I always thought so. It makes for a nice perk. But then Mac Diva might make some biting comment about me almost flashing my tits on my website for hits and I might feel bad...

If it wasn't for the fact that its true! ;)

If you got it, flaunt it. God won't let you keep it forever anyway... may as well enjoy it for as long as gravity lets you!

it's a good idea. might even give the posts a more professional look...as in a newspaper column with the writer's photo placed at the top/left.

Galleries, please-atleast for Ms. Tek's posts!

With the right formatting - the first letter of the piece could be a drop down character which would be about the size of a thumbnail picture next to it. Would look pretty sharp I think :)

I dunno.... I'm thinking a photo of me might just scare away the visitors.

I would never post a picture of myself.

I think it would be great for those who want to do it - I'm a little concerned about those who would rather not but who will feel pressured, and of course there is the issue of our pseudonymous writers.

Does anyone object to making it an option?

If you want to remain anon... you could always just post a pic of your eyeball or something.

"THE EYE THAT SAW EVERYTHING"

Does anyone object to making it an option?

no, but if they don't want their picture displayed then we should substitute a photo of either michael moore or rush limbaugh, dependin' on the politcal bent.

ok, mebbe not.

I think it helps the reader know who's speaking. Right now we're a blur of articles about everything. Pics would help the reader pick the writers they like. I don't read George Will because of the bowtie and the pursed lips. I read Molly Ivens because she's the last woman in the world with a curly permanent. So it might help. But I think you're right to be worried about those who are shy. Those people can have a picture placeholder, an icon, you know, like the anonymous shadow? This would diminish them sufficiently to cause them to go to Sears and get a nice formal shot.

I like it, but many won't. Survey?

I'll even be nice.


If you decide to do this for the first two weeks, I'll adjust the size of the photos and do any touch ups if you email them to me.

I promise not to take your head and sitck it on the body of a porn star.

I vote "optional" or "no". I personally try to remain behind the last thin scrim of anonymity available to me in this age of referrer logging, and my pseudonymous "johno" is as far as I care to go in positively self-identifying. (Then again, this is the internet. Who's to say any of us actually look like our so-called photos?)

Not that I'm disfigured or anything. Actually, I'm pretty hott in a dishievelled kind of Johnny Depp kind of way minus the gothy crapola. I just balk at my lovable mug being hooked to the drivel and pap I issue forth periodically. Also, having no image to link to anyone makes it easier to ignore Mac Diva and Al when they start getting all catty on each other.

If, however, we could substitute any image for an actual us-photo, I'd love to have my posts on blogcritics accompanied by a nice shot of Bill Cosby making that funny face he makes when he's trying to mug for the camera and remind us that he was once funny.

damn, that was exactly the kind of touch up work i was hoping you meant =+P

Actually, I'm pretty hott in a dishievelled kind of Johnny Depp kind of way minus the gothy crapola.

I'm kinda hot in a lumpy, dorky, George Costanza with a goatee way. In fact, I might be a great example of why icons for us would not be a good idea.

Well Jadester... just for you... but we won't tell anyone ;)

No. Anything that further distracts from the alleged point of the site -- writing critiques of products and news -- is a bad idea. Some people already refer to Blogcritics as Blog Creeps. Picturing the creeps won't help. What would? Better writers. Getting rid of the mainly Right Wing pretenders who make the comments an embarassing mess, and don't really do much blogging anyway. Enforcing copyright law so that more and more of the entries are not just stolen material with someone's name on it.

pictures would be cool with me, as long as it is optional. and as long as i can use claire danes' photo. ;)

As long as the photos are optional, I don't see why not.

Out of curiosity, I googled "blog creeps" and came up with three entries, none of which actually pertain to BC. Here are the results (with quotes) and I even did one without quotes. I don't see any references to Blogcritics as "blog creeps." Care to back that up, MD?

I vote yes for optional, but those who prefer not to upload an image, even an anonymous or obscuring one, will inevitably get slapped with a question mark of negativity. "What are they hiding? Why aren't they playing along?" That sort of thing.

The other side is folks using icons here like some folks do on LiveJournal, etc.

And on the gripping hand, wasn't paying for bandwidth one of the problems BC was experiencing? How do icons help with that?

What BC is now works now. But pictures would be helpful unless it would traumatize a blogger to whom anonymity is important. Therefore there should be no restrictions on how contributors represent themselves. A self-portrait, even photoshopped, is a self-portrait. BCs should enjoy the freedom of a pseudograph as they enjoy with a pseudonym. The false persona is an unremoveable part of the blogging phenomenon. We should not enforce a strict picture policy. We're not the DMV.

I do wonder if we're not ready for an updated design that would be more category-friendly.

"Music" is a category, but what kind of music? Blues? Rock? Baroque? Right now the reader has to hunt through recent headlines to see what pops out.

What I'm suggesting is a beta menu that splits us up by type rather than the first letter of our names. If there are six hip-hop critics, they should be featured together. All three Republicans could have their own corner to stand in, and the Blue Team would take the rest, lolling about unemployed.

This would also go a long way toward solving the Ms. Tek Surprise (which is when you discover that all your online friends are old farts). Categories keep likes with likes. When people who like the sort of thing they like are enjoying themselves, they tend to leave their polar opposites alone. Less fighting, more substance and sticking to the point.

We can dream, can't we?

THe fights? They're dangerous opportunities. If we could channel them into an online "show" and actually give it a name, like, BC NOW, or BC RIGHT NOW, or BC THIS INSTANT YOU SON OF A BITCH, and put it in the sidebar as an ad for ourselves, we could pile on like wrestlers and the worse it would get, the more the audience would love it (at least those who love that sort of thing would).

Pictures? I think they're secondary to overall design considerations. This is not a criticism of Phillip Winn's work. Just an observation that as organisms grow they need to stop and look in the mirror sometimes to see what kind of blob they are.

"What kind of blob am I?" --Steve Lawrence

Good point, Mike Hollihan. The site could use some stripping away of frippery, instead of adding more.

Tom Johnson, I did not say anything about the term 'blog creeps,' being all over the Web. I said it was something I've heard of. Learn to read.

Tom Johnson, I did not say anything about the term 'blog creeps,' being all over the Web. I said it was something I've heard of. Learn to read.

I can read just fine, and so can everyone else. Here's what I read:

Some people already refer to Blogcritics as Blog Creeps.

Did anyone read any differently?

Let's see some examples. I'd really like to see this term in action. From my minimal research, I see absolutely nothing. You're the one always getting on everyone about backing up their claims, I'd like to see you do what you always tell everyone else to do.

I'm all for it!

However, while I have many pics on my computer, I have none that are "online" and don't really know how to do that.

If it's something added to MT where I send a pic to Eric or Phillip, and they automatically add it to my entries, that's cool. Otherwise, I'm pretty much screwed.

Anyway, I like the idea. And of course, it should be purely optional.

Tom Johnson, go back to just using Blogcritics as a place to throw up spam promoting your business. And, no, I will not be posting personal email for your edification. Besides, isn't there a John Birch Society meeting you're missing?

And, absolutely not to a picture of a balding, obese, drooling dwarf.

I've been involved with people in emailed conversations where the term "blog creeps" has been used to delineate "good" people (blogcritics) and "bad" people (blog creeps) and, by some, as an alternate name for the site, which some believe is increasingly overrun by the latter. (Mileage varies as to how different people group individuals under the two headings.)

Maybe I have people mixed up, Mac Diva, (and if so, I will stand corrected) but I think Tom was the guy who was shutting his site (unproductivity?) down. If that's the case then your comments in #25 don't fit. Perhaps you have him mixed up with somebody else?

Links to a picture would probably be best. This would save bandwidth and time, not needing to load a picture with each and every page view.

Also, you could reasonably use bigger and better pictures that way.

With hundreds of writers on site, pictures would definitely be useful to readers in sorting things out.

Heck, I ain't shy. I'll go first.

Self-restraint makes the baby Jesus cry.

All I'll say is nice beret, Al. It accentuates your best features. Evan Bayh is going to have a hard time dealing with your manly charisma if you ever get on a debate and ride in on your unicorn (I mean high horse).

The rest of you are just special too.

Thanks for sharing. That is all.

Tom Johnson, go back to just using Blogcritics as a place to throw up spam promoting your business.

MD, we've been over this before. I have no business to promote.

TDavid, thanks for pointing out what should be obvious to MD, but she doesn't actually function in the real world. She's been harping about some "business" she thinks I have because I had my PORTFOLIO on my site. I'm a graphic/web designer by profession - meaning, I work at a large corporation doing graphic and web design. I haven't done freelance work for years - I value my freetime and my day job pays me more than enough. I certainly have NEVER advertised design work from my site - I invite any and all to prove otherwise. What was on a previous version of my site was an online portfolio (linked to Merriam-Webster so MD can learn what that is - she apparently doesn't know the term.) These are useful things for a designer to have in case he needs to go find a new job, don't you agree? It's pretty hard for a company to hire a designer if they can't actually see some examples of the work he's done.

This is just yet another childish tactic by MD to attempt to undermine someone with tangential accusations. I called her out on something she can't possibly prove and all she can do is resort to childish accusations that are as meaningless as they are baseless. If, MD, you can find proof that I begged for design business here on Blogcritics, I would appreciate seeing it. Linking to one's own site from a review does not count as spam, you know - I seem to recall more than a few links to your own sites in your pieces.

I usually balk at putting pics of myself up on internet - I just don't need any more women chasing after me, you know, but this was like a dare:

And, absolutely not to a picture of a balding, obese, drooling dwarf.

You know she said this to goad me into putting a pic up. She's really titillated at the thought of finally seeing her dream guy, so here he is. Sorry, no drool in this shot, Diva.

No-one would have to feel pressured to provide a photo, but for those regular writers who welcome it, I think a half-inch x half-inch photo would no nicely. Eric, how about providing bigger by-lines; perhaps you and Philip could think of a way to provide a nice big byline next to or under the photo, instead of the little blurb that currently appears under the entry title? I do like Mark Saleski's idea of Blogcritic articles having a newspaper editorial-section like look. (And, that being the suggested aim, perhaps you in something like Times or Dutch or Palatino.)

RJ: See my post called "BloggerBot is Boggling" or something like that. It makes picture posting real simple and straightforward direct from your files to your blog.

To post a picture on BC, upload to your website or free account with MSN or Yahoo or whatever, then copy the url (the whole url is pretty long), and, before you paste it where you want it in your BC post, type:

"img src="">" and paste the url between the two quotes.

Second try. BC doesn't like to read carets. Forget my outside quotes. Keep the quotes inside the carets. If the carets don't work try the stick.

Al, you didn't go first. Tek went first. Or that Hermann guy whom I suspect does not actually exist. I went first most recently in my fascinating post "CW Exposes himself," which you, apparently, didn't see -- which makes you hetero, hence electable. But since you're running for office, we'll say you went first. And we thank you for that.

Show of hands, are all the men bald on BC, or is it just my monitor?

Unless that beret is your actual hair, Al, I'd say you need a new topping, something a bit more senatorial in your sartorial assortment.

Top hat? Bowler?

You have to go hard to the opposite. You're running for office. This picture should be burned immediately and never spoken of again. Background counts. You're in a basement or a bunker. You've just smoked a fat one. I get the feeling it's not your basement and that you've got a van full of upstairs stuff idling in the driveway.

Image, Al, image! Look at that nice Tom Johnson, how smiley and happy he seems, and benign, Ms. Diva, benign as a happy smiley guy, smiling.

Picturing you standing next to Bayh.... well, kiss your candidacy bayhbayh.

Dude, we're going shopping. Who's coming?

Tom Johnson, thanks for the admission. But, when I wrote that, I had RJ Ellliott in mind.

Now. To get back to the point: I don't think Blogcritics lacks for superficial aspects. What a site like this needs is more of substance.

LOL... I think I went as soon as I started posting hear a year or so ago. I'm not shy.

Speaking as an outsider, I enjoy using my imagination and your writing to picture what you all look like. It's kind of like how when I read a book and then see the movie, and the character doesn't look right. Like with Al, I pictured more pointy features, and a svelte figure. Maybe a well trimmed moustache. With Tom, I was thinking maybe a barrell chested guy with dirty blond hair and a Maiden shirt who I'd like to stand around a keg with talking metal. With Ms. Tek, I was thinking...ah, who am I kidding? I've got her image(s) burned onto my retinas. Oh, that back shot....Anyways, I always thought Johno would maybe resemble Jon Stewart, but with maybe a light stubble. Well, anyways, instead of your mugs, I vote for pics of your record collections, like Mark did. That was cool.

This probably wouldn't alleviate all of MD's concerns, and i'm not even sure if you could use it (i don't know how much access you have to the back-end of MT you are using for the site), but i found a blog comment spam blocking service called MT-Blacklist just now, simply by following a couple of links from the Google search for blog creeps:
http://www.jayallen.org/projects/mt-blacklist/

jadester - I'm thinking MD is talking about the blog entries, not the comments.

The comment system is completely custom to BC, this I know, because I wrote the core program for this a couple weeks ago after the hosting change.

As for the existence of comment spam today at BC, I do think that that situation has improved over what it was before the program and hosting switch. At least from what I've seen, anyway ;)

Well, anyways, instead of your mugs, I vote for pics of your record collections, like Mark did. That was cool.

Bricklayer, ask and ye shall receive: My CDs - about 1600 at last count. I need to build a rack like Mark's soon to take care of this mess . . .

Hey Tom,
Now that's what I'm talking about! Some dudes like their pin-ups, and I have a thing for looking at people's record collection. Oh, and another thing Tom, just because you don't look exactly as I pictured you, that doesn't mean I would turn away from the keg if I found you there. Nay, I would embrace you in a platonic way, and say "Hail, brother, whot dost thou think of the new God Forbid?" And we would have many a laugh, and sing many a song, and when the beer was depleted, we would drink the sake', and when the sake' was gone, we would check under the kitchen sink for the 6 year old bottle of champagne, and when that was gone, we would bid fare thee well, and part on the best of terms, and be friends for life!