Image Posting Etiquette [SPLIT]

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:37 pm

AbsoluteDestiny wrote:Keep image sizes down If posting images, make sure they are not too large in frame size and file size. If posting multiple images please do not post many images in one post as it slows down the forum immensely.

A specific number might be good here - a set limit to 'images per post' and maybe even a limit on the file size of all images posted at once (or even just a 'no pic larger than this' size limit). 'Too large in frame size' makes me think you have to use a scrollbar to see the sides of it (not including the scroll up/down). And too large in file size to me means it takes more than 2 minutes to load (dialup user). Actual limits would set it down - giving possible exceptions, but making a general size/pic average to go by. I'm sure there are people who think a 2mb image isn't too large - not if they're on fast connections. While others hear too large and think 200kbs is large.

[paizuri: I split these posts since image posting seems to be a hot topic and I didn't want to overshadow the rest of the thread.]

Calim · Post by **Calim** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:42 am

Arigatomyna wrote:
AbsoluteDestiny wrote:Keep image sizes down If posting images, make sure they are not too large in frame size and file size. If posting multiple images please do not post many images in one post as it slows down the forum immensely.
A specific number might be good here - a set limit to 'images per post' and maybe even a limit on the file size of all images posted at once (or even just a 'no pic larger than this' size limit). 'Too large in frame size' makes me think you have to use a scrollbar to see the sides of it (not including the scroll up/down). And too large in file size to me means it takes more than 2 minutes to load (dialup user). Actual limits would set it down - giving possible exceptions, but making a general size/pic average to go by. I'm sure there are people who think a 2mb image isn't too large - not if they're on fast connections. While others hear too large and think 200kbs is large.

I'd have to disagree with this one, if you made a certain amount like 5/per post then there would be a repeat of posts agian and again and although its not a big deal it is kind of annoying.

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:54 am

Is it better to have a page full of post with 5 images each or a page full of posts with 30 images each?

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 7:26 am

AbsoluteDestiny wrote:Is it better to have a page full of post with 5 images each or a page full of posts with 30 images each?

Make it 5 pics per post, with a grand limit of 10 pics per page (per person) before they have to give links instead. For most of the people sharing pics here, giving a simple link would suffice. And that won't force everyone viewing that page to download every single pic.

Calim · Post by **Calim** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 7:31 am

Arigatomyna wrote:
AbsoluteDestiny wrote:Is it better to have a page full of post with 5 images each or a page full of posts with 30 images each?
Make it 5 pics per post, with a grand limit of 10 pics per page (per person) before they have to give links instead. For most of the people sharing pics here, giving a simple link would suffice. And that won't force everyone viewing that page to download every single pic.

No I'd rather not have the 10 pics per page limit because although I can see that 56kers don't want to download all of those, people like me who have broadband would probably not want to waste there time clicking each link to dl an image its a waste of time.

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 5:03 pm

Calim wrote:No I'd rather not have the 10 pics per page limit because although I can see that 56kers don't want to download all of those, people like me who have broadband would probably not want to waste there time clicking each link to dl an image its a waste of time.

Well, the idea of limiting it (as I understand it) is that when you have 30 pics in a row, all using the 'img' tag, the time it takes for all of those pics to download and show on that page slows the forum. It's not just a matter of 56kers so much as the combined total of everyone who clicks that page - and having every single one of those pictures loading for every single page view. That's a lot of pictures. And even if people don't mind the wait (fast connections), it still slows the forum. The idea is to not slow the forum so much - hence limiting the way pics are posted (some sort of limit, my 10 per page per user was just a suggestion).

/just don't ask me how it slows the forum - I heard it from AD >.>

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Fri Jun 11, 2004 7:45 pm

Calim wrote:or what the programmers could do is code the site so that when people register they ask if there broadband or not if they are show the pictures on the forums, if not make the [img] tags not work.

Dear God, no. You think it takes me long to have a 'pic thread' load now? Imagine if I had to copy and paste every single one of those failed links. At least with half being img and half being links, I can either see them, or click them. Now, people can already disable pictures in their browsers - if they use IE, so there's no need to take the privilege away from certain users just because they have slower connections. It would be as bad as saying 'if you have a fast connection, you can upload bigger files than the slow people'. That's no way to go about it.

/of course, I'd just lie when I joined if it were set up that way, so it wouldn't matter

Nestorath69 · Post by **Nestorath69** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:37 am

I'd suggest also No quoting posts with images

Because I see it as cool to post your images, cool, whatever, do your thing, but to see two or three quoted posts with the same images just takes the load time. That's been done in the Weird Screencaps thread several times.

One suggestion: I typically write out my posts in Microsoft Word and use the ever popular F7 (spellcheck) before I post. Unless I'm lazy.

Which is quite often.

Cloud Clone · Post by **Cloud Clone** » Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:34 pm

The 5 pics per post is a good idea. 30 pics on a page isn't so bad compared to an incredible 67 images I've had to wait on to DL which took quite a while. In the middle of it all, the last third of the pics turned into the infamous "Red X"s that I had to go down each one individally, right click, then click "Show Picture" to see. 5 images per post is for the best, just IMO.

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:42 pm

AbsoluteDestiny wrote:Is it better to have a page full of post with 5 images each or a page full of posts with 30 images each?

I'd go with 30 images each, because usually that's as many as the poster wants to put, so they don't have to stop and start a new post in the middle of their string of images. Personally, I find the spreading out of images (over multiple posts by the same person) distracting.