[Boatanchors] picture

[Mike Hanz]

Those are all arguments which have been rolled out before ad infinitum, 
and certainly there is a learning curve that the list members have to 
tread, like the photo size protocol that other list members are always 
delighted to politely catch and correct in the spirit of education.  But 
in general the other photo capable lists I frequent, like Al Klase' 
excellent MRCA, Glowbugs (on Google Groups), and even the stodgy AWA 
reflector on Yahoo Groups seem to have it well under control. While I'm 
not that interested in shack photos either, clickable thumbnails allow a 
degree of control by the recipient are part of some reflector packages, 
as well as most of the web forums I belong to.  On the other hand, the 
boatanchors list at qth.net is not one I count on for my interest areas, 
so I have absolutely no problem with it remaining in the rapidly 
receding technological past.

73
Mike  KC4TOS

On 8/2/2014 7:49 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> I'm okay with photos BUT the problem I see is that we will have hams
> unknowingly sending HUGE files without bothering to insure the photo
> file is reasonably small.  QRZ.com automatically reduces photo file
> sizes on any uploaded for a ham's qrz.com page and we would need
> something similar.  Otherwise, some guy would send out a photo that's
> 10 Mb and my poor cheap-ham DSL connection would sit there grinding
> away for 10 minutes--I would not like that.
> Not all of us are blowing $60, $90 / month on a high speed cable
> connection--some of us cheeeep hams are still on < 100 Kb lines.  My
> brother had a penchant  for sending me huge photo files from his
> iPhone (he is on cable) until I persuaded him to stop--it was pretty
> annoying.
>
> 73
>
> Rob
> K5UJ
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:58 PM, WA5CAB--- via Boatanchors
> <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
>> I disagree.  Allowing unconditional quantities of photos is a waste of time
>> and space.  Especially as most of them are made with dumb phones and are
>> out of focus.  Plus in the very rare case where the photo is actually of
>> interest (not of some guy's civilian hamshack, which I could care less about), it
>> is inconvenient to not possible to save the photo for future use or
>> reference.  Photos uploaded to an accessible (doesn't require setting up an account
>> with) website are easy to look at and to save if worth saving.