img and signatures

[senoirsalsa]

can we please enable [img] tags on these message boards?and have allowed banners(restricted size of course) to have in the signatures?

senoirsalsa Reviewed by senoirsalsa on 09-19-2005. img and signatures can we please enable tags on these message boards?and have allowed banners(restricted size of course) to have in the signatures? Rating: 5

[dark0ne]

i think that would be a nice idea.

[tokosan]

not gonna happen

altho my sig would be the best

[phoenix]

Think of how many members there are, and the cost already of running this site.

The bandwidth would skyrocket, and it'd be ridiculous. Although banners are cool, there's simply no need on this site.

And I agree that tokosan's would be the best.

O rly?

[senoirsalsa]

[img] tags dont send the bandwith up,idiot,thats what the current attachment methode does,[img] tags requires a URL to a remote server of jpg gif png bmp ect,doing this and disableing attachments will save bandwith

[kiwi]

It never ceases to amaze me how ppl seem to what everything for nothing. Most of the ppl that want things aren't paying members, but they want all the bells and whistles.....

[Cannabis.com]

The IMG tag can be easily abused and track and log visitor IPs; present a potential security risk for visitors.

IMG tags would certainly save much bandwidth, but would greatly increase latency - more specifically, annoying pauses while the visitor's web browser resolves the domain, when applicable, of each linked image, establishes a connection to each resource, and retreives the data, potentially from various far-flung servers / networks; defeats the benefits of pipelining and other various speed enhancing tweaks.

In a nutshell, IMG tag is purposedly disabled for a better visitor experience - not allowing IMG tag eliminates many latency issues, enhances privacy / security, etc.

Ron

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

might we have a single board alone where we can post img tags? or would that also distrupt latency elsewhere?