Thread: The way this site handles pictures could really be improved.

are you taking your bat and ball home too
witch1

see ya.

Originally Posted by HammaHed

<snip>....

So I have made the decision that I am not going to post any more pictures here until the owners reprogram the site and remove the archaic "This is the way we have always done it" photo handling software; and the never ending insistence that everyone comply with it - by replacing it with better software.

I am sooooooo broken up by that. If you really want to make your point, you should stamp your foot and go.

Thought the numbers looked a bit suss, so I hit the link (2032x1354) 468 KB in the original post. It opened the pic as 4 screens full the resized it to a single screen. Guess what 480 x 370 approx at 470KB, so there is something suss with the numbers.

HammaHed, the forums are used by people witha range of internet connections from dialup through mobile, 256k ADSL to fast ADSL 2+. The nice people who fund and operate this site spend a lot of their time and effort to allow it to be accessible to all, not just a privledged few with the latest and greatest gear and access. Resizing/editing pics prior to uploading is not really a major hassle. Hope you are willing to reconsider your stance when you have something positive to contribute.

This forum not good enough for you then

Goodbye

and don't let the door hit you in rear on your way.



Terry

Yeah, once when I rode my donkey to the very edge of town, I heard from a bloke, who had a mate, who ran into a fellow who didn't look like he was from around these parts, that they have horseless carriges and flying machines too..

Good one Jim Bob's.

Originally Posted by HammaHed

I am a publisher on a few other sites and one of the best ones is "Instructables".

I can upload any image I want and then the site makes a range of images available for viewing.

And when I feel like coming here, with all the hassle I have to go through to get great pictures reduced in dimensions and file size (and image quality), I think it's one of the greatest disincentives to posting any pictures.

The perpetual insistence of this practice is much like asking every one to write up their posts as hand coded web pages.... it belongs in the dark ages.

It's a pity tho, because the practice doesn't work and I think it's way smarter to be doing what the other sites do, that are handling the pictures - so much better.

For Example - go to these pages and click on the "i" on the images and you can see the whole (2032x1354) 468 KB images.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Brok...ake-a-new-one/

http://www.instructables.com/id/A-BR...-avoids-mostl/

http://www.instructables.com/id/Leat...a_Watch_Cover/



So I have made the decision that I am not going to post any more pictures here until the owners reprogram the site and remove the archaic "This is the way we have always done it" photo handling software; and the never ending insistence that everyone comply with it - by replacing it with better software.

Originally Posted by HammaHed

Yeah, once when I rode my donkey to the very edge of town, I heard from a bloke, who had a mate, who ran into a fellow who didn't look like he was from around these parts, that they have horseless carriges and flying machines too..

Good one Jim Bob's.

Tantrums AND sarcasm, you're really trying hard to make friends aren't you Hamma.

HH uses Instructables as an example, but although it may handle photos better, as a text-based discussion forum it'd be a dismal failure. It's basically just linked blogs with feedback through comments at the #### end.

It's a bit like complaining about how this site handles videos, then saying it should be more like UTube.

Damn i think i'll just go sell all my tools, buy a new computer
then subscribe to broadband, i'll keep a screwdriver so i can assemble
those flatpacks that make our lives so much easier these days.

And it took you more than a month to discover that?

Jumbo pictures add very little value here, and at most other sites too.

And, just because a video CAN be made, doesn't ensure that it SHOULD be made.

Cheers,
Joe

Won't be any loss if you don't want to contribute in here.

OK HH I have clicked on the link you provided, don't think that example has much to offer.

Have you considered that WWF stores pics permanently rather than links to other sites. The benefit being they will always be there unlike other forums that only allow an external link. The pic hosting site goes belly up so no more link and no more pics in the post.....aggravating in the extreme.

I should say you have already gathered the current set up works well for many reasons

ham ahead,
too bad we cant have archaic and eat it too
witch1

Originally Posted by witch1

ham ahead,
too bad we cant have archaic and eat it too
witch1

You forgot the