Forum Suggestions & User Assistance - Maximum Image Width

Is there a maximum width of an image allowed? If not, why? It is very annoying when someone posts a wide image and I need to scroll back and forth to read all the posts on that page. I think there should be a maximum width. If the image is larger than that, then just post a thumbnail or link to the image.

While we're at it, why do people quote a post with a bunch of images, instead of removing the images in the reply?

I agree there should be a 800-1000 pixel limit on the width.

While we're at it, why do people quote a post with a bunch of images, instead of removing the images in the reply?

Because it's easier...

Just so you know, you don't have re-download it every time the image appears.

Oh, so it is laziness. I see.

If they link to Photobucket, it's 800 pixels wide or a thumbnail, but sometimes they link to gigantic images from other websites.

Oh, so it is laziness. I see.

Why do you care if people include the picture in a reply?

A couple of reasons:
1. It isn't necessary and just more scrolling to get to the information.
2. Must use "Remove This Object" more times if it is a large image that causes me to scroll sideways to read the post.
3. I could use "Remove This Permanently", but that would soon make the file very large. Slowing down loading of pages.

I'm not against quoting pictures. But when someone quotes a post with 5 large images of different bikes, and just says, "Nice Miyata." It seems kind of silly. Could have just said, "Umd, Nice Miyata". Especially when the quoted post is directly under the one they are quoting. If it was from 3 pages ago, I could understand that.

With that said, the quoting of pictures is just silly, it is not really a complaint. It is the too wide of images that makes side scrolling necessary.

If they link to Photobucket, it's 800 pixels wide or a thumbnail, but sometimes they link to gigantic images from other websites.
Ok. But that doesn't answer my original question. I guess this means BF doesn't have any rules about image widths. So, why not? Does BF not care if large images are posted that causes users to side scroll the rest of the page to read any posts?

I think we should. It is an annoyance, one that could easily be corrected. If a Mod found an image that was too wide, they could easily remove the [IMG] tag and PM the offender that wide images must be linked, not shown.

What I did on the forum I ran, was do that exact thing. I would also post an "Edit" in their post telling them I removed the image, but left the link. I think this might have helped showing others that wide images were not allowed.

There's a plugin for the forum software that will automatically resize images to a specific width, with an option for the viewer to expand it up to original size. I've suggested it to the powers that be before, but nothing's been done.

They dont care how wide an image is. I don't think it is that big of a deal. It is a little annoying scrolling back and forth though. I guess they assume members will be responsible enough not to post tremendous pictures. Either leaving it as is or limiting it doesnt matter to me. I have a 21" widescreen so I would hate to see it limited to only 800 pixels. Anyway I just realized it is probably really annoying to read this post since I posted a really large picture right under this. Well enjoy :)

(bonus points if you quote me and leave the image)

http://is.rely.net/1-36-85748-l-ubpVBdBTS9jabRAyqpJIQA.jpg

When we all have 22 inch wide monitors (http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktop-monitors/lcd/x-series/vx2260wm.htm), will the images then be 3000 pixels wide?

I use the Firefox addon Image Zoom (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/139). It works great to zoom tiny images or shrink big ones. The BF thread text re-wraps on the fly as the wide image is shrunken.

Edit-- I see that the above 20,000 pixel image is too wide to resize the text on this thread; it wraps correctly. So--post really big images!

Well, if you are using Firefox or IceWeasel, you can add to your UserContent.css file:

@-moz-document url-prefix(http://www.bikeforums.net/) {
img { max-width: 500px !important**
**

Or whatever you wish as the max-width. I've just tested it and it is doing well. But I still think BikeForums should set a rule for this.

But I still think BikeForums should set a rule for this.

I disagree. Too big to one person may be just perfect or even too small for someone else. For the mods to go through and "fix" everyone's posts would be unmanageable.

Just limit them to 500 pixels and be done with it. There is no need for photos to be any larger than that. Or force everyone to use the thumbnail option.

Using the "thumbnail option" requires you to upload the picture to BF instead of linking from another location. You say no need to be larger than 500 pixels, but to me 500 pixels looks like a postage stamp. The complainers can use tools to auto-resize images.

I vote for a limit on picture size. And quoting images is ugly.

Using the "thumbnail option" requires you to upload the picture to BF instead of linking from another location. You say no need to be larger than 500 pixels, but to me 500 pixels looks like a postage stamp. The complainers can use tools to auto-resize images.

Agreed. 500 pixels is tiny. When I post pics I usually keep them at 800 wide and that is still fairly small.

Agreed. 500 pixels is tiny. When I post pics I usually keep them at 800 wide and that is still fairly small.

1,000 is a nice round number, good enough for all but the largest screens, and not so large as to swamp small screens.

They dont care how wide an image is. I don't think it is that big of a deal. It is a little annoying scrolling back and forth though. I guess they assume members will be responsible enough not to post tremendous pictures. Either leaving it as is or limiting it doesnt matter to me. I have a 21" widescreen so I would hate to see it limited to only 800 pixels. Anyway I just realized it is probably really annoying to read this post since I posted a really large picture right under this. Well enjoy :)

(bonus points if you quote me and leave the image)

http://is.rely.net/1-36-85748-l-ubpVBdBTS9jabRAyqpJIQA.jpg

I like um Big.
Thanks

You must be from Texas.....;)

You must be from Texas.....;)

Send me a monitor that size.
Thanks

Using the "thumbnail option" requires you to upload the picture to BF instead of linking from another location. You say no need to be larger than 500 pixels, but to me 500 pixels looks like a postage stamp. The complainers can use tools to auto-resize images.
And posters can easily link to a larger image and not cause side scrolling. You don't need to upload to BF for a thumbnail. If a larger picture is required, they can use thumbnails from photobucket, imageshack or a link. No problem there. If you have problems with small images, you can resize the image also.

Why are you so against a link to larger images? I don't know of anyone that likes to side scroll through a thread so that it can be read.

And posters can easily link to a larger image and not cause side scrolling. You don't need to upload to BF for a thumbnail. If a larger picture is required, they can use thumbnails from photobucket, imageshack or a link. No problem there. If you have problems with small images, you can resize the image also.

Why are you so against a link to larger images? I don't know of anyone that likes to side scroll through a thread so that it can be read.

I am against a rule limiting the size of an image; I am not opposed to the concept of not displaying large images (large being subjective of course).

Bikeforums has an "attach files" feature which displays images automatically as thumbnails, which is what Machka was referring to. However, if I just want to display an image using the IMG tag, it doesn't do any kind of thumbnailing.

As far as me resizing images, you are the one with the complaint, not me. You want to change the system, to make new rules. Why should I have to bend of backwards to fix a problem that is not broken for most people? Everyone is going to have a different limit of what they consider to be too large. Those people that are bothered by this can use plugins to resize the images smaller. You can't make images larger as easily... an image that is only 500 pixels wide will look crappy blown up to 1000, but an image that is 1000 will look fine reduced to 500.

As for bandwith... HTFU, this is 2009. I don't even have problems downloading or viewing large images on my phone.

I am against a rule limiting the size of an image; I am not opposed to the concept of not displaying large images (large being subjective of course). Yes you are. At least you have been arguing against it.


Bikeforums has an "attach files" feature which displays images automatically as thumbnails, which is what Machka was referring to. However, if I just want to display an image using the IMG tag, it doesn't do any kind of thumbnailing. And it is just as easy to use the code that the free online image locations give you to use the thumbnail. But, why would you want to post a large image on purpose? Do you have no considerations for other users of this forum and how your actions affect the readability of the forums?


As far as me resizing images, you are the one with the complaint, not me. You want to change the system, to make new rules. Why should I have to bend of backwards to fix a problem that is not broken for most people?How is not posting large images bending backwards? I was not serious about changing the size, it was to show you that we shouldn't have to install pluggins, remove objects so that we can read the forum as it was meant to be read.
<table class="tborder" style="border-bottom-width: 0px;" width="100%" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0">
As you can see, the table is suppose to be 100%, so that it fits within the user's browser. Large images break the table layout.
It's not broken for most people? Are you sure of that? Just in this thread it seems like more people are against large images. Do you have different data that I am unaware of?

Everyone is going to have a different limit of what they consider to be too large. Those people that are bothered by this can use plugins to resize the images smaller. You can't make images larger as easily... an image that is only 500 pixels wide will look crappy blown up to 1000, but an image that is 1000 will look fine reduced to 500.
Answered above, why should I bend over backwards for other people's inconsiderate actions? But if you are having problems with 500 pixel images, maybe you should get a smaller screen.I mean, most images are not very large on here, you must be having a very difficult time seeing what people are posting.

As for bandwith... HTFU, this is 2009. I don't even have problems downloading or viewing large images on my phone.
I don't remember anyone mentioning bandwidth.

Yes you are. At least you have been arguing against it.

No I have not. I have been arguing aginst imposing some kind of forum rules about a maximum image size. I do not like huge images either but I do not want to impose an arbitrary restriction.


And it is just as easy to use the code that the free online image locations give you to use the thumbnail.

You are assuming everyone is using those sites. If you reference a random picture on the internet there is no code given for you.


But, why would you want to post a large image on purpose?

I do not post large images, although I'm sure complainers like you would still have a problem with it. My images are 800 pixels wide at most, I think that is reasonable.


Do you have no considerations for other users of this forum and how your actions affect the readability of the forums?

My actions are affecting the readability of the forum.


How is not posting large images bending backwards?

I was referring to thumbnails


I was not serious about changing the size, it was to show you that we shouldn't have to install pluggins, remove objects so that we can read the forum as it was meant to be read. As you can see, the table is suppose to be 100%, so that it fits within the user's browser. Large images break the table layout.

I do not understand what you are blathering about.


It's not broken for most people? Are you sure of that? Just in this thread it seems like more people are against large images. Do you have different data that I am unaware of?

This thread is not representative of the entire community. How many people even know about this tiny corner of the bikeforums universe? I only came here to post about some strange behavior in large threads. When this comes up in the road forum a few people complain, most people say to HTFU and deal with it. The complainers are the minority. Thats said, when people post obscenely large images, people will ask the poster to reduce it.


Answered above, why should I bend over backwards for other people's inconsiderate actions?

It is far simplier for people who have an issue with image size to deal with it on their end than it is to ask everyone else to take more steps to satisfy a minority.


But if you are having problems with 500 pixel images, maybe you should get a smaller screen.

:lol:


I mean, most images are not very large on here, you must be having a very difficult time seeing what people are posting.

Depends on what the image is. Sometimes images are a little small and it's somewhat annoying but I get over it.


I don't remember anyone mentioning bandwidth.

Of course, you are the type of person that expects the world to revolve around you. When this issue comes up from time to time in the road forum, some people (such as Machka) complain about bandwith.

This image here is 500 pixels. It's the perfect size. How much bigger do you need it?

Flickr allows you to choose the size you'd like to use. This particular one is "Medium". I'm sure other photoalbums, similar to Flickr, allow you to post smaller and more managable photos as well.

What we have to keep in mind is that even though this is 2009, there are still a lot of people on dial-up, and a lot of people using older and slower computers. Sure a person could say, "stop using dial-up and get high speed" but in some places that is not available.



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3446/3207570637_0ee64594d7.jpg?v=0

This image here is 500 pixels. It's the perfect size. How much bigger do you need it?

Flickr allows you to choose the size you'd like to use. This particular one is "Medium". I'm sure other photoalbums, similar to Flickr, allow you to post smaller and more managable photos as well.

What we have to keep in mind is that even though this is 2009, there are still a lot of people on dial-up, and a lot of people using older and slower computers. Sure a person could say, "stop using dial-up and get high speed" but in some places that is not available.



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3446/3207570637_0ee64594d7.jpg?v=0

Your image is 5 inches across on my screen. That's not much room for detail. I like my images 800 pixels. To me, that's a "perfect" size. And that's the point... that each person is going to have a different "perfect" size.

This is 800 pixels wide

http://www.photoscene.com/kimandsteve/images/4517.jpg

As for bandwith, pixel size and file size are not necessarily linked.

Your image is 5 inches across on my screen. That's not much room for detail. I like my images 800 pixels. To me, that's a "perfect" size. And that's the point... that each person is going to have a different "perfect" size.

This is 800 pixels wide

As for bandwith, pixel size and file size are not necessarily linked.

5 inches should be fine. If you want more detail, then ask the person to crop the photo around the particular item you're interested in ... or ask for the Flickr link.

And I agree that bandwidth, pixel size and file size are not necessarily linked, but when there's a thread full of photos, after it gets to be about 3 pages long, I can't open it anymore.

This is what the screen looks like to me with your photo in it. I lose interest in the thread very quickly when I have to scroll back and forth to see the photos.
.

I understand that you have bandwith issues... why don't you just set your browser to not download images automatically?

I understand that you have bandwith issues... why don't you just set your browser to not download images automatically?

Once I get to Australia, where I'll be on dial-up because I'll be living way out in the country, I will. Rowan has turned everything off ... signature lines, avatars, images ... so that he can run BF.

But it would be nice to have the option of seeing thumbnail-sized images of the images people post, with the option of clicking them to get a larger image if I were interested in seeing a larger version of a particular image. That would be the ideal situation. And I realize that the current thumbnail option uploads the image to BF which uses up space, but ideally I'd like to see a situation where the thumbnail is a link to whatever photoalbum a person is using (Flickr, etc.).

How about a server-side plugin that does the resizing based on a setting in your user profile? Just like how signatures, number of threads per page, or any other of a ton of display variables are controlled. The default could be set to a little under 800 pixels (because 800x600 resolution is widely accepted base resolution).

It would be a little tricky to do it to IMG tags though, I'd imagine, because the target of the IMG tag would have to be retrieved before it could be processed. One possible solution, perhaps, would be to revamp the built-in message posting option. Rather than the auto-thumbnail, make the result of the board-supported file upload resemble inline IMG tag insertion (or provide a selection between the two as checkable option while posting). This seems to be a far more popular way to display images (inline) if you look at the majority of posts.

The downside would be a larger bandwidth/hosting commitment from the board. One benefit, though, would be the prevention of broken links in archived posts. I've been on boards that disallow offsite linking purely for this reason (archival).

In the end, it seems like this is the standard vBulletin system without much in the way of board-specific modifications, so they are probably happy to stick with what they have. Would be nice to see stuff like that, but probably best to ultimately leave it client side (via browser plug-in, etc.)

How about a server-side plugin that does the resizing based on a setting in your user profile? Just like how signatures, number of threads per page, or any other of a ton of display variables are controlled. The default could be set to a little under 800 pixels (because 800x600 resolution is widely accepted base resolution).

It would be a little tricky to do it to IMG tags though, I'd imagine, because the target of the IMG tag would have to be retrieved before it could be processed. One possible solution, perhaps, would be to revamp the built-in message posting option. Rather than the auto-thumbnail, make the result of the board-supported file upload resemble inline IMG tag insertion (or provide a selection between the two as checkable option while posting). This seems to be a far more popular way to display images (inline) if you look at the majority of posts.
)
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/
^^^
That forum does that. I've posted a larger than 800 pix image using [img] tags and it resizes the image on the fly.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/
^^^
That forum does that. I've posted a larger than 800 pix image using [img] tags and it resizes the image on the fly.

very cool. well, there you go.

I still usee attachments. I thought MSN would be a photo host but then they changed everything to the current nonsense...phooey.

PS Making a simple REPLY only brings up the page template with no reply form today? Vanilla IE7.

For the IB guys: http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=118048