A poll on LJ-cuts that's LJ-cut.
Jan. 26th, 2004 12:06 pm[Poll #238903]
For perspective, take a look at this entry:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/theferrett/215473.html
For perspective, take a look at this entry:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/theferrett/215473.html
no subject
Date: 2004-01-26 09:45 am (UTC)Edie
no subject
Date: 2004-01-26 12:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-26 10:02 am (UTC)i believe that anything not work-safe [moreso images because they're "readable" at a much further distance, and much faster] should be lj-cut, for courtesy. i know
generally, an lj-cut to me means it's either MORE important, or MORE in depth, than a typical post. depending on how much time i have to read/reply, i either skip [based more on subject, user, or time restraints] OR read fully. i personally cut everything but the first picture [even non-not-work-safe images], and any long, involving entry that may not appeal to everyone.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-26 12:35 pm (UTC)I prefer that other people cut: large images (especially those wide enough to cause me to have to H-scroll) and long URLs (for the same reason) and long, involved entries that I'm going to come back to later.
Except - several people on my friends' list use stylesheets that are incompatible with the browser I'm using, and when they LJ-cut, I can't read their entries at all without copy-pasting into another window and mentally parsing the HTML code with all the cute little images. If I stopped commenting in your journal when you changed style sheets, this is probably why.
*growls about backwards-compatibility*
no subject
Date: 2004-01-26 02:09 pm (UTC)<mode="smug">This is why I like Opera. If I can't read a particular stylesheet comfortably - usually because someone chose absolute font sizes smaller than I can comfortably read - I can just switch to browser style sheet with one click.</mode>