I am working on a solution to hide posts containing broken images. This is an issue, especially in our older threads, like many of those in the Showcase section. @WhidbeyLVR mentioned it the other day. The idea I had was that images containing broken images would automatically be hidden with a toggle saying something like "Post hidden due to broken image(s), click here to show". The script would run on each page load, so if the images were fixed, the post would automatically cease to be hidden. The implementation would be complicated, because not all "broken" images are the same. Some give a 404 error (image not found), while others redirect the image URL to a placeholder (Flickr does this). Meanwhile, not all image URLs that redirect are broken. Some hosts do this as part of their normal process for showing an image (eg, Smugmug). Making it user configurable so that members could opt out of broken image post hiding would add another layer of complexity and expense. Useful or not worth the bother/expense? Any downsides you can think of besides a slight (hopefully unnoticeable) hit on performance? I suppose there would occasionally be a really good post that is content rich yet gets hidden because of one broken image, but this to me seems a reasonable price to pay for getting rid of tons of broken posts.