-2

First time visitors cannot upload images.

This is very annoying I would imagine for both parties!

Can we create something which (for a totally wild example), when a first time user tries to upload an image, they are prompted with a 'task' such as read the help section and then check the box which states they understand (pretty much a disclaimer). Or something along these lines.

Or even having an offline version of the image (so they can post an image, but some one has to approve the image first until their rep is high enough).

Edit

I know it only takes 10 rep but this is not the point. It means the user is possibly presented with a frustration. Asking them to upload to another site so we can then embed is not professional and can only serve to put people off...

Any way, just thoughts.

And a post just comes up where this is (IMO) needed. https://superuser.com/questions/644733/windows7-invisible-space-at-the-left-hand-side-of-primary-monitor

5
  • 5
    It only takes 10 rep to remove that restriction, and you can always put links to images. Typically in those cases a well meaning user will edit the link into an actual image pretty quickly, while verifying that it's a relevant image.
    – nhinkle Mod
    Commented Sep 12, 2013 at 16:20
  • 1
    Personally I feel that the whole "high rep lets you do useful things" system is foolish to begin with, except for moderation tools which reasonably aren't needed to ask and answer questions. Commenting, talking in chat, and posting images to i.stack.imgur.com, and possibly also voting (in both directions) should not be tied to rep, IMHO... but if you don't, then you also open them up to abuse...
    – allquixotic
    Commented Sep 12, 2013 at 16:48
  • 4
    It really comes down to whether you'd rather have an orderly site that's feasible to moderate while denying certain classes of users access to features that they'd find useful, versus having a chaotic site with rampant 1-rep feature abusers making constantly new accounts and downvoting and posting spam images, that's harder to moderate. Unfortunately the middle ground seems to be the status quo, and any change in either direction would further imbalance the site, IMHO.
    – allquixotic
    Commented Sep 12, 2013 at 16:49
  • 2
    @somequixotic There's good reasons for those. Voting is something restricted for new users to make sockpuppets nontrivial. Comments don't bump, so that's an avenue for spam. Embedding images in a post is potentially very dangerous (a lot of us browse at work, school, etc., and images can easily be NSFW or even completely illegal, with no warning). All require very small amounts of rep. The differing levels are a little weirder, but I suppose it's one way to keep people interested - the thrill of 'unlocking' things.
    – Bob
    Commented Sep 12, 2013 at 16:54
  • 2
    I strongly oppose this request, given the (textual) crap we regularly see from unregistered 1-rep users (a stellar example from earlier today for 10k+ rep users able to view deleted posts is here). Not interested in having SU become a shock site because idiot students are bored in class.
    – Daniel Beck Mod
    Commented Sep 12, 2013 at 17:20

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

Low-rep users actually can upload images with the built-in upload tool (to stack.imgur.com). What they can't do is display those images inline, which is what the upload tool inserts. It's a little unintuitive that a warning appears saying you can't insert images, when the link by itself would have been fine.

An improvement could be made here - if a user does not have the necessary privilege to embed an image, then the upload tool should insert a plain link - a one-character difference.

There's a good reason for this restriction - many of us browse this site at work or school, and we expect work-safe content. Inline images can easily be not-safe-for-work (nudity, violence, even gaming content in some workplaces), or even blatantly illegal. The rep threshold is low, but it's enough to prevent mass-spamming.

2
  • Yes, I can see why the restriction is there and I'm not against it... and in fact, the tool to upload but not display is exactly 4th paragraph is suggesting... Having the tool to upload and leave it in a waiting state for approval would resolve both sides (no issue about showing the fault with a screen shot and no worries about it being a 'dodgy' pic).
    – Dave
    Commented Sep 13, 2013 at 7:06
  • @Bob - I agree the upload tool should either inline or add the link to the question depending on the reputation. People would still be nice and inline screenshots for those who can't inline on their own.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Sep 13, 2013 at 18:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .