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

Apparently this problem with the Bike Forums software has been brought up here in the past, but I don't see it on the first page. Besides, the user who brought it up didn't get a satisfactory response, so I'll just start a new thread and bring it up again.

If you don't know what I'm talking about it's this: Every time someone posts a picture wider than the message area, the message area just expands to accommodate the picture and you have to scroll back and forth to read each line of message text. Not only is this very irritating, but the board sponsors should also be annoyed, because their ads won't be seen unless someone scrolls all the way over to them. I've used Bike Forums for many years and seem to remember it was not always so. The pictures were automatically downsized to the width of the message area and only expanded to full size when you clicked them. I thought that was a cool feature of Bike Forums because most other forums I frequented didn't have it. Somewhere along the way this software was "upgraded" and this feature was discarded or broken in the process.

Can this be fixed? Not only will it make thousands of users very happy, but the sponsors will get more hits.

Here's two threads from the first page that address this issue:

Maximum Image Width. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=502884)

Post #12 brings it up. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=503223)

I read those two threads (well I gave up in the first page of the first thread because some smart***** had inserted a 20,000 pixel wide image and I got tired of scrolling). I even downloaded and installed the Firefox Image Zoom add-on, but it won't solve the text problem; just lets you downsize individual images. We're still back at Square One. (Well, not exactly; as I said before, Bike Forums used to display large images no wider than the message area, but as some time that feature got broken.)

I'm not asking that the board physically prevent large images being inserted, just display them the same width as the message portion of the screen. For my 1024x768 screen resolution, 800 pixels wide would be perfect, but it may not suit those using an 800x600 screen or those using gigantic CAD monitors or the new wide screens. It's unfortunate that nobody with the administrative powers or skills to fix the problem reads this sub-forum.

I've posted a link to the image resizer plug-in in another forum that the BF tech people read. Hopefully they'll take action.

We're working on it now.

Thank You!!!!

Great! :)

And the coding is done limiting the width of an image. Let me know if there are problems, of sourse.

The change works, it is far better now. Thanks Tom!

A suggestion for optimizing it somewhat to fit people who have browsers that can handle >640 width images, though not necessary (modifications bolded):



/***** force images in posts to have a max-width *****/
.alt1 div span img, .alt1Active div span img, .alt2 div span img, .alt2Active div span img {
max-width:98%;
width:expression(this.width > document.body.clientWidth ? ((document.body.clientWidth * 0.88) | 0): true);
}
The choice of 0.88 was somewhat arbitrary, but it should compensate for the sidebar ads.

Yes!!!!!!!!

I just went back to this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=502884) and it works. :)

See what happens when we persist and explain the problem? While it could have been solved by everybody just posting smaller images, there's an awful lot of people out there who don't know how to do that and more newbies coming on board each day. Alas, it's a lot simpler to make things idiot proof than it is to educate new idiots each day. To bring this back to bikes, that's why index shifting was invented. :lol:

So can we have an option to show pictures more than 640?

Please listen to umd. 640 is so small. I'm all for picture resizing, but either take Crasts' advice above and make it screen dependent, or at least make the maximum 768.

768 is a much better compromise. Over 86% of internet users have resolutions bigger than 1024x768.

Thanks.

Please listen to umd. 640 is so small. I'm all for picture resizing, but either take Crasts' advice above and make it screen dependent, or at least make the maximum 768.

768 is a much better compromise. Over 86% of internet users have resolutions bigger than 1024x768.

Thanks.

According to Wikipedia:

Resolution % of Internet Users
Higher than 1024×768 38%
1024×768 48%
800×600 8%
Lower than 800×600 < 1%
Unknown 6%

Looks like 1024x768 is the majority.

This makes a 640 width just a bit less than the message area and everything fits without scrolling. If you really need to see more detail in the images, just right click and View Image and you'll see the original. Besides, the smaller initial images load much faster on computers and connections that aren't the latest and greatest.

According to Wikipedia:

Resolution % of Internet Users
Higher than 1024×768 38%
1024×768 48%
800×600 8%
Lower than 800×600 < 1%
Unknown 6%

Looks like 1024x768 is the majority.

This makes a 640 width just a bit less than the message area and everything fits without scrolling. If you really need to see more detail in the images, just right click and View Image and you'll see the original. Besides, the smaller initial images load much faster on computers and connections that aren't the latest and greatest.

Incorrect. The full image has to download regardless and the browser resizes it. The problem is that the browser's resizing looks like crap so every image is now a jumbled pixely mess. The image size complainers were a vocal minority. If there is going to be a size limit it needs to be an option. Period.

640 is tiny. As previously stated, the overwhelming majority of internet users operate at resolutions of 1024x768 or larger.

640 is tiny. As previously stated, the overwhelming majority of internet users operate at resolutions of 1024x768 or larger.

I'd like to see proof of this overwhelming majority. I haven't found it. This doesn't really inconvenience people running large monitors at greater than 1024x768, but displaying images wider than about 700 pixels makes everybody with 1024x768 scroll back and forth to read the text. Catering to the 1024x768 and under users is not even the lowest common denominator; just the the majority. Is there some kind of weird Electoral College out there that says the majority is larger than 1024x768? ;)

No electoral college. Numbers are arrived at by people with websites reporting what settings people that visit their sites are running. Not very exact, but... whatcha gonna do. The w3schools releases numbers once a year. I'd be willing to bet that most folks are running higher than 1024x768 when their Jan 2009 report is released.

The higher than 1024x768 segment was up to 38% as of last January.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp

Anyways, I think pics bigger than 400x600 should be limited to special photo threads and external links. It wasn't so bad back in Firefox 2.x.x days when you could boost text size without zooming pics up also, but now that FF has adopted Opera's zoom behavior, I can't kick back in my chair and read posts from 3 ft away...

A-Ha! For those struggling with the FF image zoom problem I outlined above,

Type "about:config" in your Firefox 3 address bar,
Click the "I'll be careful" button.
Scroll down to "browser.zoom.full" and double click on it so that the value becomes false.

This takes FF3 back to regular olde no picture zoom FF behavior, allowing me to have giant, legible from 6ft text in a tiny, approx 1000 px wide window with no Hz scroll bars (at least in this pic-free thread.)

This is horrible! All of the pictures are, tiny and pizelated from being compressed. 640 is tiny.

Like stated above

According to Wikipedia:

Resolution % of Internet Users
Higher than 1024×768 38%
1024×768 48%
800×600 8%
Lower than 800×600 < 1%
Unknown 6%

That means 86% of the people on the internet have screens 1024×768 or larger. Why are we limiting it to 640?!?!?!? In all honesty if you have a problem in 2009 were you can't handle pictures on a computer screen maybe its time to upgrade.

I'm on a tiny 14" laptop screen, and I'm even running 1440x900. Come on. Even my Blackberry is 320x240.

I'd like to see proof of this overwhelming majority. I haven't found it. This doesn't really inconvenience people running large monitors at greater than 1024x768, but displaying images wider than about 700 pixels makes everybody with 1024x768 scroll back and forth to read the text. Catering to the 1024x768 and under users is not even the lowest common denominator; just the the majority. Is there some kind of weird Electoral College out there that says the majority is larger than 1024x768? ;)

it's clear that you're using outdated technology, but are you also unaware of a website by the name of google? (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp)

it's clear that you're using outdated technology, but are you also unaware of a website by the name of google? (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp)

Here's another web reference (http://www.screen-resolution.com/common-screen-resolutions.php). No matter how I look at the numbers, 1024x768 is still in the majority, i.e. 48% using that screen size as opposed to 38% using something bigger. How much cleared can it be?

As for "outdated technology", well I must admit I don't have a brand new wide flat screen monitor, nor do I own an iPhone or drive a 2009 hybrid SUV or ride a carbon fibre bike. You can lay the blame for the current recession squarely on my shoulders. Not owning all the newest toys is beginning to make me very depressed now.

If fixing the board so it won't display giant pictures in their original size makes a few yuppies with giant screens unhappy, so be it. It's for the greater good. You can still view them full size by right clicking them. I'm going to unsub from this thread now so I don't have to witness any more whining.

Here's another (http://www.screen-resolution.com/common-screen-resolutions.php) web reference. No matter how I look at the numbers, 1024x768 is still in the majority, i.e. 48% using that screen size as opposed to 38% using something bigger. How much cleared can it be?

If 1024 is the most common screen size then at the very least 800 pixel wide pictures should be allowed, and I think up to 1000 would be reasonable.


If fixing the board so it won't display giant pictures in their original size makes a few yuppies with giant screens unhappy, so be it. It's for the greater good. You can still view them full size by right clicking them. I'm going to unsub from this thread now so I don't have to witness any more whining.

Here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=8329562&postcount=7054) is an example of a post where the resizing is extremely annoying. All I see is a pixely mess. And I have no option to show it as full size by right-clicking on it.

Here's another web reference (http://ww w.screen- resolution.com/com mon-scree n-resolutions.php). No matter how I look at the numbers, 1024x768 is still in the majority, i.e. 48% using that screen size as opposed to 38% using something bigger. How much cleared can it be?

As for "outdated technology", well I must admit I don't have a brand new wide flat screen monitor, nor do I own an iPhone or drive a 2009 hybrid SUV or ride a carbon fibre bike. You can lay the blame for the current recession squarely on my shoulders. Not owning all the newest toys is beginning to make me very depressed now.

If fixing the board so it won't display giant pictures in their original size makes a few yuppies with giant screens unhappy, so be it. It's for the greater good. You can still view them full size by right clicking them. I'm going to unsub from this thread now so I don't have to witness any more whining.

a clueless crybaby on bikeforums? never.

guess what sweet cheeks, my computer is 2 years old.

giant screens

I've got a 4-year old laptop whose native resolution is 1280x1024. Screen size: 14.1"

I've got a 4-year old laptop whose native resolution is 1280x1024. Screen size: 14.1"

yuppie.

If 1024 is the most common screen size then at the very least 800 pixel wide pictures should be allowed, and I think up to 1000 would be reasonable.



Here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=8329562&postcount=7054) is an example of a post where the resizing is extremely annoying. All I see is a pixely mess. And I have no option to show it as full size by right-clicking on it.



I'm guessing you're using IE. After checking the link you provided in Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome & IE, the only browser that didn't allow one to right-click & view image was IE.

I'm guessing you're using IE. After checking the link you provided in Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome & IE, the only browser that didn't allow one to right-click & view image was IE.

Well, that's what I'm using, deal with it. Also IE doesn't mess up the tables like everyone is whining about.

monogodo is an expert whiner. it's what she/he excels at.

monogodo is an expert whiner. it's what she/he excels at.
I'm not whining, I'm actually trying to offer solutions. Deal with it.


Well, that's what I'm using, deal with it. Also IE doesn't mess up the tables like everyone is whining about.

I haven't had any table issues with browsing these forums with Firefox.

I haven't had any table issues with browsing these forums with Firefox.

The one thing the whiners are complaining about is that large images mess up the tables, so that the text doesn't wrap properly because it goes out as far as the image. In IE, it is only messed up for the post with the image, the rest of the thread is not affected. If its not even a problem in other browsers, then who the hell is it a problem for. Mods, this is very frustrating, we need to be allowed bigger pictures than 640. If you don't want to allow infinitely wide pictures that is one thing, but I think this is a case where a vocal minority are imposing their will on everyone else. For the small number of people that large images are a problem, there are workarounds to shrink pictures, block pictures, etc. But for the rest of us?

Mods, why don't you make a POLL asking what resolution people use OR what image size they want to be allowed to post?

I'm not whining, I'm actually trying to offer solutions. Deal with it.



I haven't had any table issues with browsing these forums with Firefox.

:thumb:

Mods, why don't you make a POLL asking what resolution people use OR what image size they want to be allowed to post?

don't worry, monogodo is on the case. back channels and all. :innocent:


I've posted a link to the image resizer plug-in in another forum that the BF tech people read. Hopefully they'll take action.

The one thing the whiners are complaining about is that large images mess up the tables, so that the text doesn't wrap properly because it goes out as far as the image. In IE, it is only messed up for the post with the image, the rest of the thread is not affected. If its not even a problem in other browsers, then who the hell is it a problem for. Mods, this is very frustrating, we need to be allowed bigger pictures than 640. If you don't want to allow infinitely wide pictures that is one thing, but I think this is a case where a vocal minority are imposing their will on everyone else. For the small number of people that large images are a problem, there are workarounds to shrink pictures, block pictures, etc. But for the rest of us?

Mods, why don't you make a POLL asking what resolution people use OR what image size they want to be allowed to post?

There's no need for a poll, as they can check their visitor stats to see all of that information.

I still believe the best solution is the Image Resizing plugin. It will allow all users to see images at native size with one click, and even has preferences which allow the individual user to set what size they'd prefer, including no resizing at all. IB has decided to go with forcing everyone to have images the same size, with which I disagree. But since I don't run the boards, there's not a whole lot I can do, other than continuing to poke the bear, which is kinda fun.

There's no need for a poll, as they can check their visitor stats to see all of that information.

I still believe the best solution is the Image Resizing plugin. It will allow all users to see images at native size with one click, and even has preferences which allow the individual user to set what size they'd prefer, including no resizing at all. IB has decided to go with forcing everyone to have images the same size, with which I disagree. But since I don't run the boards, there's not a whole lot I can do, other than continuing to poke the bear, which is kinda fun.

correct.

I'm guessing you're using IE. After checking the link you provided in Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome & IE, the only browser that didn't allow one to right-click & view image was IE.

There's a reason for that. Maybe it has something to do with this.

1. You already can:

Save the picture
Make a screen shot
Apply the image as a desktop wallpaper

2. FIX THE CORRUPT VIDEO SETTINGS OR DRIVER

Now, HOW MANY browsers are that flexible, I ask you?
:love:;):roflmao2:

The one thing the whiners are complaining about is that large images mess up the tables, so that the text doesn't wrap properly because it goes out as far as the image. In IE, it is only messed up for the post with the image, the rest of the thread is not affected. If its not even a problem in other browsers, then who the hell is it a problem for. Mods, this is very frustrating, we need to be allowed bigger pictures than 640. If you don't want to allow infinitely wide pictures that is one thing, but I think this is a case where a vocal minority are imposing their will on everyone else. For the small number of people that large images are a problem, there are workarounds to shrink pictures, block pictures, etc. But for the rest of us?Interesting. The Internet Explorer behavior that you describe is how things used to work in Firefox as well, but no longer. I had assumed that a new version of vBulletin at some point was to blame, but perhaps it was an issue that arose between Firefox 2.x and 3.x.

Also, FWIW, the moderators have nothing to do with the image issue. I don't like it (at least the current, way-too-small, unconfigurable implementation) either.

To those saying that you can simply right-click and "view image" to see the full size, well, there's no indication that the image is being resized in the browser itself. It just appears to be a crappy picture. And since users are still having to download the full-size image, the resizing isn't helping much.

Interesting. The Internet Explorer behavior that you describe is how things used to work in Firefox as well, but no longer. I had assumed that a new version of vBulletin at some point was to blame, but perhaps it was an issue that arose between Firefox 2.x and 3.x.

Also, FWIW, the moderators have nothing to do with the image issue. I don't like it (at least the current, way-too-small, unconfigurable implementation) either.

To those saying that you can simply right-click and "view image" to see the full size, well, there's no indication that the image is being resized in the browser itself. It just appears to be a crappy picture. And since users are still having to download the full-size image, the resizing isn't helping much.

I guess most of the mods are powerless about this. I've PM'd with a few people and at least one mod that are not happy about this. Tom unilaterally made the change, then asked to be let known if there are problems and then disappeared. There are problems. Do you hear that Tom? THERE ARE PROBLEMS! FIX IT!

Image size is a browser problem, not a vbulletin or BF problem. It is the browser's job to correctly render images for the system it is running on. Attempts to "fix" this on the server will invariably irritate someone. BF should leave the images alone and if people have trouble with the way their browser presents them, they should complain to their browser developer, not BF.

Oh, and if you're running with a CGA monitor and a 300bps acoustic coupled modem you can do away with images entirely with one of the many plain text browsers available.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I'm beginning to realize that there are two types of people who handle unpleasant situations in two different ways: the first find a way to fix the problem themselves (i.e., download Firefox and the ImageZoom add-in); the second lodge complaints until it gets fixed for them.

You're either proactive or reactive.

Are you refering to the people that complained in the first place or the people that are complaining now?

The people who complained in the first place.

I can't think of a solution to the compressed-image problem.

I don't understand the silence from Tom

From what I've gathered, he's an education professional and is occasionally on travel. Give him a break - he's a good guy.

Then again, he posted this (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=8342333&postcount=21) today.

I have made a bookmarklet for Firefox and Safari users to toggle on full width images. It requires no extensions, you can just drag this to your bookmarks toolbar. It will work for nearly any forum site which restricts forum images width, and since it's a clickable, you can do so whenever you want to, and all images will turn into full size. edit now works on IE7 too.

Because the forum software (correctly) does not allow javascript links, you'll have to go to a page I put up to host it:
Crast's Bikeforums Bookmarklet Page (http://crast.us/james/images/bikeforums/bookmarklet.html)

I feel that Tom actually made a fair choice in choosing 640 as the default image width. While many are arguing that 1024 is the most common resolution, and it may be true, one simply has to change their resolution to 1024x768 and go to BF to realize that with the sidebar ads and the left-side information pane on forum posts, the actual width of the readable post area is about 640 pixels wide, possibly less depending on your browser.

If you don't pay to support BF, you deserve to suffer sidebar ads and oversized images.

Just one more reason to cough up the dough.

If you don't pay to support BF, you deserve to suffer sidebar ads and oversized images.

Just one more reason to cough up the dough.

Yes, it should be optimized for the most common screen size and no ads.

yes, it should be optimized for the most common screen size and no ads.

ff ftw.

Yes, it should be optimized for the most common screen size and no ads. That would cause the ads to be off the screen for people running 1024x768, essentially invisible, negating the purpose of the ads and also not providing much impetus for non-paid members to convert (why pay to hide ads you already don't see?) such as was the case on BF until a few days ago.

I have dual 1600x1200 monitors, I run my browser in a little bigger than 1024x768 (about 1170 wide) because I don't like reading super wide paragraphs of text. I used to get a horizontal scrollbar even at such wide resolutions when viewing most threads, and the ads were nowhere to be seen.

Also, I suggest you try my bookmarklet if you insist on using IE, it'll solve your problem.

I really don't understand the problem. Are some browsers rendering the whole thread as wide as the widest picture? For me it only makes the one post that has a wide picture? I still think that 640 is ridiculously small, 800 would be more reasonable and would be a good middle ground.