View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Raider Lazy Admin
Joined: 29 Jul 2002
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:32 am Post subject: Large images in forums |
|
|
Seriously... please pay attention to what Bones is telling you all. The large images make it extremely slow for people with slower connections. Please be considerate and only post SMALL images inline with the thread. If you've got large images, PLEASE use a LINK instead of posting the image inline.
I hope we don't have to set rules as to what we consider to be a "large" image. Please use some common sense. If certain people keep ignoring this, you'll force us to take it to the next level. Thanks for your cooperation |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cybershark Spamming!
Joined: 05 Jan 2005 Location: off the grid, but still fighting for the users!
|
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:01 am Post subject: Re: Large images in forums |
|
|
Raider wrote: | Please use some common sense. |
that's always the problem though isn't it? some of the people in that 'desktop' thread looked as they they were deliberately going out of their way to take the piss.
"OMGZ! Why just post one good picture of my computer setup when i could post 8 huge, blurry images of MY WHOLE ROOM INSTEAD!? TYEH!1!11!11"
*gets camera*
"ok so i set it to 9000x6000 pixels! now i take one of my keyboard, then my mouse, then the front and back of my monitor. oops i got distracted and took one of my guitar - oh well, they can see that too, heh "
"oh crap, it was dark and i forgot to use the flash. oh well, they'll all still love these pics i'm sure!"
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rellik Dominating!
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seems kind of a shame to lock a good thread instead of just deleting the offending posts/pictures and warning the poster. *nudge nudge* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
soncdoommario Unstoppable!
Joined: 19 Jun 2004 Location: Attleboro, Massachusetts
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Out of curiosity, what is considered "acceptable" for image sizes here? I try to keep mine under 800x600 or thumbnail them, since 800x600 is pretty much minmum resolution used these days? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Skitz0.X Unstoppable!
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 Location: aka xtrackt
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
soncdoommario wrote: | Out of curiosity, what is considered "acceptable" for image sizes here? |
Raider wrote: | I hope we don't have to set rules as to what we consider to be a "large" image. Please use some common sense. |
*sigh* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
HumanBones Boner!
Joined: 01 Jun 2004 Location: Shangri-La Dee Da
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rellik: you're right. I tried that though, and no one listened. Oh well, call me an ass but if this is the only way to get people to read the rules, so be it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Empyre Unstoppable!
Joined: 13 Dec 2006 Location: Texas, USA
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a feeling that people will continue to break this rule, not out of defiance, but out of stupidity.
The simplest solution would be to disable IMG tags, but then the forums would be full of broken IMG tags, which don't work properly as links. A more elegant solution would be to insert a few lines of php that would convert all IMG tags into links as the page is being viewed.
A more elaborate solution would be to automatically convert IMG tags into thumbnails, which are links to the full image. This conversion would take place when the post is posted or edited, or when it is viewed for the first time. This scheme is probably more trouble than it is worth, so I recommend the convert-to-link plan. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
salsport Dominating!
Joined: 15 Jan 2007 Location: USA
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
sometimes when someone locks a thread, the creator revives it with another thread, it's unessary, especially if it's a pointless thread, there are many reasons why an admin locks a thread, i'm not an admin, but my word of advise: don't revive threads, don't post questions that were already answered [use the search button before posting], and don't start polls or threads that have a topic that is used perposly to offend someone, sometimes a large image won't even load up on a slow computer, even in the link |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rellik Dominating!
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
HumanBones wrote: | Rellik: you're right. I tried that though, and no one listened. Oh well, call me an ass but if this is the only way to get people to read the rules, so be it. |
I hear ya, been a mod a lots of different forums concerning various different non-doom things and the problem is universal. There used to be a guy on the machinima.com forums who'd make a thread about his new movie, then proceed to post 20-40 640x480 screenshots of the show. At first I just deleted the images, then I would leave warnings in his posts, then I changed his posts so they advertised other peoples movies. Soon the fun wears off and it's time to just start nuking shit. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Quiksilver Spamming!
Joined: 02 Dec 2004 Location: Portlandia, Oregon
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
salsport wrote: | sometimes when someone locks a thread, the creator revives it with another thread, it's unessary, especially if it's a pointless thread, there are many reasons why an admin locks a thread, i'm not an admin, but my word of advise: don't revive threads, don't post questions that were already answered [use the search button before posting], and don't start polls or threads that have a topic that is used perposly to offend someone, sometimes a large image won't even load up on a slow computer, even in the link |
Sals, your post didn't apply to this thread except for that last tidbit with the word "image" in it.
Look, I posted a picture because the entire thread was pictures. Why doesn't anyone just say "56k warning" If someone has a slow computer, the image will load slow no matter if the click the link tothe pic, or its embedded and shows, its still going to load the picture just as fast.
the argument against it is fine, its annoying, but if the thread is "POST PICTURES OF YOUR DESKTOP" then the person entering ought to know its going to contain images that wil need to be downloaded.
A rule is a rule, but kicking and screaming and throwing a fit about it is crazy. But in all honesty, I never heard bonesy getting upset about pictures until today. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
[n00b]Adereth Spamming!
Joined: 16 Jul 2005 Location: Oh god, what year is this?!
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nah, merely a year or two ago, posting an unreasonably large image would earn you an edit that replaced the image with a link. It was either the Heretic CTF thread or the Post Your Current Project Here Thread that wasn't outright circumsized for such a practice. I guess the mods just got a bit lax... and, er, got sick of reeeally reeeally ridiculously large numbers of pixels. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tuomio Wicked Sick!
Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Location: Finland
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, its how BIG the image is, not the size of that image file? You can compress 800x600 images to 60kb. I dont see 56k'er have a problem with that?
I DO understand the rules and Im not attacking the admins now, just pointing that size thingy out. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
enVision A.K.A. Rat-Arsed
Joined: 13 Dec 2002 Location: Lagland
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd say it was both the physical size of the image in bytes and the dimensions. Both needn't be so large. I mean, ffs, when I got my widscreen monitor I thought my side scrolling days would be over. How wrong I was |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Quiksilver Spamming!
Joined: 02 Dec 2004 Location: Portlandia, Oregon
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
okay, I understand then, thats what you mean by "use common sense" if I need to scroll to the side to see the ful picture then its just too damn big.
K, well everyone should stick to the 800X600 rule of thumb. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mr-cheater Guest
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LOL Sarcasm!
But really linking the pic is better then resizing it |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Quiksilver Spamming!
Joined: 02 Dec 2004 Location: Portlandia, Oregon
|
Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mr-cheater wrote: | LOL Sarcasm!
But really linking the pic is better then resizing it |
no, I was being serious.
That too, it gives the 56k'ers a choice of whether they wanna see a certain pic. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TheMionicDonut God like!
Joined: 28 Jan 2007 Location: Burgertopia
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Imageshack ftw
I always use that (Save for one post) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
salsport Dominating!
Joined: 15 Jan 2007 Location: USA
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
TheMionicDonut wrote: | Imageshack ftw
I always use that (Save for one post) | i guess i'll agree with him, but i haven't seen the the other sites taht let u post images or put it somewhere on the web |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mr-cheater Guest
|
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quiksilver wrote: | Mr-cheater wrote: | LOL Sarcasm!
But really linking the pic is better then resizing it |
no, I was being serious.
That too, it gives the 56k'ers a choice of whether they wanna see a certain pic. |
I was talking about Cybershark post |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dewastator Posting Spree!
Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hate large images on forums/website, it makes me nervous I think most of people do not understand that there are people which still have 56k modem or isdn 64/128 and they cannot upgrade connection to braodband, so there should be kicked-off img tags from forum, only links and all -> problem is solved.
Raider wrote: | Please use some common sense. |
It's amlost not possible Some people use =< 128x128 and it's ok, but unfortunately there are people which use 1024x768 image size
Closing threads - wrong way.
Sorry for english mistakes... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|