perhaps this has been addressed before, but I have always wondered why we were never allowed to have pictures in our sigs...

uh Joe? any answer?

Hmm, good question. Maybe that should be a feature for donating members :)

We have to be careful with the web interface. I think it is important to keep the interface light, both for server traffic and for time to download the pages. For all the many users with a dial-in connection, the more pictures we add, the longer it takes to show a page.

Personnally, I have no problems if the images add value to the content (ex.: images of a bike, a route, etc.), but think adding pictures to signatures would increase the time necessary to download and show each page.

Maybe a user's picture or 2 could do the trick for those who want a personal touch... At least, those pictures won't be loaded unless a person specifically displays the user's profile.

BTW, when I display someone's profile (yours, Joe, for example), the user picture is displayed by an X (like "image not found"), whereas long time ago it used to display a message like "No picture available".

Regards,

Originally posted by mgagnonlv
We have to be careful with the web interface. I think it is important to keep the interface light, both for server traffic and for time to download the pages. For all the many users with a dial-in connection, the more pictures we add, the longer it takes to show a page.

good point.... as a side note has anyone noticed that the site has been slow the last few days?

VC, we are still on the shared server. I need the database to be stable before upgrading to v3 and moving to the dedicated server. At that time, the site should be ALOT faster.

Whooo hooooo!

Go Joe, go!

:D

Originally posted by Joe Gardner
VC, we are still on the shared server. I need the database to be stable before upgrading to v3 and moving to the dedicated server. At that time, the site should be ALOT faster.

oh I thought we had already switched.... guess I'm a little behind on the info thing :p