No.9587
I think you could say the same thing about videos as well. Generally, in my experience, if you're trying to make a thread about a video, unless it's like 30 seconds long, people aren't going to watch the whole thing and will only either talk about the title or whatever you've written in the OP.
No.9588
they're bad because:
- You are a sensitive person who can't separate image from subject.
For example, if a wojack image is posted it is dismissed because it is a wojack and not because it's subject is negative to the site.
- Vichan sucks and there's no easy way to set up spoilers on them.
No.9591
>>9588>For example, if a wojack image is posted it is dismissedthat's due to the nature of the frogs-feels pseudo complex
I'd explain it to you but you'd need a phd in /qa/-ology to understand
No.9620
I think youtube embeds are bad because they discourage standalone copies of the video file.
No.9640
They're pretty much useless because you can't see what it's about before clicking and I wont click. I'd rather have something that transforms urls into the title.
No.11837
>>11836testing embed of youtube shorts with url
>>11836" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" >https://www.youtube.co
m/shorts/XzKHvOVIviE
>>11836(it fails, says youtube/null and doesnt let me post)
No.12020
>>9640>I'd rather have something that transforms urls into the title.wish granted