Hey Fodor's
Sep 21st, 2014, 07:27 PM
#23
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
edit would be nice.
<Yeah, great, but does your fourteen-year-old know how to pick (shakedown) "the best" hotels?> DITTO!
I was not impressed with the list, for one I couldn't afford any of those places. They need a budget fodor's forum pick next year.
<Yeah, great, but does your fourteen-year-old know how to pick (shakedown) "the best" hotels?> DITTO!
I was not impressed with the list, for one I couldn't afford any of those places. They need a budget fodor's forum pick next year.
Sep 21st, 2014, 07:42 PM
#25
Marriott Rewards Insiders site allows you to edit or delete your posts, use italics/bold font/underscores/etc with the click of an icon, spell check, upload photos, insert emoticons, send private messages to other Insiders, etc.
I agree that those features would be nice on Fodors.
I agree that those features would be nice on Fodors.
Sep 22nd, 2014, 01:26 AM
#26
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can get italics, bold, etc. by adding your own html tags. I unfortunately have an American laptop which has been redefined as Italian, and the "greater than" and "less than" signs got lost somewhere over the Atlantic. I can use tags easily on my desktop computer, but on this laptop, I would have to use arcane codes which I can't be bothered to remember.
Sep 22nd, 2014, 03:30 AM
#27
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand the negative comments about a facility to allow upload of photos.
Firstly sites like Facebook function perfectly ok whilst allowing this.
Secondly, who in their right mind would use Fodors as their default repository? The resolution, organisational ability and capacity is always going to be better on something like Flickr - hence I can't see any need to worry that someone would see Fodors as a holding place for all their pet and baby snaps.
Thirdly you can limit the amount of pics an individual can upload in case you do have the odd person who is too daft to realise any/all of the above.
Fourthly - its possible to impose copyright limits on pics and/or to block download - and tbh why is people using your photos any worse than using your quotes in guides. Could actually be mutually beneficial if Fodors were to pay a small amount to licence your pics for publication - still cheaper than them getting a pro photographer and how cool to have your pictures in a travel guide.
More than anything this, is the 21st century - the internet is a hugely visual medium and it's archaic not to have a fuller range of features.
Btw, I agree with the calls for an edit function and pm function.
Firstly sites like Facebook function perfectly ok whilst allowing this.
Secondly, who in their right mind would use Fodors as their default repository? The resolution, organisational ability and capacity is always going to be better on something like Flickr - hence I can't see any need to worry that someone would see Fodors as a holding place for all their pet and baby snaps.
Thirdly you can limit the amount of pics an individual can upload in case you do have the odd person who is too daft to realise any/all of the above.
Fourthly - its possible to impose copyright limits on pics and/or to block download - and tbh why is people using your photos any worse than using your quotes in guides. Could actually be mutually beneficial if Fodors were to pay a small amount to licence your pics for publication - still cheaper than them getting a pro photographer and how cool to have your pictures in a travel guide.
More than anything this, is the 21st century - the internet is a hugely visual medium and it's archaic not to have a fuller range of features.
Btw, I agree with the calls for an edit function and pm function.
Sep 22nd, 2014, 03:48 AM
#28
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<i>The second problem is the spammers. I've seen what can happen when "anyone" can upload photos to a group or forum website. It's not pretty. Sure, moderators could remove the pictures, but that would soon turn into a fulltime job. And any "really nasty" picture that slipped through could be seen by lots of people.</i>
Easily remedied by not allowing people to post images or links until they have made a certain number of posts. Many forums do this already.
All of the issues/concerns being discussed have been addressed by proper forum software and administration for over 10 years now.
It's time for Fodor's to get with the times.
Easily remedied by not allowing people to post images or links until they have made a certain number of posts. Many forums do this already.
All of the issues/concerns being discussed have been addressed by proper forum software and administration for over 10 years now.
It's time for Fodor's to get with the times.
Sep 22nd, 2014, 04:13 AM
#29
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RM67, The original post did not say anything about limiting uploads of photos. Trust me - when a forum offers the chance to upload photos people do, and abuse the facility.
Yes, you can put a watermark on your photo, but unless it is so obtrusive as to block the photo it can be cut or cloned out. You can reduce theft by uploading low quality photos, but in this day and age who wants to look at a low quality photo on their super duper high res monitor?
Fodor's would have to block downloading of photos.
Can you seriously see Fodor's paying someone for the use of a photo published on their website? They would be pretty unique if they did. The standard licence for websites allows the website owners (and that includes the likes of Flickr) to use the photos for free, and sometimes even to pass them on to third parties for free too, so you have no control over who uses your images, or what they are used for.
Who are we to put professional photographers livelihoods at risk by allowing Fodor's to use our photos for free, or in return for yet another free guide?
Basically Fodor's remains a message board, not a forum, and we just have to accept that. I very much doubt they will change it - they have only ever done minor tweaks in the past.
Yes, you can put a watermark on your photo, but unless it is so obtrusive as to block the photo it can be cut or cloned out. You can reduce theft by uploading low quality photos, but in this day and age who wants to look at a low quality photo on their super duper high res monitor?
Fodor's would have to block downloading of photos.
Can you seriously see Fodor's paying someone for the use of a photo published on their website? They would be pretty unique if they did. The standard licence for websites allows the website owners (and that includes the likes of Flickr) to use the photos for free, and sometimes even to pass them on to third parties for free too, so you have no control over who uses your images, or what they are used for.
Who are we to put professional photographers livelihoods at risk by allowing Fodor's to use our photos for free, or in return for yet another free guide?
Basically Fodor's remains a message board, not a forum, and we just have to accept that. I very much doubt they will change it - they have only ever done minor tweaks in the past.
Sep 22nd, 2014, 04:34 AM
#30
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hetismij, I participate in plenty of forums that do allow photo upload and/or limit the number of pictures added at any one time and there is no problem with abuse of the facilty. Why would it be a problem for Fodors to block download? Plenty of sites do this already. You are wrong about Flickr - it has multiple licensing options and you the user get to select what degree of sharing is or is not allowed. Look up Creative Commons. Look up their agreement with Getty Images. And if you are worried about putting pro photographers out of work by allowing the use of your images professionally maybe we should all stop giving travel advice on here toin case it puts travel writers out of work too.
Last but not least - anyone who does not want their images shared on a website that allows photo hosting and sharing has the option not to upload any. So why try and limit the options for people that do want to do that and are happy to do so?
Last but not least - anyone who does not want their images shared on a website that allows photo hosting and sharing has the option not to upload any. So why try and limit the options for people that do want to do that and are happy to do so?
Sep 22nd, 2014, 05:42 AM
#33
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hetismij2 writes- The original post did not say anything about limiting uploads of photos.
______
Yes hetismij2, I was not trying to enact legislation, I was merely making a suggestion. But if I had included limitation of photos that would have Section 37.9-4a(c).
______
Yes hetismij2, I was not trying to enact legislation, I was merely making a suggestion. But if I had included limitation of photos that would have Section 37.9-4a(c).
Sep 22nd, 2014, 06:26 AM
#34
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some strange thinking processes going on here.
Spellcheck is for people who cannot spell. Don't write words you don't know how to spell correctly. If that limits your available vocabulary too much, go back to school and learn to spell. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling
I find that many posters not only can't spell, they make many grammar and punctuation mistakes as well.
Most spelling mistakes such as your instead of you're or their, there and they're will not be caught by spellcheck in any case.
Don't blame Fodor's for your poor spelling, blame yourself for not learning how to spell in the first place. Fodor's by the way is spelled with an apostrophe. Is there a readingcheck function available anywhere that does the reading for you? You read the word Fodor's every time you come onto this site and yet cannot spell it correctly.
Spellcheck is for those too lazy to proofread what they write (not right) before they post it.
Regarding photos, just what photos would anyone want to upload on Fodor's and for what reason? I do hope the desire for this is not so that people can bore me with their holiday snapshots.
This is a forum, what does the word forum mean to you? The definition of forum is a place to discuss a subject. The word discuss means to examine or consider a subject in speech or writing. Nowhere in that do I see any need to post photos. Speech or writing are all that are required. I for one am not the least bit interested in anyone's snapshots.
Spellcheck is for people who cannot spell. Don't write words you don't know how to spell correctly. If that limits your available vocabulary too much, go back to school and learn to spell. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling
I find that many posters not only can't spell, they make many grammar and punctuation mistakes as well.
Most spelling mistakes such as your instead of you're or their, there and they're will not be caught by spellcheck in any case.
Don't blame Fodor's for your poor spelling, blame yourself for not learning how to spell in the first place. Fodor's by the way is spelled with an apostrophe. Is there a readingcheck function available anywhere that does the reading for you? You read the word Fodor's every time you come onto this site and yet cannot spell it correctly.
Spellcheck is for those too lazy to proofread what they write (not right) before they post it.
Regarding photos, just what photos would anyone want to upload on Fodor's and for what reason? I do hope the desire for this is not so that people can bore me with their holiday snapshots.
This is a forum, what does the word forum mean to you? The definition of forum is a place to discuss a subject. The word discuss means to examine or consider a subject in speech or writing. Nowhere in that do I see any need to post photos. Speech or writing are all that are required. I for one am not the least bit interested in anyone's snapshots.
Sep 22nd, 2014, 07:37 AM
#35
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<This is a forum, what does the word forum mean to you? >
A place to live, for some.
< I for one am not the least bit interested in anyone's snapshots.>
This is why simply linking to photos stored elsewhere works so well. Those who are interested can click over, the rest can ignore. I have seen some great photos by posters here.
A place to live, for some.
< I for one am not the least bit interested in anyone's snapshots.>
This is why simply linking to photos stored elsewhere works so well. Those who are interested can click over, the rest can ignore. I have seen some great photos by posters here.
Sep 22nd, 2014, 07:46 AM
#36
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grammar scolds say nothing elegantly.
Spelling is not an indication of one's intelligence but as evidenced here, another's intolerance.
I am a terrible speller, but I will measure my vocabulary, including the etymology of the words, against anyone who complains about spelling.
Spelling is not an indication of one's intelligence but as evidenced here, another's intolerance.
I am a terrible speller, but I will measure my vocabulary, including the etymology of the words, against anyone who complains about spelling.
