Social metadata

[ForNeVeR]

Hello, I am Friedrich, and I am sociopath let's say an extremely social guy - I use the shitty social networks all the fucking day instead of doing any real work.

Whenever I copy-paste the loglist quote link such as https://loglist.net/quote/8070 to my Skype, Facebook, Vkontakte or some another shitty goddamn thing, I want it to turn into a glorious image containing an actual quote text if that's possible at all.

We could do it by generating images and inserting their URLs to <meta property="og:image">, <link rel="image_src"> and some shitty web goddamn things like that. You, smarty computer guys, will have to figure that out - I know, you're good at that shit.

Scope of this issue

• Add og:title, og:type, og:image, og:description and og:url meta properties to the pages with quotes.
• og:description should contain the whole quote text.
• og:image should be the URL of the static image representing Loglist in all of its glory.

Reference spec: http://opengraphprotocol.org/

[Minoru]

Does it have to be an image? Can't we use "og:description" and put the whole text in there?

[ForNeVeR]

Will the og:description text be rendered by goddamn social thingies? I've never seen that. Everybody seem to use images instead, so I don't know.

[Minoru]

I have no idea, I don't use any of them. The property is in the spec, though.

[Minoru]

Now, now, @rexim, no need to display your butthurt that much.

[rexim]

Let's limit the scope of this issue to Skype, Slack, Facebook and VK and make sure the link looks good on those. So the exact meta stuff will depend on those. If in the future something will not look good on something else it will be a separate issue.

[Minoru]

You forget about Twitter. Or don't you?

[ForNeVeR]

I've experimented with http://bash.im/quote/440434

They use og:description with the quote text and some static og:image. It looks fine (with actual text and shits) within facebook and vkontakte, but looks poorly in Skype and Twitter (no text for Skype and nothing at all for Twitter).

Image would look fine everywhere for the small texts. I've been noticing that people like to share images much more than links to some texts.

Let's discuss?

[rexim]

You forget about Twitter. Or don't you?

I mentioned Twitter in the last sentence.

[rexim]

For an image we need some sort of a logo. I can take that.

[Minoru]

I'd like to make a stand here: images with text are dumb. It's just unnatural to render text with images. (True, it has been done before, but it was done due to technical limitations.)

If that wasn't enough, images deteriorate quickly when scaled (both up and down). And even if scaling don't kill legibility, the size of the type will: it might be too small to read, or it might be so large it's just hideous.

So I vote for og:image with a nice logo and og:description with actual text (and we totally should use pilcrows in the latter!)