| Vikash |
I hope it's not a permenant decision to show links instead of attachments. Anybody else getting this?
I've checked the options and the "Show image attachments and [img] code in Posts?
Selecting no will show a hyperlink instead." is set to yes.
Also on my list of grievances is the number of posts per thread. You can't select that in the options (anymore) either.
What's going on moderators? |
|
|
| Coolin |
| I agree about the pictures !! |
|
|
| richie00boy |
To add some balance I will disagree :)
I find it a real pain when the text I'm trying to read is jumping about all over the place whilst the pictures load.
Also, when I've seen the pics, I don't need to see them again and again when looking at new posts. This new format really works well for me. |
|
|
| dhaen |
The number of posts per page, and the links for pictures have been applied as measures to reduce network traffic.
As you may know, we've only just moved to a new server, and Audiofreak is doing his best to make everything work as it should.
Give him some time, and I'm sure you'll be happy with the results.:) |
|
|
| destroyer X |
I did not like this way... better to see pictures directly, without clicking and wait them open... it is taking too much time...more than old method.
Please, my vote is for reversion to old method!
Thank you to hear me.
Carlos |
|
|
| Vikash |
I had a feeling it was a bandwidth issue. Not having the images is quite hindering when you're looking for that pic i thought i saw in that 32 page post... (which incedentally is now a 64 page post!) ;)
As for the jumpy thing, that can be solved with adding some simple attributes to the img tag in HTML I believe... I won't get into this debate though, I'm sure it's all neccessary :up: |
|
|
| benny |
Hi Carlos,
I too don't like the new system of having to individually download the pictures, but i think it's been done for a good reason.
Could be that members are complaining of the pictures being there and anoying them because they have to wait for pictures of something they don't want in some cases... which is unlikely because i don't see no posts about this.
I think the reason it's been done is the same reason they limited us to viewing 10 posts per page at once.... too much traffic on the site.
I think the pictures not loading is probably a good idea when you consider that the only other alternative would be to limit the number of users alowed on the site at once... or they could upgrade their conection, but someones gotta pay for this don't they? That would probably mean we'd end up with advertising all over the forum to fund it... not advertising people post, but pop-ups and banners and ****.
Maybe a better system would be to have a setting that when a certain number of members are online, it makes everyone start downloading pictures individually, but when under this number of people online, the pictures load normally.
Anyway, that's how i see it.
Keep it real |
|
|
| joensd |
Regarding the pictures I think it´s OK to get links.
Strange that you have to log in again for every picture though
but that´ll probably sorted out soon. |
|
|
| Christer |
Yes, I think the main reason they did it was to save server
bandwidth, but it also solves an annoying problem, I think.
I am sitting on a 10Mbit/s line but it was still
annoying to open threads with many pictures on a page
since the server, or maybe some other bottleneck along
the way, was slow and the posts were jumping up and down
on the screen while the pictures were loading so I couldn't
start reading until all pictures had loaded.
One possible compromise would be to automatically create
thumbnails of attached pictures and always show these,
but to see the full picture one has to click on the thumbnail.
That would mean a lot of programming work for AudioFreak,
though. |
|
|
| officeboy |
I would have to say it's more of an Oligarchy. The owners and moderators (to a much lesser degree) really have the final say. Who are we? We don't pay anything and we get to use to forum. But it is true that these forums would be useless without us the users.
With that said. Images are like they are to try and conserve bandwidth. I’m sure that as soon as a better option can be found, more bandwidth, a better method of showing the pictures, etc etc. things will change again.
I certainly would rather have it this way and have the forum stay up and be quick. Yesterdays timeouts and slow access were very troublesome. |
|
|
| chris ma |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christer
..............................................
One possible compromise would be to automatically create
thumbnails of attached pictures and always show these,
but to see the full picture one has to click on the thumbnail.
That would mean a lot of programming work for AudioFreak,
though. |
I'd second the thumbnails.
Chris |
|
|
| TNT |
Most browsers has a "Don't load pictures" option so people who are on slow lines should use that option - keep the pictures coming ;-)
/ |
|
|
| benny |
| quote: | | One possible compromise would be to automatically create thumbnails of attached pictures and always show these, but to see the full picture one has to click on the thumbnail. |
now that's a good idea.
i also think they should make an option that we can set to wether we want to see the pictures at all or just the text link. this would mean people who don't want the pictures at all wouldn't have to have them, and those who want them can compromise on the smaller version. |
|
|
| Bas Horneman |
I think I am allowed to say that the change is as much a suprise to us mods as it is for the users.
Generally I think this board is very very slick! Great work by Audiofreak.. (dunno who else works on it)
I find the new system clever...no use wasting bandwith if it can be avoided.
But to the point I was trying to make. Is that if you host your pics somewhere on the net it is still possible to display them...just have not figured it out yet..as you can see...
<html>
<img src="http://www.hiendfi.com/img/B22.JPG" border="0"
alt="">
</html> |
|
|
| Christer |
| quote: | Originally posted by TNT
Most browsers has a "Don't load pictures" option so people who are on slow lines should use that option - keep the pictures coming ;-)
/ |
Do the pictures load quickly at you place then? I thought it
was the server that is slow, but maybe it is some bottleneck
between the different networks then. I get over 10Mbit/s
from quick servers, but the pictures at this forum load slow
enough to cause me irritation many times. |
|
|
| Bill Fitzpatrick |
| Becasue I browse with my graphics turned off, I set my forum preferences so that I have to click on a link to see a photo. I like things the way they are. |
|
|
| Bill Fitzpatrick |
| I had previously set my preferences to show links instead of pics, so this new arrangement doesn't change a thing for me. I think bandwidth saving is important. This site is pretty slow loading. |
|
|
| peranders |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bas Horneman
I think I am allowed to say that the change is as much a suprise to us mods as it is for the users. |
One of the reasons (I think) were that the older server had bandwidht over but when Jason changed server he noticed that the traffic was bigger than expected. Maybe this is some trimming in order to evaluate how attachments must be handled. |
|
|
| karma |
well now that i have dsl not cable. having the choice to read than look at the pic works for me. pic,s take forever to load;)
good move moderator:D |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| I'm not sure if it's technically possible, but what about keeping the pics for a week or two and then convert them into attachments (automatically, if coding allows that)? |
|
|
| blank527 |
Hi,
I have to admit about the pictures.
Everytime I want to see a picture, I have to click and login.
Also.. my two cent to improve about pictures, is :
When browsing in the treads.. the paperclip is for attachments.
My thought is, when you click on the paperclip.. you'll get a list with only the attachments and/or pictures that is putted there in that thread.
Idea?.. I don't know. Just 2cent;)
Regards,
Remco Blankesteijn.
(sorry for the bad english) |
|
|
| richie00boy |
| If you log in to the forum first on the homepage then you never have to log in again to see the pics. |
|
|
| planet10 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bas Horneman
But to the point I was trying to make. Is that if you host your pics somewhere on the net it is still possible to display them...just have not figured it out yet..as you can see...
|
If you replace the tags with the VB code ones it works... click on the IMG biutton above to generate a set
dave |
|
|
| purplepeople |
Bandwidth wouldn't be such a problem is users knew how to compress their images. I know that some do since many photos load very quickly. But others can take 15 secs... on a 2Mbit commercial DSL connection!
The little check box for "did you search" slows people enough to make them think. A similar check box for "did you compress your attachment" might make them really think.
Also, a limit on the size of an attachment to less than 50K would automatically force uploaders to compress most of their images. In fact, removing BMP as a valid extension might show an immediate drop in file size since it automatically weeds out the graphically-challenged.
If BW is still needed, get rid of avatars, email notification and other extras that are not needed to communicate DIY.
:)ensen. |
|
|
| planet10 |
AudioFreak is busy, busy trying ways to keep our traffic below our bandwidth allocation... since attachments represent 1/2 our bandwidth usage it only makes sense to attack it there. And without unlimited bandwidth (ie unlimited $$$) something like this needs doing. diyAudio continues to have explosive growth, and any and all ideas to help save bandwidth will be welcomed.
Anything we do will be a compromise... personally i like the thumbnail idea (getting it to work is a whole other thing).
AF is still optimizing the way this works & is continuously working to make this forum better.
In my browser i am not asked to log in for each picture -- matter of fact i am rarely asked to log-in, so i expect that this issue has to do with how your cookies are set up.
dave |
|
|
| Bas Horneman |
| quote: | | If you replace the tags with the VB code ones it works... click on the IMG biutton above to generate a set |
Thanks Dave
Testing...
mmm it's that easy! |
|
|
| destroyer X |
I dislike it a lot, and i will tell you all friends my reasons, some serious, some of them kidding.
1) If images are not already open, to compare schematics will be a little bit harder. When a lot of friends are cooperating to increase certain design, a lot of images succed one after the other, how can i open all them, have to minimize and open, and them minimize other and open... can use thumbs plus or something alike... the way we are doing is easy, whe schroll and ready to compare.
2) Our magnificent forum will loose one of their best qualities...Multimedia...not only words, but also images...better if we had sound too, but one image has a 1000 words meaning . I am afraid a lot of people will migrate to others foruns, because now is more levelled one each other, the advantage of ready image finished.
3) Some time we have not enougth time to read all thread words, this way, fast a check in images..no image, no fast check anymore. how can i found excelent Eva's analyses without seeing their hands (smile)
4) Its not fair, i do not think because i am poor, in comparison other country people, and my system is slow, the entire forum will be levelled underlined, levelled worst than it can be, i will wait, because my system is low, and i think you can go faster, or not?
5) I already ordered and already paid for draws to invite Asiatic people that do not speak english to come to us, with some designs, they can move circuits, modified, cut, include, without a word, image can do that, substitute words if you have one schematic appearing all time. This way Destroyer will have to eat those papers with Mustard.... no good! (kidding)
6) Brazilian football, and English football, and wide world football are teaching us all the time that is no good to change the team that is winning... can be bad!... this way, no good idea change our wonderfull forum to be another one... alike others.
I have more 16 reasons, but i am tired to type... i think those are enough.
Please, you that did that, move it again to old model, please, or give me the responsable adress, want to send him a gift, a pack, with a protude material to put atop the computer to remember me (hahahaha... smile if not can be hard!)
Carlos |
|
|
| destroyer X |
This is tradicional drink here, is made of Cachaça (sugar cane destilled very strong) mixed with smashed lemmon and suggar... i prefer not to smash lemmon, because its protection had not so good taste, but give some taste characteristics that is not avoidable.... but only feel pieces of lemmon surround will be better.
Caipiríssima, is the super, a superlative, same the above but used Rhum.... from Cuba and other Central America countries... sugar canne also.
The best, my taste, is Caipiroska (russian) because is made with Russian Vodka with lemmon and suggar also...better, Vodka have not strong taste, when you perceive, you are in a hotel.... goooood!
Carlos |
|
|
| destroyer X |
I fell good to see how much good ideas and comprehension of my friends, really, i suppose Planet10 gave us one new way.... to "scape from Astragaard".
Can agree you all, but agreement cannot move this situation, we still loosing quality, I will have now to consider other facts, i am prepared to adapt myself to new situation.
Carlos |
|
|
| joensd |
Is it spelled this way in brazil?
We know it as caipirinha and it indeed is a nice drink especially when it´s hot.
A good girl-friend of mine is working in the embassy in Paraguay just a few miles from yourself;) and she´s addicted to that stuff (you know what I mean, she´s not an alcoholic but...)
| quote: | | but agreement cannot move this situation |
Of course it´s nice to collect ideas to improve the forum
but most imprtantly we should prove some patience as this is a free service (and a good one) where people are working hard to keep it running.
best regards to the crew! |
|
|
| roibm |
The images shall stay as links but that stupid link shall load the images within the post itself, not in a different window. Come on guys, it is easy to do it that way.
ps: test attach too...
ps2: why oh why is it opened in a new window? |
|
|
| squadra |
I would like to see a thumbnail of the images in the page.
Without a preview ppl would have to open most images anyway which probably doesn't lower the amount of traffic generated by huge amounts.
A pop up with the full image could be opened by clicking on the thumbnail.
When the width & height attributes of an image are specified then all/most browsers are smart enough to show placeholders of the correct size so the text doesn't jump around during loading.
A thumbnail would allow for the widht/height to be fixed, making it easier to program. |
|
|
| destroyer X |
I do like it very much too.
Carlos |
|
|
| Bill Fitzpatrick |
| quote: | Originally posted by purplepeople
Bandwidth wouldn't be such a problem is users knew how to compress their images. I know that some do since many photos load very quickly. But others can take 15 secs... on a 2Mbit commercial DSL connection!
The little check box for "did you search" slows people enough to make them think. A similar check box for "did you compress your attachment" might make them really think.
Also, a limit on the size of an attachment to less than 50K would automatically force uploaders to compress most of their images. In fact, removing BMP as a valid extension might show an immediate drop in file size since it automatically weeds out the graphically-challenged.
|
I've been whining about graphics sizes on this forum for a good long time so I'm with purplepeople on this. Make only gif, jpg and png valid as graphics. And, 50K is a good limit. I have yet to see a photo on the forums that couldn't convey the message in that size or less. Another thing many posters don't do is CROP. Often the object being shown is less than 25% of the photo size. When people want to show their speakers there is no need to include their drapes and ceiling.
I think people believe that megabyte photos are OK because of DSL but increasing graphics size tends to defeat the purpose of DSL. On top of that, most servers can't deliver the data as fast as DSL is capable of. Most web sites I visit can barely eke out 1.5K. DIY lately is averaging less than 1K. I recently visited a site where the server was delivering at 18K - what a treat.
I don't think a check box "did you compress your attachment" is going to get the job done. If the file is too big just refuse it and automatically send them to a page with a tutorial on file types, compression and cropping. A note on composition and proper exposure for black items wouldn't hurt either. |
|
|
| rabbitz |
I'd rather have a forum with no pics than no forum at all. The guys are doing a good job and have to work within certain constraints...... we get this great site for free. An additional click to see a pic is no great hardship.
I agree with Bill on the sizes of some of these pics...... users have to learn to reduce the resolution as well as crop. You don't need 1600x1200 for the web....... 640x480 is more than adequate.
I'm stuck with a 56K modem so large pics are a pain. |
|
|
| destroyer X |
Not only 56K modem, but the telephone line has not better capacity than 3.7Kilobauds transference, and just once i connect with 56K, now a days is 33K and sometimes less.
But strawberries without cream, woman without fire, and forum without pictures....hummmmmm i will not complain anymore.
Carlos |
|
|
| karma |
| ouch 56k it must be hell:D ;) |
|
|
| roibm |
| quote: | Originally posted by karma
ouch 56k it must be hell:D ;) |
What about the times I used 2400 baud(bits/sec back then) lines?
I used to connect to some local BBS at that great speed getting my email as several tens CPS and being happy about FIDO eventually UUCP access or some nasty horrible quality pixx :D
Great times, long gone now. Such is live. |
|
|
| Vikash |
A couple of things from the recent posts I've just read.
Most of you undertsand, but for those who don't...
If you experience slow download times then this is because if your connection and your are free to opt for links instead of images (and you can select this in your options page), but this is not the reason that the pics have been taken off, or theads per page reduced. The server will probably be on a link upward of 100Mbit which is more than capable of supplying the demand. The problem is likely that of the allocated bandwidth allowance, which has caused the moderators to take action.
As I mentioned earlier the jumpy thing is really a non-issue and can be solved albeit with a little overhead in code.
As for people being educated to compress their images properly, well you clearly can't rely on this, and I would suggest running a simple post upload compression if the file size (and perhaps even image dimensions) is above some threshold. I do something similar for some of my sites and it guarantees all images to be of a sane size.
As for thumbnails, this will require mods to the db and a parse at all existing images to create suitable thumbnails. A good idea should it be the only option - at the expense of some coding time of the mods.
Maybe it's worth doing some analysis to see what the file sizes are in the db. If we could see the number of images that fall between say < 10kb, between 10 and 30, 30 and 50, 50 and 100 etc. then it may show that simply re-compressing offending images of superfluous size and dimensions may drastically reduce bandwidth usage - and there would be thus no need to take this no photos/thumbnails actions that some of us are against. |
|
|
| karma |
im using imagemagick that works well for compression.
it allso would work with the forum change the code abit:D
http://www.imagemagick.org/
it Compresses the pic as it's uploading onto the server |
|
|
| officeboy |
Problem is for this BB system all images and attachments are stored in a sql database.
So you can't just go and compress them better.
Although I'm sure it would help a lot.
I sure don't like grabbing a 50Kb jpg diagram when a 4kb gif would do the job even better. |
|
|
| Vikash |
yes i use imagemagick too :up: I upload a file without care for the actual size, and it creates a suitably compressed image and a thumbail. simple.
| quote: | | So you can't just go and compress them better. |
just go through each row and check the file size/dimensions of the image. If it's outside the thresholds then recompress and update the row. I don't see the problem? Off course this is probably best done in batches so as to not overload the server if that's your concern.
| quote: | | I sure don't like grabbing a 50Kb jpg diagram when a 4kb gif would do the job even better. |
Yes, this comes down to the users understanding the compression types and where each should be used for optimal compression. I'm sure it's feasible, and perhaps already done, where the image can be pre analysed to see if it contains photographic or line drawing content and selects the appropriate jpeg or gif format.
This is all academic, as I'm sure AF as well as many people on this board are capable of coming up with suitable heuristics to ensure new images are suitably compressed for future bandwidth preservation. If the mod's require any technical help to ease their burden, then I would be glad to help out too. |
|
|
| Sandy H. |
For me, its not as 'fun' to click on the link than to get the pic. But that's a small price to pay. I've noticed that, IMO, the logo competition is not getting as much attention since links instead of pics are posted.
The only problem I see with linking my pics to my server is that one day, I will likely delete these and therefore any useful content would no longer be available. The only thought I have to counteract that is to have the forum have the pic in a link, but also display it on my own site. Sounds difficult, but I'm no expert.
Of the other sites I frequent, a subscription magazine sponsors one and they get great traffic and ideas. They limit their size to 100k and the topics are honestly more difficult to convey than many of the topics on this forum. True, sometimes hi-res helps with boards etc, but it may not be a requirement.
I guess my 'ideal' solution would be to have even a 25k gif with 240x320 size for a pictured post and a link to a higher resolution pic available by clicking a link all in the same post. It would require different coding and it could be more difficult than I make it out to be.
Good luck making the right choices. Hopefully donations by members will alleviate any compromise.
Sandy. |
|
|
| karma |
hosting a server from home is relatively cheap i use go daddy.com
i paid $60 for three years thats it. and i can run a server with dsl
for $20 a month. and it gets bussy.
i say run a picture server and charge people that post stuff monthly to use it.
thats my 2 cents anyway;)
its a great server but the owner must be going thru hell just to keep it going. in bandwith that is it gets busy even without pics
and the upkeep of the server and the forum it self. the data base
must be huge. i have problem's with a small one let alone this size:)
or a paypal icon on the main page to donate whatever anyone can. looks cheap but its works with other domains |
|
|
|
