion, too few and it limits memorability. Too many and it confuses people. We have to find that balance, so 50 is not a good number as that is definitely too few. And SpongeBuddy Mania with 500+ is too many, so we need a range of images rather than a strict number, imo </p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<p>What if instead of just deleting some of the images we delete…
</p><p>the whole wiki? Ah, yes, I think that would solve our imaginary image problem then. As well as our imaginary copyright and SEO problems and every other problem that does or does not exist.
</p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)
<p>Let's think about this critically and not what our corporate masters are telling us to think about it.
</p><p>This is a conversation, not an actual voting or amending of anything to the wiki. It would be a shame if these passive comments suddenly gained momentum and changed how the wiki functions, simply because that's what happened on the games thread.
</p><p>I had intended on leaving this site because things have just grown stale, but of course, we have to bring up more things that do not matter for reasons unknown. I ask a question, and I get a politicians response that dodges the question and does not address my concerns in a constructive or positive manner.
</p><p>Imposing an images limit does what? It doesn't help any of the challenges that are being created for this thread. Literally there aren't any issues with the number of images. If this violated copyright under US law, you'd know about it. You've seen YouTube videos where anything that has too much content is blocked immediately by Viacom. If there were a problem with the number of STILL images, the problem would be addressed from the copyright and patent offices of the US Government and maybe by Staff just so they could look cool.
</p><p>Now I know you love to create these kinds of threads because it's only you that wants to implement these changes for *gasp* SEO. I can tell math is not your strong set, so let's break this down. You have the nerve, someone that does not do any work related to the galleries or upload any important images to try and impose a limit? Really? You think 171 is bad? Please visit SpongeBuddy Mania to know what a lot of images is: https://www.sbmania.net/pictures.php?id=121a That link is for Sand Castles in the Sand. There are 528 images. Not frame by frame, but a lot of redundant motion (especially seasons 5-8 with much less fluid dynamic motion). They haven't been addressed by the Department of Justice yet. And we think that a few extra images is a problem? For God's sake.
</p><p>Now, I haven't called you out by name yet, Spongebob456 (oop there it is), but in the words of Michael Jordon. Stop it. Get some help. You're not good at answering questions. You're not good with coming up with ideas. You're not really good for anything except, I dunno, just being there to create threads to fix problems your mind creates and then impose your ideological deficiency upon the rest of us on the wiki. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. You're trying to put a girdle on the images and they become underdeveloped and less attractive as a result. Wouldn't you want a more complete wiki with all the images to draw in more viewers and readers?
</p>
(Edited by Tanhamman)