SweetLou

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?

Allen

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

umd

Because it's easier...

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

SweetLou

Oh, so it is laziness. I see.

Tom Stormcrowe

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

umd

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

SweetLou

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.

SweetLou

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.

monogodo

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.

Jynx

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)

rm -rf

When we all have 22 inch wide monitors, will the images then be 3000 pixels wide?

I use the Firefox addon Image Zoom. 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!

SweetLou

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

@-moz-document url-prefix(https://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.

umd

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.

Machka 

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.

umd

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.

Roody

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

Jynx

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

Allen

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

10 Wheels

I like um Big.
Thanks

Tom Stormcrowe

You must be from Texas.....

10 Wheels

Send me a monitor that size.
Thanks

SweetLou

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.

umd

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.

SweetLou

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

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?

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. 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?
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. I don't remember anyone mentioning bandwidth.

umd

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.

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

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.

My actions are affecting the readability of the forum.

I was referring to thumbnails

I do not understand what you are blathering about.

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.

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.



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

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.