Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll

[Click]

Thank you Ed !

 

[Jim Saunders]

700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though. As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.

Jim

 

[IMG_0001]

I like big thumbs...

I beg every other users for pardon as I often did reply to post with images without removing them. Most of the times I reply while leaving images, it is because editing a quote from my not so smart phone is a bit of a pain in the ... well, you know.

 

[Admin US West]

700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though. As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.

Jim

I tried setting multiple sizes, and by trial and error, I found that 700 pixels wide was the maximum width without the system adding a scroll bar at the bottom. That's where it sits now 700 X 700. I could make it taller, but did not to do too much at one time.

 

[Admin US West]

I like big thumbs...

I beg every other users for pardon as I often did reply to post with images without removing them. Most of the times I reply while leaving images, it is because editing a quote from my not so smart phone is a bit of a pain in the ... well, you know.

I understand. It would be nice if everyone could remove the linked images, but it would be nicer yet if they were removed automatically.

I'm still looking for a beter solution

 

[tolusina]

..... As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.......

I found the same on the Cars cars cars (and some bikes) thread.
I tried to back up one page to 15, got a white page. Tried clicking through from page one, got as far as page 10, can't see anything between 11 and 15.

 

[Dylan777]

700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though. As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.

Jim

I tried setting multiple sizes, and by trial and error, I found that 700 pixels wide was the maximum width without the system adding a scroll bar at the bottom. That's where it sits now 700 X 700. I could make it taller, but did not to do too much at one time.

Current view is better than tiny prev. However, it still looks dull at 700x700. Can you increase to larger size?

 

[Besisika]

I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?

+1

+1 and small thunbnails

 

[eml58]

..... As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.......

I found the same on the Cars cars cars (and some bikes) thread.
I tried to back up one page to 15, got a white page. Tried clicking through from page one, got as far as page 10, can't see anything between 11 and 15.

Thought this was an issue with my Computer, so I'm finding the same issue as others, Blank Pages across most of the threads I've looked at.

The issue with the Images being left in the "reply" can be solved by someone putting together a small advice page on how to delete the Images from your reply, it's not exactly difficult, most people do this, some don't, perhaps because they are simply not aware you can, delete any part/parts of the Post you are replying to.

 

[Admin US West]

700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though. As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.

Jim

I tried setting multiple sizes, and by trial and error, I found that 700 pixels wide was the maximum width without the system adding a scroll bar at the bottom. That's where it sits now 700 X 700. I could make it taller, but did not to do too much at one time.

Current view is better than tiny prev. However, it still looks dull at 700x700. Can you increase to larger size?

700 X 700 is as large as the forum allows. after that, you have to scroll around to see it. Might as well click on the thumbnail as do that.

 

[lion rock]

Thank you CR Admin. Your decision to revert back to a larger image is appreciated. I think most of the readers here agree it may be slower, but well worth the slight increase of time just to look at some extraordinary images.
If we can all do a bit more to delete links of included images in our replies, we can further reduce clutter and download time.
-r

 

[Dylan777]

700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though. As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.

Jim

I tried setting multiple sizes, and by trial and error, I found that 700 pixels wide was the maximum width without the system adding a scroll bar at the bottom. That's where it sits now 700 X 700. I could make it taller, but did not to do too much at one time.

Current view is better than tiny prev. However, it still looks dull at 700x700. Can you increase to larger size?

700 X 700 is as large as the forum allows. after that, you have to scroll around to see it. Might as well click on the thumbnail as do that.

I see. Thanks

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi sagittariansrock.
I see a lot of advantage to this, I often use a slow connection and loading the same post full of images over and over can be a bind. When possible I edit photos out of replies with a few exceptions, like I will edit all but one with "I prefer this one most" as the general reply. Also nested replies are a bore, 7 or 8 replies one inside the other in the quotes is mostly superfluous!
I am not talking about the replies during a discussion where a response is broken down in to many parts with a reply to multiple quotes from the same post.
Perhaps we could edit for brevity?
I was also told off on forums years ago for not replying at the top of quotes, Hence my reply style! ;D
Please keep the large size pics as during the times I connect on the slower connections I cannot open large click throughs, and in general I find clicking out of a forum and back in detracts from the reading continuity of the site!

Just a few of my thoughts!

Cheers Graham.

I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?

 

[FEBS]

I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?

+1

 

[agierke]

I'm fine with the large thumbnails but I think max 3 images per post is more than enough. 6 is too much and 10 is completely unnecessary. If you have that many images you want to show, post a link to your flicker page or website.

 

[tolusina]

...... loading the same post full of images over and over can be a bind....

I'm not certain on this, perhaps someone more geeky like Rusty will conform or discredit.

As each unique image has it's own unique URL, when a page calls for that unique URL multiple times, it only gets downloaded once using only the bandwidth required for a single download, the browser then locally positions the display of that single copy in multiple locations.
So, if that ^ is correct, there's no bandwidth penalty when displaying the same image multiple times on the same page, the visual clutter issue certainly remains and is often very annoying even on a desktop, much worse when viewing mobile.

Best would be where posters learn how and implement a post/reply method that removes all from the quote that has no relevance to the reply. Being as we are all perfectly flawed humans with widely varied knowledge and experiences, this is not likely to happen.

Hmm, to eliminate visual clutter, let's all learn to post at f1.2, narrow focus and depth of field, clutter be banished to Bokeh.

edit...... visual clutter applies to text that is needlessly quoted, most especially when multi-quoted, visual clutter is not limited to images.

 

[jackb]

I agree that quotes in replies should be as brief as possible - without repeated images or unnecessary nesting.

I like larger images so long as there is no horizontal scroll bar. I have been posting 900x600 images on my website which fit on a 1024x768 screen without scrolling, including the browser menu and task bars. File sizes, though, should be limited by setting the JPEG quality just high enough to avoid JPEG artifacts at the posted image resolution. For 700x700 images, I would guess that about 70% quality is high enough. Perhaps someone could do an objective test. I have been using 60% quality for 900x600 images on my website and get file sizes of 120-150KB, depending on the image complexity, which results in speedy downloading.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi tolusina.
I believe you are correct about the single call per page, but often replies quoting large numbers of images spread to the next page, and sometimes to a third page, though not often.

Cheers Graham.

I'm not certain on this, perhaps someone more geeky like Rusty will conform or discredit.

As each unique image has it's own unique URL, when a page calls for that unique URL multiple times, it only gets downloaded once using only the bandwidth required for a single download, the browser then locally positions the display of that single copy in multiple locations.
So, if that ^ is correct, there's no bandwidth penalty when displaying the same image multiple times on the same page, the visual clutter issue certainly remains and is often very annoying even on a desktop, much worse when viewing mobile.

Best would be where posters learn how and implement a post/reply method that removes all from the quote that has no relevance to the reply. Being as we are all perfectly flawed humans with widely varied knowledge and experiences, this is not likely to happen.

Hmm, to eliminate visual clutter, let's all learn to post at f1.2, narrow focus and depth of field, clutter be banished to Bokeh.

edit...... visual clutter applies to text that is needlessly quoted, most especially when multi-quoted, visual clutter is not limited to images.

 

[Don Haines]

I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate.

+1

...And I prefer large image 770 x 770

+2

 

[RustyTheGeek]

...... loading the same post full of images over and over can be a bind....

I'm not certain on this, perhaps someone more geeky like Rusty will conform or discredit.

As each unique image has it's own unique URL, when a page calls for that unique URL multiple times, it only gets downloaded once using only the bandwidth required for a single download, the browser then locally positions the display of that single copy in multiple locations.
So, if that ^ is correct, there's no bandwidth penalty when displaying the same image multiple times on the same page, the visual clutter issue certainly remains and is often very annoying even on a desktop, much worse when viewing mobile.

Best would be where posters learn how and implement a post/reply method that removes all from the quote that has no relevance to the reply. Being as we are all perfectly flawed humans with widely varied knowledge and experiences, this is not likely to happen.

Hmm, to eliminate visual clutter, let's all learn to post at f1.2, narrow focus and depth of field, clutter be banished to Bokeh.

edit...... visual clutter applies to text that is needlessly quoted, most especially when multi-quoted, visual clutter is not limited to images.

Confirmed. That's the way I understand it as well. The Temporary Internet Cache files on your local hard drive store the image from the first time it loads, then that image file is used repeatedly until it is deleted or it expires from the cache area. So download performance is not an issue but the amount of post clutter might be a bother. Personally, I usually edit the quote if it's large and remove all but the relevant bits that relate to my comments.