Cut-tag photos poll results

[firecat]

My poll yesterday about cut-tagging photos produced the following results:

Of those who made a specific selection (not "Other"):

Slightly less than half voted that I should cut-tag all photos.

Slightly more than half voted that I should cut-tag only photos larger than a specific size (about the same number of people voted for each option, 10K, 60K, 100K, or "none").

Of the folks who voted "Other," a number of people wanted wide photos cut-tagged (which I will definitely do, regardless), and several people didn't care if the first photo was cut-tagged but did want additional photos cut-tagged.

Based on these results, I'm inclined to go with the following in my journal:

• I won't cut-tag one photo that's a reasonable width and 10K or less.
  
• I will cut-tag all other photos.

Comments

[liveavatar.livejournal.com]

Commenting here as a backup for the email I'm about to send once I find your email address again:

Ack! I realize I've been letting the pickup for the records slide. How's tonight? If you're going to be out, do you have a safe spot outside your dwelling from which I can winkle out the records? Sorry for being so laggard.

[firecat]

stef at cat-and-dragon dot com

If you let me know what time tonight, I'll know whether to leave them outside on the porch in a plastic bag or whether I'll be up to greet you when you get here.

[okoshun.livejournal.com]

That works - I was going to go one level up. I'm just thinking of the times when I'll be at a hotel on (ick) dial-up and someone posts a *huge* photo that ends up taking 15 minutes to load.

But your option works for me. :)