Blogcritics, frequent commenters, and even the lurkers are invited to offer their opinion: would you like to see a small picture of the author of each post on Blogcritics.org? I'm envisioning something like (but not exactly the same as) Jan Herman's posts.
Pictures would probably be smaller than Jan's, and certainly if we put something like this into place, Blogcritics will not be required to send in a picture, but if people are interested in having their mugshot, we might make it available as an option.
What do you think? A nice splash of color on the page, or wasted bandwidth? A great link to the author, giving a post a personal touch, or a pointless exercise in ego?
The funny thing is, I can already predict some of the answers this post might receive, but I'll bite my tongue and wait for the comments.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ms. Tek
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!
2 - Mark Saleski
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.
3 - BRICKLAYER
Galleries, please-atleast for Ms. Tek's posts!
4 - TDavid
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 :)
5 - Casper
I dunno.... I'm thinking a photo of me might just scare away the visitors.
6 - CW Fisher
I would never post a picture of myself.
7 - Eric Olsen
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?
8 - Ms. Tek
If you want to remain anon... you could always just post a pic of your eyeball or something.
"THE EYE THAT SAW EVERYTHING"
9 - Mark Saleski
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.
10 - CW Fisher
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?
11 - Ms. Tek
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.
12 - Johno
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.
13 - jadester
damn, that was exactly the kind of touch up work i was hoping you meant =+P
14 - Tom Johnson
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.
15 - Ms. Tek
Well Jadester... just for you... but we won't tell anyone ;)
16 - Mac Diva
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.
17 - Natalie Davis
pictures would be cool with me, as long as it is optional. and as long as i can use claire danes' photo. ;)
18 - bhw
As long as the photos are optional, I don't see why not.
19 - Tom Johnson
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?
20 - mike hollihan
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?
21 - CW Fisher
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
22 - Mac Diva
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.
23 - Tom Johnson
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.
24 - RJ Elliott
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.
25 - Mac Diva
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.