Photo posting whinge.

Printable View

6th April 2009, 10:23 AM
Honorary Bloke

Photo posting whinge.

FWIW, which is likely nothing, I am entering a plea for all members to please, please, please upload their photos to the forum and not use sites like photobucket, etc. There have been 2 or 3 recent threads I would like to have followed but all the scrolling to and fro made my head hurt and I gave up.

There is not much in life more frustrating than a thread whose width is wider than the screen resolution. Stop it! :cool: With all due respect, please stop it. :( It's just not that much more trouble.

Forum admins, please make a rule. [on my knees smiley]. :)
6th April 2009, 10:35 AM
Big Shed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honorary Bloke

FWIW, which is likely nothing, I am entering a plea for all members to please, please, please upload their photos to the forum and not use sites like photobucket, etc. There have been 2 or 3 recent threads I would like to have followed but all the scrolling to and fro made my head hurt and I gave up.

There is not much in life more frustrating than a thread whose width is wider than the screen resolution. Stop it! :cool: With all due respect, please stop it. :( It's just not that much more trouble.

Forum admins, please make a rule. [on my knees smiley]. :)

Bob, please direct me to the "2 or 3 recent threads" that are causing you such angst.
6th April 2009, 10:37 AM
Honorary Bloke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Bob, please direct me to the "2 or 3 recent threads" that are causing you such angst.

Well, here is one, just for fun:

https://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=90862

:)
6th April 2009, 10:46 AM
Big Shed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honorary Bloke

Well, here is one, just for fun:

https://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=90862

:)

OK, had a look at that thread. It has LOTS of pictures in it, all except one adhere to the forum maximum of 800 pixels width (actually most are 640 pixels wide).

Yes, there is on that is 1024 pixels wide, and it has slipped under our radar apparently.

I for one try to pick up any externally hosted photos that are over 800 pixels wide and then ask the poster to reduce it or it gets deleted.

Whilst I sympathise with your plea, I have my screen resolution set to 1024x768 and these 1024 wide pictures don't cause me to thave to scroll. But we are very aware that not everyone has that width of screen set, hence our insistence on 800 pixels wide.

There is a bright side to the external hosting though, the thread you highlighted would be very much harder to follow with the pictures at the bottom in thumbnails rather than in the right place in the body of the text.

I will ask the poster of the offending pic to reduce it in size.:2tsup:
6th April 2009, 10:52 AM
Honorary Bloke

Ta. :)
6th April 2009, 10:58 AM
Big Shed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Shed

There is a bright side to the external hosting though, the thread you highlighted would be very much harder to follow with the pictures at the bottom in thumbnails rather than in the right place in the body of the text.

DJ has just reminded me that it is possible to post the thumbnails in the body of the text.

He has written a very good thread about posting pics, see here

https://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=78760
6th April 2009, 06:47 PM
AUSSIE

If those pics don't fit on your monitor it must be very old or you have the resolution set very low Maybe you need to get a better graphics card or monitor>either are not very dear >You spend a lot of time on this site so It would be well worth it.
Personally I think 800 x 600 is a bit out of date with the cheap gear and fast internet we deserve better pics of some things not worse in 2009.:2tsup:
6th April 2009, 07:40 PM
Woodwould

A very proud mother once attended Sandhurst for her son's passing out parade. As the squad of new soldiers marched past, the woman said aloud to the rest of the on-looking parents "Oh look! Everyone's out of step except for my Johhny!"
6th April 2009, 07:47 PM
echnidna

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUSSIE

Personally I think 800 x 600 is a bit out of date with the cheap gear and fast internet we deserve better pics of some things not worse in 2009.:2tsup:

Not everyone has or can get fast internet.

Last time I looked nearly 30% of people were still stuck on dialup
6th April 2009, 08:46 PM
ubeaut

Quote:

Not everyone has or can get fast internet.

Last time I looked nearly 30% of people were still stuck on dialup

You're dead right.

The forum pic size is 800 x 600 and that's that. We have enough trouble with large photo files loading seamlessly as it is, without adding the burden of extra large files to those who already have slow download problems. The forums are for everyone and not just those who have access to the better computers, ubeaut monitors, fast servers, etc.
6th April 2009, 09:10 PM
AUSSIE

Hey Boss
If your talking about me.My 5 year old computer and monitor handles all with ease.I dont need a new ubeaut computer.
6th April 2009, 09:24 PM
justinmcf

i spent an hour trying to upload photos yesterday, could not do it, give up in the end, it works perfectly when i upload to ebay.

does this website have the same format as ebay?

regards, justin
6th April 2009, 09:55 PM
Honorary Bloke

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUSSIE

If those pics don't fit on your monitor it must be very old or you have the resolution set very low Maybe you need to get a better graphics card or monitor>either are not very dear >You spend a lot of time on this site so It would be well worth it.
Personally I think 800 x 600 is a bit out of date with the cheap gear and fast internet we deserve better pics of some things not worse in 2009.:2tsup:

Mate, I freely admit my 19" flat panel monitor set at 1024 X 768 is getting old at 18 months, but I still didn't get the pic in the screen. :rolleyes::D
6th April 2009, 10:06 PM
Big Shed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honorary Bloke

Mate, I freely admit my 19" flat panel monitor set at 1024 X 768 is getting old at 18 months, but I still didn't get the pic in the screen. :rolleyes::D

Something doesn't add up here, that pic was 1024 wide so should fit on your screen.

I only have a 15" notebook set to 1024 and it fitted on there.

Anyway, it has now been resized so you should be able to enjoy it now without any aggravation:2tsup:
6th April 2009, 10:11 PM
AUSSIE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honorary Bloke

Mate, I freely admit my 19" flat panel monitor set at 1024 X 768 is getting old at 18 months, but I still didn't get the pic in the screen. :rolleyes::D

I cant help you then.Your gear is OK then.I actually have 2 computers or more:D:D
and have had them on to check this out.My 17" flat handles it easily,no scrolling at all.
The 22" WS HD monitor romps it in but is HD widescreen.
If my 17" handles it your 19 should .Do you have trouble with any other sites on the net that you could name or can you capture your screen and post it?
6th April 2009, 10:11 PM
Skew ChiDAMN!!

Big Shed, I run @ 1280x960 and there's still the occasional pic that doesn't fit... mainly embedded pix, 'cos of the box down the LH side of the screen. :;

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUSSIE

If those pics don't fit on your monitor it must be very old or you have the resolution set very low Maybe you need to get a better graphics card or monitor>either are not very dear >You spend a lot of time on this site so It would be well worth it.
Personally I think 800 x 600 is a bit out of date with the cheap gear and fast internet we deserve better pics of some things not worse in 2009.:2tsup:

Aussie, many older people use low resolutions because of failing eye-sight, not because of HW limitations. 800x600 is a good size, in that it gives a good combination of text & icon sizes while still putting a page worth of info on screen.

Sure, they could bump the resolution up and then fiddle with a whole series of tweaks for larger icons, font sizes, rah, rah, rah... but this is a quick way to lose members because it makes viewing the forums a PITA. Especially if they're not comfortable with computers in the first place.

The KISS principle applies in any good web page.
6th April 2009, 10:15 PM
Big Shed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!

Big Shed, I run @ 1280x960 and there's still the occasional pic that doesn't fit... mainly embedded pix, 'cos of the box down the LH side of the screen. :;

Skew, that got me curious, so I checked my settings, 1400x1050. Might explain why I don't have a problem:doh:
6th April 2009, 10:33 PM
Honorary Bloke

Never meant to seem like a grumpy old . . . It isn't the pics, anyway, is it? It's the result that the accompanying text flows past the screen edge that is the real aggravation.

I'm not that old (:D) but 1024 is about my limit for readability.

Aussie, no I don't have this problem on other sites except other forums whenever the pics are posted as a link rather than uploaded. It is a consistent problem across forums, but few other places.

I am an equal-opportunity whinger and they are getting theirs. :rolleyes::U:U

Thanks Big Shed, everything is oojah cum spiff now. :)
6th April 2009, 10:34 PM
AUSSIE

Hi Skew
I am close to one of the old farts you are talking about.In my 60's bad eyesite and failing body.Been into computers since around 1980 and love them.Only been into wood for around 18mths to 2 years Half that time getting enough gear to make something
6th April 2009, 11:37 PM
.RC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honorary Bloke

Mate, I freely admit my 19" flat panel monitor set at 1024 X 768 is getting old at 18 months, but I still didn't get the pic in the screen. :rolleyes::D

eeeekk a 19inch LCD screen set to 1024X768...That would have everything blurry, it should be set to 1280X1024..LCD monitors do not show crisp clean text/images on anything other then it's native resolution.. Totally different to old CRT's where it did not matter what the resolution was..

As for the 800X600 image size limit...After getting my images edited by a mod a couple of times I do not bother posting them anymore, it is terribly small size picture then ends up showing nothing, especially if it is text....So I just supply a link, people can look at them if they wish...The maximum should be 1280 wide in my opinion, although having a 24" monitor tends to spoil me...

I just like big pictures, even when I was on dialup I hated small pictures..
6th April 2009, 11:51 PM
Woodwould

I agree about the small picture size. The hosted pictures on this forum barely up-size at all when the thumbnails are clicked. Where's the point?

I understand our benefactor would wish to conserve space and bandwidth, but to what detriment? If bandwidth is an issue, please let us subscribe to the forums and enjoy decent, viewable pictures!

If the box on the LH side was removed it would solve a lot of the problems.
7th April 2009, 12:15 AM
Skew ChiDAMN!!

Woodwould, the solution to that is what .RC. is already doing.

If the picture "needs" to be larger than the Forum's limits, then post them in a picture hosting site and include a link. That way people can follow the link if they're interested and not be "forced" to download it whether they want to or not.

Further, I don't consider myself a prolific picture poster but over the years I've UL'd 588 attachments, taking up some 20 odd MB of the servers hard-drive space. Not that much, in the grand scheme of things, but I'm only one out of... how many members?

And it's Neil, Mr UBeaut, who's carrying the cost of storing them.

If these were double the size - at the same compression - they'd take up four times the space. Again, multiply that by the number of members... [shudder]

But I guess it's always easy to talk about spending someone else's money. :D
7th April 2009, 12:30 AM
joe greiner

The big problem with external hosting is that the external host may go belly up, and the pictures are gone forever. I think that's been mentioned in the FAQs here. The external host may have a different maintenance schedule from the forum, and viewing must be synchronized with a possibly longer downtime - another PITA. WWF membership spans the entire planet, so all time zones are accessible.

The left-hand side boxes are a recent upgrade, IIRC. Old threads that might have been conforming at their time, could be boosted by the software to require the sliders now, all other things remaining equal.

For a while when I was on dialup, I hesitated about reading posts from a particular member, because he didn't use thumbnails. I even posted a reply requesting use of thumbnails, but he was unable to do so for one reason or another.

A few pictures don't upsize well, but that's probably because the uploaded image was too small to begin with. Most of the ones I've clicked magnify quite nicely.

Another wrinkle, of course, is the use of many different browsers. 'Tis a minor miracle that the forum works as well as it does.

Cheers,
Joe
7th April 2009, 12:56 AM
Harry72

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!

Big Shed, I run @ 1280x960 and there's still the occasional pic that doesn't fit... mainly embedded pix, 'cos of the box down the LH side of the screen. :;

Aussie, many older people use low resolutions because of failing eye-sight, not because of HW limitations. 800x600 is a good size, in that it gives a good combination of text & icon sizes while still putting a page worth of info on screen.

Sure, they could bump the resolution up and then fiddle with a whole series of tweaks for larger icons, font sizes, rah, rah, rah... but this is a quick way to lose members because it makes viewing the forums a PITA. Especially if they're not comfortable with computers in the first place.

The KISS principle applies in any good web page.

Hey Skew, if you use firefox just hold Ctrl and hit either the + or-, it'll enlarge the text and keep the pictures the same size. Or reset your computers default text size(the best way).
There is no excuse for running such low resolutions, running the native res of your monitor will give much better performance(clearer to read).
7th April 2009, 01:01 AM
Skew ChiDAMN!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe greiner

The big problem with external hosting is that the external host may go belly up, and the pictures are gone forever. I think that's been mentioned in the FAQs here.

Yeah, I've come across quite a few posts which are devoid of pix for just that reason. :C

However, I'm only referring to pix that need to be larger than the forums limits. Apart from pix of some documents (which often leave me wondering about copyright infringements) I've yet to see any pix that really "need" to be larger than they are.

(And even then, who says it all has to fit in just one photo? :rolleyes:)
7th April 2009, 01:24 AM
BobL

I'd prefer to be able to post fewer pictures, 5 per post is plenty, but to be able to post bigger pictures. So what happens is I use all close to my 10 picture limit just to be able to show some close up detail in some shots.

Also I average only 42 k per picture (1118 pics posted in total) for my mostly 800 x 600 shots, so what should happen is you should be able to post correspondingly large photos if you can post more compact pictures - shouldn't take the back room boys too long to work out an algorithm for that one.
7th April 2009, 09:33 AM
.RC.

If they allowed HTML code to be used in the forum we could link to bigger pictures via a small thumbnail

<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v606/OzRinger/?action=view&current=1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/OzRinger/th_1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" ></a>
7th April 2009, 10:35 AM
Honorary Bloke

Quote:

Originally Posted by .RC.

If they allowed HTML code to be used in the forum we could link to bigger pictures via a small thumbnail

Righto. And if yer aunt had a moustache, she'd be yer uncle. And if this was a computer forum, no wukkers. I made a simple (I thought) request and have gotten a large dose of input from computer-tweaking people. I'm sorry I brought it up. It suits me to a T to ignore anything I can't read easily. It was only a mild suggestion. Never mind. :)
7th April 2009, 10:39 AM
Woodwould

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!

Further, I don't consider myself a prolific picture poster but over the years I've UL'd 588 attachments, taking up some 20 odd MB of the servers hard-drive space. Not that much, in the grand scheme of things, but I'm only one out of... how many members?

And it's Neil, Mr UBeaut, who's carrying the cost of storing them.

If these were double the size - at the same compression - they'd take up four times the space. Again, multiply that by the number of members... [shudder]

But I guess it's always easy to talk about spending someone else's money. :D

Hello Skew, that's why I suggested creating subscriptions for the forum so we're not overburdening Neil's resources, and we could then enjoy decent sized pictures and upload CAD, PDF and other files of realistic proportions. :2tsup:
7th April 2009, 10:40 AM
Big Shed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honorary Bloke

Righto. And if yer aunt had a moustache, she'd be yer uncle. And if this was a computer forum, no wukkers. I made a simple (I thought) request and have gotten a large dose of input from computer-tweaking people. I'm sorry I brought it up. It suits me to a T to ignore anything I can't read easily. It was only a mild suggestion. Never mind. :)

Bob, as the pollies are fond of saying "never ask a question you don't already know the answer to!':D
7th April 2009, 10:43 AM
Honorary Bloke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Bob, as the pollies are fond of saying "never ask a question you don't already know the answer to!':D

Mate! I thought it was the attorneys who said that. :D Maybe both. :rolleyes::cool:
7th April 2009, 10:46 AM
Woodwould

Quote:

Originally Posted by .RC.

If they allowed HTML code to be used in the forum we could link to bigger pictures via a small thumbnail

<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v606/OzRinger/?action=view&current=1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/OzRinger/th_1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" ></a>

I use one of my Photobucket accounts to store pictures for this forum, but I have to down-size them and link to them directly which is counterproductive.

I have several Photobucket accounts that I use to store hundreds of pictures for thumbnailing on four other forums - it's what it was designed for. There are no hosting issues as far as the forum is concerned other than the small footprint thumbnails.