[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Revert "Remove battleforthenet widget"
nfxjfg at googlemail.com
Thu Mar 1 14:17:08 EET 2018
On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 11:49:16 +0000
Ricardo Constantino <wiiaboo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 March 2018 at 01:19, Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc>
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:33:55PM -0900, Lou Logan wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018, at 11:25 AM, Jan Ekström wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Looking at how much it got updated the last time when it misbehaved
> > > > shows really well how that worked the last time. Sorry if I sound
> > > > facetious, but I do use ffmpeg-all.html a lot and it got /really/
> > > > irritating.
> > >
> > > +1.
> > >
> > > I object to the patch. The widget is annoyingly intrusive,
> > How is it intrusive if it is displayed once and never shows
> > again for 60 days (which is how its configured) if you close it ?
> > It will show again if you delete the cookie it uses to keep track of
> > you closing it i think. But MANY webpages will display silly first time
> > notes if you loose cookies regularly.
> Many people remove cookies from non-regular sites on closing the browser.
> Why would people suddenly need to keep a cookie in order to not get nagged
> on ffmpeg.org?
> > > but as a compromise I would not block a small, resized, temporary simple
> > image banner in the bottom of the menu:
> > >
> > > <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gfot3MqZDAyBcmMUm2bunJMn5geNK
> > f6v>
> > If you put this there, its of course better than nothing
> > but i dont know if this is wise as a replacement for the widget.
> It seems a very welcome alternative. Banners are way less annoying than
> fullscreen popups.
> > As a user i much rather would want to be told that theres a problem in the
> > future straight in the face and how i might be able to help fight against
> > it.
> > Instead of a banner i wont realize is there and wont click on and wont
> > realize
> > what it is about before iam hit with slower speed or increased fees from
> > an ISP or increased fees from random companies who need to pay for fast
> > lanes
> > to keep operating
> You can link whatever's the campaign webpage in the banner and whoever
> cares will go see it.
> Don't assume people will care more if you plaster it in their face and
> block what they were reading.
> > Its in fact a slightly sinister scheme, people could end up paying alot
> > more
> > for their internet connection without realizing that they do. That is if
> > they
> > end up paying all the companies who in the future may have to pay for their
> > connections not to be slowed down. The end user pays, the ISPs get the
> > money
> > but the path is not neccesarily direct.
> There's a lot more places where people can get their armchair politics
> satisfied than ffmpeg.org.
> A banner or a news post would make more sense.
Yeah, I agree a banner of some sort would be less intrusive and still
get noticed. We'd also not have to run foreign JS (that already proved
to be buggy before). Seems like the best choice.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel