Sign in to view picture ~ loop hole (10)

This post is on the Website help web board.

Tue 8 Mar 11, 10:55 PM
just_tope
6 yrs

Not sure if admin are aware of this, but photo's which mean you have to log in to view, are viewable elsewhere.

I've uploaded a pic today and I know it's not been authroised yet. I know this because if I log off and go to my pictures it asks me to sign in to view.

HOWEVER.

If you know someone has uploaded a pic you can click on their wall and it shows a thumbnail of photo's which have been uploaded, which you can view bigger by scrolling over.

Is this an oversight?

Just checking. Doesnt bother me but it may bother some.

Ta.

I'm not antisocial, I just dont like you.
Somewhere, I'm not a scatterbrain.
Carpe moi x

8 Mar 11, 11:58 PM
Top_Class
UK(GU), 2 yrs

scatterbrain wrote:
Sign in to view picture ~ loop hole

Not sure if admin are aware of this, but photo's which mean you have to log in to view, are viewable elsewhere.

I've uploaded a pic today and I know it's not been authroised yet. I know this because if I log off and go to my pictures it asks me to sign in to view.

HOWEVER.

If you know someone has uploaded a pic you can click on their wall and it shows a thumbnail of photo's which have been uploaded, which you can view bigger by scrolling over.

Is this an oversight?

Just checking. Doesnt bother me but it may bother some.

Ta.

I agree with your observation of the phenomenon.

I signed-out and looked at your wall as a guest user just now. Your wall entry:

"scatterbrain uploads a new picture titled "nekkid moi" (8 Mar 11, 8:10 PM)"

shows a thumbnail of the picture and if I mouse-over the thumbnail I see that picture at its 'large' resolution during the mouse-over browser-event. When I click the picture's link in the wall-entry's text I do indeed get "Sign in to view picture".

Of course, once signed-in to post this reply, I have no trouble viewing the picture.

"Fork handles?" "No, not 'fork handles' ... four candles."

9 Mar 11, 9:32 AM
wonderer
UK, 5 yrs

Oh no - have I missed a photo of a naked scatterbrain?

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" (Albert Einstein)
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/226772/

9 Mar 11, 11:27 AM
Top_Class
UK(GU), 2 yrs

scatterbrain wrote:

Top_Class wrote:

scatterbrain wrote:
Sign in to view picture ~ loop hole

Not sure if admin are aware of this, but photo's which mean you have to log in to view, are viewable elsewhere.

I've uploaded a pic today and I know it's not been authroised yet. I know this because if I log off and go to my pictures it asks me to sign in to view.

HOWEVER.

If you know someone has uploaded a pic you can click on their wall and it shows a thumbnail of photo's which have been uploaded, which you can view bigger by scrolling over.

Is this an oversight?

Just checking. Doesnt bother me but it may bother some.

Ta.

I agree with your observation of the phenomenon.

I signed-out and looked at your wall as a guest user just now. Your wall entry:

"scatterbrain uploads a new picture titled "nekkid moi" (8 Mar 11, 8:10 PM)"

Of course, once signed-in to post this reply, I have no trouble viewing the picture.

So, basically you've just agreed with me and put what I said into your words. AND you've linked to my picture (now removed by the way ffs), which there was absolutely no need to do. You're like that muppet who started snaplinks aren't you and like to link to other people's photo's.

Helpful, ta.

Corroborating an observed phenomenon is the scientific way of placing someone else's one and only observation into a credible domain. Without independent corroboration, a one-off observation looks like the witterings of an idiot. There again, some people may be too thick to know the utility of corroboration and would prefer to be thought of as an idiot anyway.

I guess the word 'nekkid' doesn't actual mean 'naked', unless misinformation was the order of the day or the wrong photo had been uploaded. Anyway I thought it was very artistic and even managed to avoid putting even 1 nipple on display, an achievement indeed for a photo of a 'nekkid' person.

FFS, knickers-in-a-twist about a non-revealing photo of a 'nekkid' person.

"Fork handles?" "No, not 'fork handles' ... four candles."

9 Mar 11, 12:04 PM
IndelibleMarker
UK(E), 6 yrs

scatterbrain wrote:
So, basically you've just agreed with me <snip>.

He sure did. What an arsehole.

He should have thrown a hissy fit about nothing in particular - then we'd all think he was supr kewl.

Patrick
IndelibleMarker
Specialist Extreme Professional Dominant
@U35Munch - London U35 Munch Details

9 Mar 11, 12:29 PM
IndelibleMarker
UK(E), 6 yrs

scatterbrain wrote:

IndelibleMarker wrote:

scatterbrain wrote:
So, basically you've just agreed with me <snip>.

He sure did. What an arsehole.

He should have thrown a hissy fit about nothing in particular - then we'd all think he was supr kewl.

I think you're being a bit kind to the poor gentleman. He's obviously not of sound mind.

Anyway, must dash. I have to get Collins english dictionary to revise their definition of the word naked to include "nipples are mandatory"

Don't you think you should be kind and understanding of those who are not of sound mind? Whether he is or isn't is irrelevant now.

With a comment like that you clearly believe that mentally handicapped people should be treated with disdain. That's just not kewl. You should be ashamed.

Patrick
IndelibleMarker
Specialist Extreme Professional Dominant
@U35Munch - London U35 Munch Details

9 Mar 11, 1:26 PM
Top_Class
UK(GU), 2 yrs

scatterbrain wrote:
Did I upset you by any chance? lol

Firstly my sweet, I do not need corroboration of "phenomenon" from yourself, or anyone actually. Website help is a place to bring anomolies to the attention of Admin and others who may be able to help. This particular "phenomenon" as you like to call it does not require your input at all, but thankyou so much for taking time out of your busy schedule to get involved in a)agreeing with me and b)having a fit.

Now to the word nekkid. That is what that particular photograph is called on my computer, not what I called it on IC. Nor would I have called it that. So, as far as IC is concerned, I uploaded a photo which was titled "Velcro'd myself to the floor again" and you're upset because you couldn't see my nipples. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem awfully upset over the word "nekkid".

So, in summary, you have called me an idiot and thick and got quite flushed at the thought of a "nekkid" photograph that wasn't actually naked (which is why it wasn't titled naked on my private computer). You don't get out much do you sweetheart.

Top_Class wrote:

FFS, knickers-in-a-twist about a non-revealing photo of a 'nekkid' person.

As is often said by others, it's hardly the fault of the author if something written about a general case is interpreted by the reader personally.

I think you'll find it was @wonderer who was getting flushed:

wonderer wrote:
Oh no - have I missed a photo of a naked scatterbrain?

I was merely doing the world a favour by saying that there was nothing to get flushed about, although I gave you credit for the artistic merit of the shot.

"Fork handles?" "No, not 'fork handles' ... four candles."

9 Mar 11, 1:36 PM
DominantMind
UK(N), 15 mths

Is this the right room for an argument?

Tall, Dark and Handsome are all words...

9 Mar 11, 1:46 PM
IndelibleMarker
UK(E), 6 yrs

I think it's all over now.

There is only one thing left to say:

TOGTFO

Patrick
IndelibleMarker
Specialist Extreme Professional Dominant
@U35Munch - London U35 Munch Details

9 Mar 11, 2:24 PM
River_Deep
UK, 6 yrs

DominantMind wrote:
Is this the right room for an argument?

I think the argument was in someone's head.