Ziggy741 wrote:

Techno-CAT wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

What if it encouraged spam?

You're saying it might encourage spam..

Ziggy741 wrote:

..I might also later make one that can be used in the forums.

..but also saying you might make the thing that you just said might encourage spam later.


what am I missing?

Anyway, support. Adding a kumquat emoji would be a fun addition

One that is a real emoji would be easier to use. I also removed the picture because I heard that TinyPic can have viruses.

tinypic does not have viruses. only if it is hacked can it have viruses. and in that instance, cubeupload can as well.

Saiid wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

Techno-CAT wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

What if it encouraged spam?

You're saying it might encourage spam..

Ziggy741 wrote:

..I might also later make one that can be used in the forums.

..but also saying you might make the thing that you just said might encourage spam later.


what am I missing?

Anyway, support. Adding a kumquat emoji would be a fun addition

One that is a real emoji would be easier to use. I also removed the picture because I heard that TinyPic can have viruses.

tinypic does not have viruses. only if it is hacked can it have viruses. and in that instance, cubeupload can as well.

TinyPic can have ads that have viruses. So you should use Cubeupload.

The4thPixel wrote:

No support. The kumquat joke has gotten old and to be honest it's just getting annoying.

So you're not supporting based on your subjective opinion that the emoji is annoying?

Wouldn't it be best to judge a suggestion based on the way the majority of users would feel about it, not just yourself?

I certainly support, because the kumquat has become a part of forum culture just like waffles - which is now an emoji - became a part of site culture in the 1.4 days.

Maybe we don't need a kumquat emoji for comments, but an official kumquat emoji in the forums would be simply natural.

Of course, the good news is that we don't need an official one because the forums support external images. Maybe I'll try making one soon…

Ziggy741 wrote:

Saiid wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

Techno-CAT wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

What if it encouraged spam?

You're saying it might encourage spam..

Ziggy741 wrote:

..I might also later make one that can be used in the forums.

..but also saying you might make the thing that you just said might encourage spam later.


what am I missing?

Anyway, support. Adding a kumquat emoji would be a fun addition

One that is a real emoji would be easier to use. I also removed the picture because I heard that TinyPic can have viruses.

tinypic does not have viruses. only if it is hacked can it have viruses. and in that instance, cubeupload can as well.

TinyPic can have ads that have viruses. So you should use Cubeupload.

Well why would you leave the ads there? Also, you won't get a virus unless the ad downloads a file.

Saiid wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

Saiid wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

Techno-CAT wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

What if it encouraged spam?

You're saying it might encourage spam..

Ziggy741 wrote:

..I might also later make one that can be used in the forums.

..but also saying you might make the thing that you just said might encourage spam later.


what am I missing?

Anyway, support. Adding a kumquat emoji would be a fun addition

One that is a real emoji would be easier to use. I also removed the picture because I heard that TinyPic can have viruses.

tinypic does not have viruses. only if it is hacked can it have viruses. and in that instance, cubeupload can as well.

TinyPic can have ads that have viruses. So you should use Cubeupload.

Well why would you leave the ads there? Also, you won't get a virus unless the ad downloads a file.

Look at https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/69912/ to see what some users said about TinyPic.

Ziggy741 wrote:

Look at https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/69912/ to see what some users said about TinyPic.

The image doesn't have the ads, the website where the image is uploaded does, and so no one is at risk here except for the person who uploaded the image.

Sheep_maker wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

Look at https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/69912/ to see what some users said about TinyPic.

The image doesn't have the ads, the website where the image is uploaded does, and so no one is at risk here except for the person who uploaded the image.

Exactly. Also, the things said in that topic were only relevant if the person clicked on an ad, not if they just viewed it. Also, AdBlock, or, for a more manual solution, use FireFox with the add-on Lightbeam, where you can block select domains from even sending an HTTP request to your browser

Sheep_maker wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

Look at https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/69912/ to see what some users said about TinyPic.

The image doesn't have the ads, the website where the image is uploaded does, and so no one is at risk here except for the person who uploaded the image.

I think that Cubeupload is better.

Ziggy741 wrote:

Sheep_maker wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

Look at https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/69912/ to see what some users said about TinyPic.

The image doesn't have the ads, the website where the image is uploaded does, and so no one is at risk here except for the person who uploaded the image.

I think that Cubeupload is better.

We all have opinions.

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

The4thPixel wrote:

No support. The kumquat joke has gotten old and to be honest it's just getting annoying.

So you're not supporting based on your subjective opinion that the emoji is annoying?

Wouldn't it be best to judge a suggestion based on the way the majority of users would feel about it, not just yourself?.

It's my opinion, disrespecting it is a reportable offense. And a lot of the time… let's just be honest here, it doesn't always matter if a suggestion gets support or not, the ST will add it if THEY want to. This is THEIR website.

Hope that cleared things up

The4thPixel wrote:

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

The4thPixel wrote:

No support. The kumquat joke has gotten old and to be honest it's just getting annoying.

So you're not supporting based on your subjective opinion that the emoji is annoying?

Wouldn't it be best to judge a suggestion based on the way the majority of users would feel about it, not just yourself?.

It's my opinion, disrespecting it is a reportable offense.

Disrespecting what?

The4thPixel wrote:

And a lot of the time… let's just be honest here, it doesn't always matter if a suggestion gets support or not, the ST will add it if THEY want to. This is THEIR website.

Hope that cleared things up

But that's not the point of the suggestions forum. The point of the suggestions forum is to generate ideas based on an idealistic view of the website (i.e. the Scratch Team has time to implement everything) and then discuss and refine those suggestions so that, based on an objective point of view, they would be of the most use to as many people as possible.

The suggestions forum is not just a playground for us to have fun in - it is meant so that users can generate ideas that will work as well for the site as possible. In general, it is really hard to design new features for a website / program, and letting the users develop the new ideas themselves basically means that the Scratch Team does not have to do that part of implementing the feature - and it means that they do not have to second-guess the users on what they want.

So sure, a valid point to make would be “some Scratchers, including myself, find the kumquat meme to be annoying - so emoji spam with a new kumquat emoji could potentially be worse than the current emoji spam.” But “I don't like it” is not a valid point, because it doesn't make a statement about how the suggestion would impact the website - only how it would impact yourself.

Saiid wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

Sheep_maker wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

Look at https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/69912/ to see what some users said about TinyPic.

The image doesn't have the ads, the website where the image is uploaded does, and so no one is at risk here except for the person who uploaded the image.

I think that Cubeupload is better.

We all have opinions.

You should use Cubeupload the next time you want to do an image in the forums. It's safer. Let's now get back on topic.

<offtopic/>
Why were you guys talking about image hosting, anyway?

Ziggy741 wrote:

Saiid wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

Sheep_maker wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

Look at https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/69912/ to see what some users said about TinyPic.

The image doesn't have the ads, the website where the image is uploaded does, and so no one is at risk here except for the person who uploaded the image.

I think that Cubeupload is better.

We all have opinions.

You should use Cubeupload the next time you want to do an image in the forums. It's safer. Let's now get back on topic.

It's not.

pianogirl84 wrote:

<offtopic/>
Why were you guys talking about image hosting, anyway?

Dunno.

Saiid wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

Saiid wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

Sheep_maker wrote:

Ziggy741 wrote:

Look at https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/69912/ to see what some users said about TinyPic.

The image doesn't have the ads, the website where the image is uploaded does, and so no one is at risk here except for the person who uploaded the image.

I think that Cubeupload is better.

We all have opinions.

You should use Cubeupload the next time you want to do an image in the forums. It's safer. Let's now get back on topic.

It's not.

pianogirl84 wrote:

<offtopic/>
Why were you guys talking about image hosting, anyway?

Dunno.

Yes it is. Did you look at the topic I linked to? NOW LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC.