Image size

[JSWolf]

Why is it there is such a small size limit on images? And why is it we have to have the images removed when they are larger than this small size when the images are integral to the post and sometimes tot he entire thread?

Can't the moderator attach the images and PM the poster about the image size? When the images are removed, it can totally ruin the thread.

[eschwartz]

It is not a small limit.

It is just about the maximum you can get without distorting the view of the website.



As for deleting vs. re-attaching, I can't be fussed with that. If the image is important, the poster will re-post it.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It is not a small limit.

It is just about the maximum you can get without distorting the view of the website.

That depends on the size of the window used in the web browser. On my laptop, the size of the images can go larger before there is any distortion. On the desktop, I have a much higher resolution screen and the images can go much larger before any distortion.

As for deleting vs. re-attaching, I can't be fussed with that. If the image is important, the poster will re-post it.

And then again, maybe not. But the issue is that the thread is now useless. Is it really the job of the moderator to make threads useless even if the user who posted the images made them too large?

[Ripplinger]

I think it's a very reasonable size as well for inline images. The problem is that most people are oblivious to the image rules and don't take the time to read the Guidelines. This seems to be the most broken rule here, even if unintentionally.

The thread won't be useless since the original poster should return and correct their error (and even if it was useless, it's not the moderator's fault, it's the OP's fault). And if they're one of those who posts questions and never return for an answer, it doesn't really matter that there are no answers. And if they're too lazy to repost it, I'm not really worried about them not getting an answer in that case. But it's not the moderator's responsibility to fix these, they have enough work to do they're not being paid for on a forum of this size.

A warning that would appear on both the quick and full reply layouts should alleviate how frequently this happens, preferably in red, about max inline image size of 600 x 600 pixels. I admin several gaming forums, and I know I've added mods into forums that resize images to the max we wanted to allow for signatures, maybe there's a way to do it for inline images. Or that just refuses to post an inline image larger than the specified size. That would probably catch their attention quicker that something is wrong and to find out what. Or maybe something like every time an image tag is used within the post, when you hit the post button, a warning first pops up to verify that the image is smaller than 600 x 600 or it will soon be deleted. Finding a way to avoid the problem in the first place would be less work for the mods.

I'll admit I get annoyed at the oversized images, especially because they could post one much larger if they didn't do it inline. But it's annoyance at the original poster, certainly not directed at the mods for doing their job. Just like I get annoyed when someone can't be bothered to correct the image orientation before posting.

But all of these suggestions to alleviate the problem wouldn't be necessary if people could be forced to read the Guidelines.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Ripplinger

I admin several gaming forums, and I know I've added mods into forums that resize images to the max we wanted to allow for signatures, maybe there's a way to do it for inline images.

There is. I know on blu-ray.com they do that. It re-sizes the image and there's a label across the top that can be clicked to blow it up to full size while you're reading the post if so desired.

An example can be seen in the first post of this thread...
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=246692

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That depends on the size of the window used in the web browser. On my laptop, the size of the images can go larger before there is any distortion. On the desktop, I have a much higher resolution screen and the images can go much larger before any distortion.

I said distort the page, not the image.
When I have to scroll the page to the right because some fool posted an image 1200 pixels wide, I don't really care how special YOUR screen is.

And then again, maybe not. But the issue is that the thread is now useless. Is it really the job of the moderator to make threads useless even if the user who posted the images made them too large?

Why yes, it is in fact, MY job to do exactly that.

And I have never yet made an entire thread useless -- in fact, I usually find people re-upload the image, properly.

Note: this is my stock warning:

Please take a few moments to read our Posting Guidelines, in particular the part about the maximum image size allowed (600x600 pixels). Images that violate those guidelines will be deleted.

Feel free to update your original post with an appropriately-resized image, or use our attachments feature (in the Go Advanced reply mode).

Thanks.

[cromag]

A very similar question was covered here recently:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=265196


I found the information helpful, especially with regard to image size and cell phone/tablet users as covered in the last four posts.

[Ripplinger]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

When I have to scroll the page to the right because some fool posted an image 1200 pixels wide, I don't really care how special YOUR screen is.

I completely agree, when I have to scroll sideways to read a post it drives me absolutely nuts. It's not only the one post with the image, but every post within the thread that's affected. It happens too when people want to break apart a section and use a ridiculously long line of dashes or asterisks as a divider, and make it longer than the forum can handle, which results in the same sideways scrolling to read the thread.

Those are the only times I'll edit a post, and thankfully it happens very seldom on the forums where I'm admin. And only because it's so seldom and private forums do I take the time to add code to display the image in a reduced size which still allows others to click to display it full size, or get rid of 2/3s of the dividing line that forced the "dreaded scrollies."

But it's not something I'd ever want to have to do on a busy forum the size of MR.

[David Munch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That depends on the size of the window used in the web browser. On my laptop, the size of the images can go larger before there is any distortion. On the desktop, I have a much higher resolution screen and the images can go much larger before any distortion.

Not true. The thread view on MR is fixed, so no matter what browser or window size you use, the thread will always be the same pixel width - Except when breaking it with an image that is too big.

This is of course not true if you use non-standard zooming settings/mess with CSS to break the standard view, but that argument is pretty pointless of course.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Can't the moderator attach the images and PM the poster about the image size? When the images are removed, it can totally ruin the thread.

We could, but we just don't have the time. It's the poster's responsibility to read the posting guidelines, where the size limit is clearly stated.

[Cinisajoy]

On the size of this forum.
I usually read it on my tablet. Yesterday, I was on my laptop. I had my browser set at 125%. MR looked huge.
Oh and I hate scrolling due to big files myself.

@HarryT, you mean you actually have a life outside of MR. I am in shock.

[theducks]

Rules are for OTHER people.

I am with Harry. Time is everything (And having a Life )

I don't have the time to extract your oversized image to my PC so I can resize and re-Upload.

You don't have the time to read and comply with the rules

[BetterRed]

Maybe the upcoming change in the forum software, could detect and reject oversize images at post time.

Also, in the new forum, perhaps the insert picture widget in the toolbar could offer a browse your PC option, and by default insert a thumbnail. I suspect most pictures originate at the users PC.

I find almost all inline images irritating, even those within the 600x600 limits. If it were up to me I would only allow tiny pictures to be inserted full size as in -- -- everything else would be automatically thumbnailed

BR

[Ripplinger]

What new forums? I must have missed some good info somewhere!

Not allowing inline images at all would certainly solve the problem and I wouldn't mind that at all. Then they'd have to upload all images to MR where the size allowance is bigger, and all images are scaled down to fit the forums. They're not small thumbnails, they're still a good size, so I can't see why anyone would mind that.

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by Ripplinger

What new forums? I must have missed some good info somewhere!

Alex T 'let the cat out of the bag' somewhere IIRC was in a Feedback thread.

Apparently he and others have been working on it for a while. Having been involved in software swaps on a couple of miniscule boards I appreciate the need for caution - swapping out SAP ERP to Oracle was easier

BR