Discussion about Picture Sizing

[SHARKEY-IMAGES]

Size 1024 blows out the forum causing people to scroll right to left.

Perhaps the max should be 800 wide?

Just a thought....

 

[old377guy]

good idea sharkey - I hate it when that happens. - jeff

 

[45Sonic]

Does that explain where GLH's thread went ??

 

[Airpacker]

His thread did not go anywhere. Just the way oversize pice were removed.

 

[45Sonic]

Um can't seem to find it. Just curious I know you all are still working on everything

 

[Tank]

Since were on the picture subject...is there a reason why it's limited to only 3 pics per post. I believe you can allow as many as 10 per post (such as the scope website) or even a little more would be better than 3 (the performance boats website allows 5).

 

[cigdaze]

Since were on the picture subject...is there a reason why it's limited to only 3 pics per post. I believe you can allow as many as 10 per post (such as the scope website) or even a little more would be better than 3 (the performance boats website allows 5).

It's the default. We're testing the way it works as it is now with server loading, etc., but we'll entertain in the future increasing it.

 

[cigdaze]

Does that explain where GLH's thread went ??

One thread was trimmed. The other thread was removed by GLH himself.

 

[Airpacker]

Um can't seem to find it. Just curious I know you all are still working on everything

I am sorry, it would appear the GLH deleted the thread himself.

 

[Strip Poker 388]

Sharkey I guess it depends on your screen size?
I like the 1028x768 best, it doesn't go off any of my 17in computer screens.

this is a
800x600

 

[cigdaze]

Sharkey I guess it depends on your screen size?
I like the 1028x768 best, it doesn't go off any of my 17in computer screens.

this is a
800x600

I agree. I depends on screen size. 1024 x 768 is becoming a standard around other forums, too. It's a reasonable size.

 

[Strip Poker 388]

I agree. I depends on screen size. 1024 x 768 is becoming a standard around other forums, too. It's a reasonable size.

it starts out as a thumbnail small, then ya click on it its still pretty small,I guess youall are mainly talking about linked picks? I did have a few that were life size on OSO:drool5:

 

[cigdaze]

it starts out as a thumbnail small, then ya click on it its still pretty small,I guess youall are mainly talking about linked picks? I did have a few that were life size on OSO:drool5:

Though nice(+), it's kills performance(-). Gotta balance the +/-
I did very much enjoy those larger than life pics of yours. But yes, we are discussing linked pics.

 

[Strip Poker 388]

Though nice(+), it's kills performance(-). Gotta balance the +/-
I did very much enjoy those larger than life pics of yours. But yes, we are discussing linked pics.

I thought a linked pick on a host site uses there band with,or is it the display of the large pick in a thread that would slow down the site?

 

[Ted]

It is the combination of the linked pic slowing down the load time and blowing the screen out to the side. As you know when it blows out it de-formats the rest of the thread and makes it hard to read in some cases, it is a major complaint people seem to have.

 

[cigdaze]

You are correct, Strip, in that there is no bandwidth being pulled from SO.com (because it's not stored on, nor loading from SO.com), but the issue is with the actual thread itself getting distorted (going off to the right, things not lining up, etc.), and it can take way longer to load the entire thread because of an external picture or two holding up page load.

The general consensus was to politely request that those enormous pics be kept to a minimum.

 

[SHARKEY-IMAGES]

I agree. I depends on screen size. 1024 x 768 is becoming a standard around other forums, too. It's a reasonable size.

I use 1024 x 768 screen size myself. But you have to leave room for the display of the screen name and the rest of the forum's borders.

An attachment is not an issue of blowing out the forum because you are opening a separate page to view the image. It is the linked images.

I refrain from using anything larger than 800 max wide for linked pics so that everyone reading the forum does not have to scroll left and right.

Here is an example of the 800 wide:

 

[Chris]

It depends on screen resolution. I have 50-year-old eyes and 1600 monitor resolution equals icons I can't read and eyestrain headaches. I also have a 5-year-old LCD monitor. Above 800x600 means huge images.

 

[SHARKEY-IMAGES]

The general consensus was to politely request that those enormous pics be kept to a minimum.

If you think the 800 is too large, the next size down I can go is 580 wide.

An example of the 580:

 

[SHARKEY-IMAGES]

The 580 looks like it keeps everything inline including the screen name section.