View Single Post
Old 12 January 2008, 15:19   #48
. . Mouse . .
Charlie's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nowhere
Age: 50
Posts: 1,792
HOL is indeed a wonderful resource, my thanks and respect to all those who have made the site what it is.

I can see both sides of this (sorry, call me a fence-sitting liberal if you wish).
-As a 'user' I'm not at all happy about this development for all the reasons mentioned above
-But if I was a HOL team member I'd be pretty p*ssed off by now for all their reasons mentioned above.

Both viewpoints make good sense from the POV of those stating them, which unfortunately means there can be no common ground.
An 'Imp-Ass':
One POV or other has to back-down which will result in unhappiness & resentment on their part...
...not a happy situation whatever happens.

So, if either the HOL team is not to slowly drift away out of frustration or the 'community' loose interest in the site (either situation would be a tragedy) then an alternate solution MUST be found.

A few off the top of my head:
1) The HOL team will have already spent time & effort watermarking images, reversing that will involve some 'inertia'.
Whichever team-member created the watermark should be able to publish a 'brush' for a few popular art packages that can be used for easy removal of said watermark where people 'need' an unadulterated image...
...this should go some way to satisfying all parties.
2) There is watermarking software available that can 'invisibly' mark images. Users get their 'originals', HOL team get their 'proof' if they suspect other sites of leaching HOL material...
...other issues come to mind, though.
3) HOL could keep private alternate images with no watermark only available to registered members when logged-in.
That would add a layer of 'anti-leechness' to the site...
...but would require a redesign to allow for this.
Having said that from a personal POV no matter how useful I will NOT have anything to do with a resource site that requires me to register to gain access. (Issues of privacy & paranoia) So such a facility would therefore in my mind need to be an optional extra NOT a requirement.
One way to arrange suggestion #3) may be to say 'optional access' is available to any registered @ the EAB.

I'm sure there are other solutions...

Last edited by Charlie; 12 January 2008 at 15:43.
Charlie is offline  
Page generated in 0.04495 seconds with 10 queries