Putting images where the description should be is really fucking gay. The pics are in the link, and you can't see the image until you view the comments.

I can has opinion.

You want to fuck him, don't you?

D:

I think it's a bit innovative, actually. Doesn't work for every link of course.

He'll be fat again in five years.

I see these people and always ask the same question: How the hell do you let yourself get that big?

I agree with sexninja because he toeld me to

I agree SN, but I also think there is great capacity to be a fukass with this.

Teh internets: Greatly increasing everyone's capacity to be a fuckass.

I was kind of pleasantly surprised the first time I saw it, and then quietly flummoxed the second and third times, because it's so rare that niftiness happens spontaneously, on its own, without someone personally taking ghostie's mango-like head and squeezing all the warm crap inside out onto the Internet. (FIngerpaintc!)

In terms of the image commenting: If an image can properly entice somebody to want to click on the link, then it's worth it. In terms of appropriateness to the link: His his body looks like a penis in that picture, it's so appropriate

For example: A Floating Beach And The Birth Of An Island. In this link, if you first see the wtf beach and you say 'WTF, I need to see what the fuck this thing is' then the picture is a success.

Most importantly, I used up all my wittiness on the title.

I for instance decided to include an image for the Chris Benoit link that wasn't actually part of the link. I thought the googled image added to the overall story giving a glimpse of what he may have looked like whilst squeezing the breath out of his family. I know overall I probably link too many images in my link & journal comments but what the hell, I like it and I always try not to insert something so large it will screw up the page spacing or load time.