Yeah, you're right , that is the risk of using links, which I try not to do, just for that same reason. What I'm confused about is the relationship between the number of pics allowed per post and the actual final size of those pics when shown. What I mean is, does reducing the pic size to a minimum, thats say, 10 to 15 KB or even less per pic, does work? would it not be the same (server wise & speed compromise) to have one pic added to the post at 100KB, or 10 pics at 10 KB each?
I am already reducing my pics considerably, trying to keep them at least half of the allowed size but I would happy to reduce them even more (unless rare exception- detail), if that does work for the forum system. I could even try to add a number of pics in within one frame pic, I have the software to do it, wait, wait... but, can I do it?:?
I still think that the limit should be kept as is for those that rarely post pics but for members like me, a compromise in the size of the pics, would be no problem, if that solves the problem.
Reply, please!:D
Cheers:2tsup:
RBTCO