Forum Suggestions & User Assistance - Large pictures messing up forum messages

wtf is a visual shouter anyway?

A "good compromise" is what works for you and a handful of other visual shouters, and meets your specialized requirements on a handful of threads. Got it!

Poor logic ILTB.

If it bothers you that badly just set your browser to text only.

Thanks for making them do it right this time Tom.

wtf is a visual shouter anyway?

Someone who can't post a picture at a reasonable size but has to be bigger (louder) than everyone else. I can't be sure why a handful of posters feel the need to post humongous pictures of mundane cycling activities or pictures of their bicycle, but I consider it equivalent to someone who won't talk in a normal tone of voice but has to be louder than every one else no matter what the subject.

Obviously shrinking photos to meet a 100kb limit to meet the thumbnail restrictions would cause the "photographers" with the big ego/artistic pretensions to have an apoplexy.

Obviously shrinking photos to meet a 100kb limit to meet the thumbnail restrictions would cause the "photographers" with the big ego/artistic pretensions to have an apoplexy.

wtf is your problem?

Since your opinion is obviously the only one that matters, what would a better compromise be?

wtf is your problem?

Since your opinion is obviously the only one that matters, what would a better compromise be?

WTF dis; WTF dat. :rolleyes: I ain't the one with a problem of getting all bent out of shape about this issue, nor getting all defensive about it. I don't NEED big pictures nor whine and cry til/if I get them.

I posted that the new "compromise"reintroduces the problem of requiring some readers to scroll text on the entire page anytime an inconsiderate poster posts needlessly bloated pictures on the thread. Apparently your most lucid response is WTF.

WTF dis; WTF dat. :rolleyes: I ain't the one with a problem of getting all bent out of shape about this issue, nor getting all defensive about it. I don't NEED big pictures nor whine and cry til/if I get them.

I posted that the new "compromise"reintroduces the problem of requiring some readers to scroll text on the entire page anytime an inconsiderate poster posts needlessly bloated pictures on the thread. Apparently your most lucid response is WTF.

I'm not being deffensive, because those of us that felt the restriction was too limiting have already prevailed. I just don't understand your position. Where were you defending the 640 limit when everybody was complaining about it? This is a compromise between a restriction that was too small for many people, while still limiting ridiculously large pictures. You still haven't answered my question of what the limit should be. And what is your reasoning for that size? Because it is best for you?

I'm not being deffensive, because those of us that felt the restriction was too limiting have already prevailed. I just don't understand your position. Where were you defending the 640 limit when everybody was complaining about it? This is a compromise between a restriction that was too small for many people, while still limiting ridiculously large pictures. You still haven't answered my question of what the limit should be. And what is your reasoning for that size? Because it is best for you?

Everybody was complaining that 640 pictures were "too small?" Really? How many people is that - 5, 10 or WTF?

Too small, for what? I've hardly seen a humongous picture posted on BF that would have suffered much artistically by being proportionately reduced to 640 width or smaller.

Everybody was complaining that 640 pictures were "too small?" Really? How many people is that - 5, 10 or WTF?

Too small, for what? I've hardly seen a humongous picture posted on BF that would have suffered much artistically by being proportionately reduced to 640 width or smaller.

Everybody in the thread.

Everybody in the thread.
That does narrow everybody down a bit, doesn't it? If the humongous pictures were only posted in this thread or where everybody (in this thread) normally hung their bloated pictures out for admiration there would be less of a problem.

That does narrow everybody down a bit, doesn't it? If the humongous pictures were only posted in this thread or where everybody (in this thread) normally hung their bloated pictures out for admiration there would be less of a problem.

You aren't even coherent. More people complained after the 640 restriction than before. One of the people originally pushing for a limit came on to this thread and said 640 was too small. You seem to be the only one with a problem now.

You aren't even coherent. More people complained after the 640 restriction than before. One of the people originally pushing for a limit came on to this thread and said 640 was too small. You seem to be the only one with a problem now.

I suspect that 95% of the BF posters don't know or care that the Forum Suggestions & User Assistance list even exists, and less than 1% of that group has ever posted on this list. Must mean that there are no problems and everything is near perfect, eh?

ILTB, you should have seen my inbox after we shrank the images down to 640 wide. I got flooded with PM's, so there was a demand for larger images and 1280 wide was the most common requested size......

So, that was the size they were set to.

ILTB, you should have seen my inbox after we shrank the images down to 640 wide. I got flooded with PM's, so there was a demand for larger images and 1280 wide was the most common requested size......

So, that was the size they were set to.

Ok, got it. I am curious about the fuss though. Trivial and routine pictures don't get any better when displayed in a super wide display. Please send me a PM if anybody ever posts a picture of such quality that it actually merits nothing less than a 1280 wide presentation.

Panoramic images or images with words such as screen shots of spread sheets.

http://homepage.mac.com/awcg/.Pictures/2009/Blue-Sky.2.jpg
^^^^
Just doesn't work at postage stamp size

But to drive the point home for you ILTB:
http://homepage.mac.com/awcg/.Pictures/2009/rita_hayworth4.jpg

Panoramic images or images with words such as screen shots of spread sheets.


But to drive the point home for you ILTB:

No problem with the size of that photo because no one in their right mind would be concerned about reading any text with that picture on the page. Only geekish fan boys of high tech bike gear would consider bike related pictures or screen shots of spreadsheets as worthy of full size display as Rita.

Seriously though, a normal size picture of Rita would get the message across about her beauty and a link to a site with full size pictures would be less disruptive on a thread where at least some people who wish to read text on the other posts are being inconvenienced.

I-Like-To-Bike give it up. There were no complaints for years and then all of a sudden the pictures were too big. They made it 640 and made everything worse. I personally would like no limit but 1280 is fine too. I know you think we like to shout and post stupid pictures of nothing but if you look in the road cycling forum it is extremely hard to impossible to read resized power charts and graphs. This change wiped out a ton of threads in the racing forum and road cycling forum because the image sizes stayed so small.

Don't forget it is easy for you to install something to block or resize pictures but there was NOTHING we could do to make them bigger. Figure out a solution for yourself. Many were posted with mozilla add on's and other things.

Don't forget it is easy for you to install something to block or resize pictures but there was NOTHING we could do to make them bigger. Figure out a solution for yourself. Many were posted with mozilla add on's and other things.

Well there wasn't nothing... there was that greasemonkey thing I suggested in this thread that I have been using... it wasn't perfect but it helped. I do agree that this was a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

No problem with the size of that photo because no one in their right mind would be concerned about reading any text with that picture on the page. Only geekish fan boys of high tech bike gear would consider bike related pictures or screen shots of spreadsheets as worthy of full size display as Rita.

Seriously though, a normal size picture of Rita would get the message across about her beauty and a link to a site with full size pictures would be less disruptive on a thread where at least some people who wish to read text on the other posts are being inconvenienced.

I wonder where one could find a bunch of fan boys of high tech bike gear.... if only I knew.

Tom, was there a specific reason they decided to not go with the plugin? If it's because of server issues, surely IB can afford decent servers that can handle the load, or a host that has decent servers.

I've only just noticed picture sizing appears to be back to normal.

Tom, the guys at IB et al thanks very much for sorting this one out. Very happy to fullsize pictures again.

I've only just noticed picture sizing appears to be back to normal.

Yes, "normal" as in SNAFU. (Actually, it's not quite the same. Width is limited to 1280 to thwart peoplw who really want to disrupt the forum.) As I told Tom privately, the people with the biggest screens have the biggest egos and will make the most noise and get their own way in the end. That's a fact of life. :(

Why do you think it's an ego thing? The fact of the matter is that more people suddenly found this thread to complain about the increadibly restrictive 640 pixel wide limit than originally complained about not having any restriction, and now that it has been slightly relaxed, only you and one other person have come to complain. If you had actually stayed subscribed to the thread instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and running off screaming "lalalalala I don't wanna talk about it anymore" you may have had a little more influence over it.

You and the other guy don't seem to understand the concept of compromise. I didn't get my way, I wanted no restriction. You didn't get your way, you wanted pictures restricted to postage stamp size. Tom and IB met both sides somewhere in the middle with a restriction that still allowed moderately large images while restricting huge images. The exact limit could have slid a little either way and would have still been a compromise. So you didn't get your exact way. Boo fricken hoo.

Someone who can't post a picture at a reasonable size but has to be bigger (louder) than everyone else. I can't be sure why a handful of posters feel the need to post humongous pictures of mundane cycling activities or pictures of their bicycle, but I consider it equivalent to someone who won't talk in a normal tone of voice but has to be louder than every one else no matter what the subject.

Obviously shrinking photos to meet a 100kb limit to meet the thumbnail restrictions would cause the "photographers" with the big ego/artistic pretensions to have an apoplexy.

fool.

The fact of the matter is that more people suddenly found this thread to complain about the increadibly restrictive 640 pixel wide limit than originally complained about not having any restriction, and now that it has been slightly relaxed, only you and one other person have come to complain. If you had actually stayed subscribed to the thread instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and running off screaming "lalalalala I don't wanna talk about it anymore" you may have had a little more influence over it.

You and the other guy don't seem to understand the concept of compromise. I didn't get my way, I wanted no restriction. You didn't get your way, you wanted pictures restricted to postage stamp size. Tom and IB met both sides somewhere in the middle with a restriction that still allowed moderately large images while restricting huge images. The exact limit could have slid a little either way and would have still been a compromise. So you didn't get your exact way. Boo fricken hoo.

First of all, I agree wholeheartedly that restricting the displayed images to 640 pixels wide was overkill. No wonder it elicited so many negative responses. But even so, the pictures could all be right-clicked to display them at the original resolution if you wanted to examine some fine details. One almost has to wonder if the 640 pixel downsizing was actually meant to cause outrage so it could be quickly changed in the opposite direction.

Yes, the latest statistics do indicate that higher than 1024 x 768 just pushed ahead this year, but we don't know if this is sales figures or actual monitors in use. My guess would be the former.


The current trend is that most computers are using a screen size of 1024x768 pixels or more:
Date Higher 1024x768 800x600 640x480 Unknown
January 2009 57% 36% 4% 0% 3%
January 2008 38% 48% 8% 0% 6%


Anyway, given all the above, I would say that limiting pictures to 800 or 1024 pixels wide would have been a compromise . When you add 1280 to the poster's information on the left, you have to scroll about 35% at 1024 screen resolution to read the message text. But I guess it's hard for people with the wide screens to appreciate this and smaller pictures makes their investment seem unjustified.

As I said above, a few short years ago Bike Forums automatically resized posted images to fit each user's screen, so nobody complained, but nobody here seems to remember that.

Oh, and I accidentally lost track of this thread when I tried unsubbing about a hundred dead threads.

First of all, I agree wholeheartedly that restricting the displayed images to 640 pixels wide was overkill. No wonder it elicited so many negative responses. But even so, the pictures could all be right-clicked to display them at the original resolution if you wanted to examine some fine details. One almost has to wonder if the 640 pixel downsizing was actually meant to cause outrage so it could be quickly changed in the opposite direction.

That is not true in Internet Explorer. Ironically, the wide images do not mess threads up in IE like they do in other browsers... they do mess up the post that they are in but the rest of the thread text still sizes correctly.


Anyway, given all the above, I would say that limiting pictures to 800 or 1024 pixels wide would have been a compromise . When you add 1280 to the poster's information on the left, you have to scroll about 35% at 1024 screen resolution to read the message text. But I guess it's hard for people with the wide screens to appreciate this and smaller pictures makes their investment seem unjustified.

I would have been ok with 800. But 1024 probably would be the best compromise. 1280 is still a compromise... maybe just skewed a little too high. However, 640 was just unacceptable.

Two weeks of data...

http://www.thephotodictionary.com/images/random/screen.JPG

fool.

Double fool.

As an aside Timmy, that image is about 1000 pixels wide. It fits perfectly in my browser which is about as wide as I make them even though I have 3200x1200 of screen space (2 1600x1200 monitors). Maybe 1280 is too big and 1024 would be a better "compromise".

I would have been ok with 800. But 1024 probably would be the best compromise. 1280 is still a compromise... maybe just skewed a little too high.


Maybe 1280 is too big and 1024 would be a better "compromise".


WTF. Whose side are you on? :twitchy:

If the 1280 gets smaller I will be pretty upset. This is a size I can live with. At work I use a 1024x768 monitor and never had a problem when there was no limit and there is no problem now with it at 1280.

WTF. Whose side are you on? :twitchy:

Here we go again. I thought this was about compromise, not a pissing contest.

WTF. Whose side are you on? :twitchy:


Here we go again. I thought this was about compromise, not a pissing contest.

I'm not on a "side"... Just trying to figure out what is best. The best compromise would be something that leaves an equal number of people unhappy on both "sides". Maybe that's a little smaller. I don't know... Tom probably could give stats on the amount of hate mail he gets on both sides of the issue ;)

Double fool.

Speaking of double fools, Jack, take a look at this thread again and the foolish attitude of a big ego telling everybody else to get fouled (more or less.)

He doesn't give a rat's behind, he is going to post ridiculously large OT pictures whether anybody/everybody complains or not, BECAUSE HE CAN!

Thread URL: http://67.201.16.77/showthread.php?t=517850
Specific posts: 2, 14-18, 22-24, 27.

Speaking of double fools, Jack, take a look at this thread again and the foolish attitude of a big ego telling everybody else to get fouled (more or less.)

He doesn't give a rat's behind, he is going to post ridiculously large OT pictures whether anybody/everybody complains or not, BECAUSE HE CAN!

Thread URL: http://67.201.16.77/showthread.php?t=517850
Specific posts: 2, 14-18, 22-24, 27.

This triple fool has a 1440 x 990 screen.
Double fools ride on 45cm tires.

640 was ugly. I wish text would wrap to its own width instead of being driven by the biggest picture on the page. I really find it annoying to have to scroll to read text because someone put a giant picture in a thread, even with the new limit.

This is the best balance of size limitations I could get. I still do get hate mail from both sides, but the 1280 limit was the most common request by a factor of 4/1, so that's what I went with.

This is the best balance of size limitations I could get. I still do get hate mail from both sides, but the 1280 limit was the most common request by a factor of 4/1, so that's what I went with.

Fine with me. I think that's fair.