NSFW/Image Macro: No Gear Level

The image on this page was selected through discussion, but considering the recent Google issues, I can't help but wonder if an image of a stark-naked guy covering himself with his hands is the greatest idea (even if he does secretly have Barbie Doll Anatomy under there). Surely there are safer ways to illustrate this trope?

Clock is set. I'm good to leave the current.

It does illustrate the trope, but with Google's unpredictability ... leaning slightly to keep.

Definitely Keep.

Well, since this thread is finally open, I might as well toss out a replacement suggestion.

1◊

(Note the silhouettes under the faces.)

edited 21st Jul '14 5:39:59 PM by MrL1193

Isn't broke, don't fix.

If you feel the need to explain an image, it's not an improvement.

I honestly don't know if it needs explanation or not. I just thought I'd throw it in anyway and let people judge for themselves how much of that the image itself conveyed. (Is thinking ahead like this a bad habit in Image Pickin'? I'm honestly asking.)

Please note, I never said I thought the current image was non-illustrative. I was simply worried that Google might take issue with the completely naked guy, which would make illustrativeness a moot point.

edited 21st Jul '14 5:23:53 PM by MrL1193

Not in general, of course not; but specifically, explaining your suggestion is not good. Suggestions sometimes warrant a brief explanation, but the more detail you go into about what's going on, the less likely the suggestion will fly.

edited 21st Jul '14 5:34:45 PM by rodneyAnonymous

The point is rather specifically that the image should speak for itself, without explanation. A caption to clarify is one thing, and arguments for why it's a good image are good, but if there's a need to explain how it illustrates there is something lacking to it pretty much by definition.

Fine with keeping current.

Well, yes, I totally understand that if you have to ask for an explanation, the image probably doesn't work. I just didn't stop to think about the possibility that providing a detailed explanation preemptively might affect people's interpretation of the image or make it look like I had doubts about my own suggestion. Lesson learned, I guess.

At any rate, I take it that tdgoodrich's approval means the P5 doesn't anticipate problems with the current image, so I guess I was worried over nothing anyway.

Honestly, I don't personally care what other people think about an image when offering my own interpretation of it. Most people who frequent IP only really look at the image when considering, because that's what's important. What I said was just intended as advice plus what I thought of the image, rather bluntly.

I think it did need an explanation, which the current doesn't need, so it's not an improvement. I should note that if I say "not an improvement" it doesn't necessarily mean I think the image is worse; I just don't think it needs changing.

I also formed the post as a conditional, since I didn't take for granted that you did feel the need to explain it (there are other reasons for why someone might want to explain something), but it's just an indicator that you're not confident about the image's ability to stand on its own. Which, I should add, people often disagree on. I've several times suggested an image from a quick search I felt kind of meh that other people thought were great. And, naturally, the other way around.

I think if there is consensus that an image is an improvement, it should replace the current image whether or not it needs replacing. Changing a page image does not cause the problems that changing a trope name does, there is no reason to avoid it, in general, like there is to avoid a rename.

edited 22nd Jul '14 2:53:57 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Clock is up and there seems to be agreement that there is no reason to change, so I guess I'll call for closure.

Locking up.