Hello
If possible, a media library system design for dc like wp
To better manage files and the Media
thank you
The Media Library Screen allows you to edit, view, and delete Media previously uploaded to your blog. Multiple Media objects can be selected for deletion. Search and filtering ability is also provided to allow you to find the desired Media.
I do not think that makes sense in a discussion system. Blogs are for single owners and editorial content, not collaborative discussion with larger groups.
THANK YOU FOR REPLY
but i think this is good idea for discourse
Iām not saying this is a high priority item, but I do think it would be pretty neat to have a media viewer for discourse - that displays media in a slick gallery/slideshow format and links to the topics that contain them, and can be used to source pictures to embed in topics.
Basecamp does this fairly nicely and it is a useful alternative way to find content that you know is in there but canāt quite remember what words were used to post itā¦
I do often reuse the same images in topics and go to old topics to grab the URLs, or just re-upload them.
How would that media viewer work? How do you arrange images? How do you generate image titles or descriptions?
Granted, meta may not be the ideal use case, but at least half the images here are screenshots of Discourse bugs. The vast majority of these images are utterly useless without the context in which they were postedā¦
Have you seen how basecamp does it? https://basecamp.com/help/guides/projects/files
Thereās also a grid view which I think is better than this gif below, couldnāt immediately find a screenshot. I actually find this to be a super useful alternative way to navigate precisely the sort of stuff being discussed and shared here on meta.
Thatās a nice design for sure, but uploads in Discourse have neither labels nor comments and all too often not even a useful filename when an image was pasted directly into the composerā¦
(Cause, you know, Rockoās Modern Life is really bb3166193aa7f808ā¦ 
)
If thereās a way to prune duplicate files or files that arenāt linked, then a media library is just fluff. At least to me.
Uploads are identified by a content hash, so the same file is never stored twice; and yes, unlinked uploads are moved to a tombstone area roughly 1 hour after becoming unlinked and are erased from disk a month later. 
Now, to be fair. The only reason I can see this as something useful is to handle downloads. Like a download manager to pass and handle permissions per file. But plugin territory. It would be useful no doubt for communities that are based on files, such as lots of photos, or videos, ect.
A āMedia Libraryā has words that imply something less than utilitarian. As @elberet already mentioned, the clean-up is done automatically. Other than just seeing whatās there (which I am guessing can be done with FTP, maybe?), I donāt personally see a big use for it across a large amount of instances.
Per-file permissions would be a completely new feature for Discourse and require a lot more work before the UI becomes relevant. Not that such permissions wouldnāt be welcomeā¦ right now, if you are logged in and know a fileās URL, you can download the file even if it was posted in a restricted category that you cannot access or in a direct message. 
Yeah, thatās a bit of a problem. That would rely on users or staff being honest and not sharing links. But thatās one iota better than having the link exposed everywhere (which can be fixed via hotlink protection).
Or hey. Maybe you can USE hotlink protection for this? I havenāt set up my dev environment yet so apologies on any ignorance I may show of the codebase and whatās under the hood, so to speak. Are images separated by categories and placed in appropriately-named folders? Or is it one big image dump in one folder for the entire instance? Maybe hotlink-protect the folders to only allow inline viewing within a specific category?
Uploads do not have source information associated with them, the only protection available is āprevent anons from downloading filesā. And being told āyou must sign in to download this fileā is one of the most annoying things about traditional PHP forums.
Adding category source information to uploads is problematic - what if you uploaded something in Staff then want to re-share it publicly? What if you want to take it back? Youād have your hands full trying to fully specify the behavior here.
UPDATE: Secure Uploads
I know. And I agree with everything you said. One has to set priorities. Which circumstances are the lesser of two evils. Iād rather a member get a hold of a file from a restricted category or direct message rather than a complete stranger who I have absolutely no control over.
I think we can management uploaded medias whit simple plugin
this is wp media library management
Annoying why? Because it forces you to log in (or register)? IMHO thatās a good way to get a lurker to sign up.
Not really, if they sign up to get that file and never come back. I have done that many times (when forced to) and never, ever wanted to actually participate.
I donāt see the point of creating a bunch of orphan accounts. If you want to drive participation, forcing signup just to download a file is not the way.
ā¦in your opinion. I have no problem with opinionated software, but protecting media / downloads from casual downloading seems to be a very basic requirement. And at least with an orphan account Iād have some validated information about the person (IP address, validated email address)
I know youāre trying to be different, and thereās nothing wrong with that. But content protection is important.
Just as user list protection was important. I recently ran into a case with a client - he ran a Facebook group, and some nutjob cut and pasted screenshots of his member list with derogatory and slanderous claims about them. (Yes, I have some strange clients and friends)
That may seem irrelevant to this particular thread, but the very next day after dealing with takedown notices, he downloaded a picture from the group and turned it into one of those āmotivational/memeā posters, and distributed it again to his group. Another round of takedown notices ensued.
Content Protection is important. There be **'d up people out there. Whatever can be done to minimize their ability to get content from a forum, the better.
Thatās a great way to get me to hit Ctrl-W and google for another sourceā¦ 
The concept I brought up originally wasnāt about strangers signing up and signing in to download, but for users already signed-in not able to see files intended for restricted categories or direct messages they have no regular access to.
But I agree with @codinghorror and @elberet on forcing sign-ups to download content. Iāve done it, theyāve done it, others have too: we will make a dummy account and leave once we get the download we wanted, or simply look for it elsewhere. Iāve even used fake spam-catching email addresses to do that then offer the account as a share account so others donāt have to make their own dummy accounts. That is why bugmenot exists.
Except my original concern: regular users accessing restricted, private (direct message) or staff-only content (files) IF they have a direct link and are logged in.
