Logo
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Apr 08, 2020 2:35 pm



Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Posting Pics in topics. 
Author Message
Malekith's Personal Guard
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2003 1:44 pm
Posts: 806
Location: In a mystical realm of mystical mysticalness.
Im just making a suggestion that it is about time that Druchii.net allowed putting pictures directly into topics rather than just linking to them.

Druchii.net is the only forum i frequent that doesnt allow it.

I also dont really see why it is a necessary rule anymore. Surely if one is browsing the P+M forum they are wanting to look at the pictures. To me anyway it is just an annoyance having to click on all the links and end up with like 10 seperate webpages to look at.

I think the only time it would cause problems would be if people put in stupidly large pictures or a ridiculous number of them, but surely a little common sense from the moderators could easily be applied.

Ta for reading.

John.

_________________
Buying Warhammer minis - expensive as hell

Seeing grown men list their win/loss/draw results in their sigs as though it compensates for anything - priceless.


www.pimpcostumes.com for all your clothing needs...


Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:02 pm
Profile
Loremaster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:22 am
Posts: 2806
Location: Australia
Post 
It isn't allowed because some members are still on Dial-up speeds (yes, those poor underprivileged people do still exist), so having large pictures in the thread itself means that it will be incredibly slow to load for them.

I'm not going to argue for or against here, but that's the reasoning used for the rule in case you didn't know. :)

_________________
"I live in hope and fear. Hope that once more the Lords of Caledor will ride on the backs of Dragons. Fear that if we do, when we do, it will be our last ride." ~Imrik, High Prince

Initiative Leader - Editors


Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:19 am
Profile WWW
Trademaster
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 7:32 pm
Posts: 3170
Location: Ontario, Canada
Post 
Exactly.

We need to be considerate for those whom are still on dialup.

Fr0

_________________
Trading Forum


Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:02 am
Profile ICQ WWW
Undercover Asrai
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:09 pm
Posts: 1921
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Post 
But how many members are still on dialup? My guess is less than 1 in 20...

My point is, how long will this forum considerate dialuppers? Because there will always be a couple of people with ancient modems...perhaps it is (or will soon be) time to reconsider?

_________________
Image

my Last.fm page in case anyone is interested...


Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:54 am
Profile
Witch Elf
Witch Elf
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2002 11:31 pm
Posts: 8090
Location: Toms River, NJ, USA
Post 
my main beef with pics in a thread isnt the speed, it is the size! sometimes .. rather all too often people refuse to resize them meanign i have to scroll all over the place to rad the thread.

_________________
General FAQ:
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=2504

FAQ about rules:
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?p=547809


Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:57 am
Profile
Asur Bane
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:38 pm
Posts: 1331
Location: Questing through the nine plains of Hell
Post 
I agree, it isn't that hard to provide a link in a post. I think it is much better the way it is now. .

_________________
Class: Warrior
Ws: 6 dex: 4 str: 4 T: 3 Int: 4
Skills: Awareness, Defensive fighting, Parry
Equipment: Medium armor, Longsword, 2 Throwing daggers, 50 gold coins

Don't forgive, don't forget


Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:00 am
Profile
Hard, but Fair
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 4:01 pm
Posts: 3754
Location: Southern Netherlands
Post 
On a forum I occasionally visit, it is possible to post pics, but they can be no larger than 400x300 or something. Perhaps an idea?

_________________
Count them:

Painted in 2013: 500
Painted in 2014: 600
Painted in 2015: 854


Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:45 pm
Profile WWW
Khaindar
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:29 am
Posts: 1276
Location: Germany
Post 
I have to say that I like the "stream lined" appearance the disallowance of directly posted pictures provides (especially together with the relative rarity of annoying and waste-of-space signature pictures) - leaves more room for actual discussion and the threads can be accessed easily without having to wait for pics to load and the need to scroll down dozens of screens.


Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:02 pm
Profile ICQ
Lord of Khorne
Lord of Khorne
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:29 pm
Posts: 8432
Location: Leading the revolution (and in the chat).
Post 
Linda Lobsta Defenda wrote:
my main beef with pics in a thread isnt the speed, it is the size! sometimes .. rather all too often people refuse to resize them meanign i have to scroll all over the place to rad the thread.


Aye. I find it is the way that pictures tend to "bloat" a thread that is the problem. You can't always keep a picture in context of the text around, and it's a pain if you've read the thread before and the pictures "push" the most recent post somewhere off-screen (a minor annoyance, but it gets wearing after a while).

It's even worse if the picture is wider than the screen - scrolling down is one thing, but having to scroll sideways for an entire page because of a picture or two is frustrating.

It might be an idea for people to group related pictures in their photbucket (or whatever) albums into single sub albums for one handy link.

_________________
Image

"Rork.. a wonderful guy :)" - Linda Lobsta Defenda

+++ Team Mulligans +++


Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:39 pm
Profile
Hard, but Fair
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 4:01 pm
Posts: 3754
Location: Southern Netherlands
Post 
Only allowing pictures in P&M, where they are actually useful as opposed to spam pics in OT, with an explicit "Warning: Pictures!" in the title, would be sensible.

_________________
Count them:

Painted in 2013: 500
Painted in 2014: 600
Painted in 2015: 854


Sun Jul 23, 2006 3:45 pm
Profile WWW
Lord of Khorne
Lord of Khorne
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:29 pm
Posts: 8432
Location: Leading the revolution (and in the chat).
Post 
Damnation wrote:
Only allowing pictures in P&M, where they are actually useful as opposed to spam pics in OT, with an explicit "Warning: Pictures!" in the title, would be sensible.


But that's where pictures are posted and viewed 90% of the time, anyway. Even with broadband I don't like threads with four or five pictures in one post.

_________________
Image

"Rork.. a wonderful guy :)" - Linda Lobsta Defenda

+++ Team Mulligans +++


Sun Jul 23, 2006 3:54 pm
Profile
Morathi's Best Friend
Morathi's Best Friend
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:06 pm
Posts: 1203
Location: Flanders, Belgium
Post 
If pictures are ever allowed, I believe they should be heavily restricted, which could incur extra load for the moderators. For instance, a restriction could be a size constraint, resolution constraint, having to ask a mod's permission, or something else.

Pictures are allowed in signatures (I use one, myself), and while there is a 10KB limit, some of them are still large in terms of pixel dimensions. These instances provide a very repetitive disruption in a thread.

I'm primarily against allowing images in posts, because simply saying "no" is far less prone to misinterpretation/error/favouritism than an array of "only if". I'm confident at least 80%-90% of the regular posters here can responsibly handle ability to post images, but it's the rest that worries me.

Perhaps the img-tag could be removed altogether to prevent future confusion to new members? It's a bit drastic, but if the policy is "no images"... well... ;)

At any rate, if pictures were ever allowed, I'd limit it to a kind of thumbnails.

_________________
SAU XV: Pawn of the Dead | SAU XVII: The Frosty Dozen | SAU XIX: On the Brink of Madministration | Running fiction: House Arhakuyl


Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:07 pm
Profile
Brolock
Brolock
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:41 am
Posts: 2296
Location: Keeping an eye on Rork and Calisson
Post 
I have cable now, but I can remember when I used to have dial-up. One reason I enjoyed this site over all the others I visited was that I was I didnt have to sit and wait forever because someone posted a pic in a thread. All the other sites took me forever to wade through the topics with pictures in them. And while I don't have that problem now, I think that we should still consider those who do.

_________________
+++ Team Mulligans +++

Image

FAQ


Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:15 pm
Profile WWW
Follower of Malal
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 2726
Location: Colchester, Essex (UK).
Post 
What Tarbo and Damnation said, and more: weight limit of 50kb (enough for a nice 640*480 picture, so perhaps drop it to 30kb so people don't dump uncompressed loads on us) and size limit of 300*400. This is if we decide to allow them.

As far as I'm concerned, I see no reason to do so - because it gives the mods even more things to deal with (remember the amount of PMs we send out for signatures?), because I know quite a few people who're on dial-up and because it's ugly, and we've worked fine without them forever.

Instead, I say we allow image thumbnails, like the ones Tarbo intended to use for SAU. This means only ImageShack users could use the thubnails, but I'm sure those people who, like me, use Photobucket, will be content with sticking to links. If not, they can always switch to ImageShack or create a second version of their image resized to something ridiculous like 10*10px, host that and post it with a link to the actual picture.

_________________
General Kala wrote:
Cenyu wrote:
Hail to the King, baby.
All my eloquence fails to express it as well as this.


Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Profile
Modest Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:15 pm
Posts: 2446
Location: Somewhere in Denmark
Post 
A neutral shade of black. wrote:
because it gives the mods even more things to deal with


Well, as I see it(and since I'm not a mod, I truly can't tell, but...) it wouldn't be extra work. Making people resize images equals making people link to images. In my head.

If the rule is: Images allowed, at a limit of YxY pixels, the work before used to make those who either forgot or did not know the rule of no pictures, will now be used on making sure people resize their images. On the other hand, allowing people to post images may give extra work if people turn lazy, and can't be bothered to resize their images.

So Idon't know. I like pic's in threads, but I see the consequences that might loom ahead.

And about dialup users: Though it is heartless to say, we can't make take special precautions for their benefit forever. Everything, including netspeed, evolves, and the new possibilitis should be used. Sure, I've been a dial-upper once, but really, it's just the way things are on the net. But one could perhaps consult this wonderful thread: http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=44512


Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:51 pm
Profile
Trademaster
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 7:32 pm
Posts: 3170
Location: Ontario, Canada
Post 
If there were a size restriction it wouldn't be so bad. but when you have a lot of pics in a thread, it still takes a bit to load.. even with cable.

Where I can see the desire for pics, for now it might be best to leave it as is.

Fr0

_________________
Trading Forum


Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:35 am
Profile ICQ WWW
Loremaster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:22 am
Posts: 2806
Location: Australia
Post 
Quote:
Where I can see the desire for pics, for now it might be best to leave it as is.

Just to point something out, the only problem with this is that there will probably always be some people who are still on a dial-up connection, so the excuse 'for now' can really be stretched out over a long period of time.

And, of course, it raises the question of how many people with dial-up speeds actually go to the P&M forum, since that's where most pictures are shown.

_________________
"I live in hope and fear. Hope that once more the Lords of Caledor will ride on the backs of Dragons. Fear that if we do, when we do, it will be our last ride." ~Imrik, High Prince

Initiative Leader - Editors


Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:02 am
Profile WWW
Follower of Malal
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 2726
Location: Colchester, Essex (UK).
Post 
LordBelial wrote:
Well, as I see it(and since I'm not a mod, I truly can't tell, but...) it wouldn't be extra work. Making people resize images equals making people link to images. In my head.


Unfortunately, you're wrong.

This is the same as the following: given the choice between yes or no and the choice between answers A through Z, knowing that only one is correct, where do you think you have the most chances of getting it right? Situation #1, otherwise known as "links only." If we allow any kind of pictures in threads, the amount of people who post pics over a certain weight or not in line with the size restrictions will be much, much larger than the number of people who post pictures instead of links under the current rules. Add to that the fact that almost everyone knows how to link to a picture rather than use the phpBB img tags whereas few people know how to resize and recompress an image, and I'm sure you'll understand that allowing images would be much more trouble than we care to handle considering the limited benefits.

_________________
General Kala wrote:
Cenyu wrote:
Hail to the King, baby.
All my eloquence fails to express it as well as this.


Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:12 am
Profile
Loremaster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:22 am
Posts: 2806
Location: Australia
Post 
Quote:
rather than use the phpBB img tags whereas few people know how to resize and recompress an image

It's actually quite simple - but even so, adding an FAQ in P&M with instructions on how to do it wouldn't be too hard, would it? Nobody really seems to read those, on the other hand, so it might not do all that much to rectify the situation.

_________________
"I live in hope and fear. Hope that once more the Lords of Caledor will ride on the backs of Dragons. Fear that if we do, when we do, it will be our last ride." ~Imrik, High Prince

Initiative Leader - Editors


Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:41 am
Profile WWW
Modest Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:15 pm
Posts: 2446
Location: Somewhere in Denmark
Post 
A neutral shade of black. wrote:
Add to that the fact that almost everyone knows how to link to a picture rather than use the phpBB img tags whereas few people know how to resize and recompress an image, and I'm sure you'll understand that allowing images would be much more trouble than we care to handle considering the limited benefits.


Point taken. You're right there.


Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:24 am
Profile
Executioner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:04 am
Posts: 152
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Post 
As I see it, and this is just my opinion mind, pictures in threads are unneeded and prove to be more of an annoyance as you have to scroll past/over the pictures.

It's just as easy to post a link to a picture and it makes loading times much faster, it also cuts down on page lengths which is always good.

I have always prefered D.net to other forums because of this rule that we have in place as it makes life just that much easier and better.

Just my 2 cents.

_________________
A Day Without Sbod Is Like A Day Without Sunshine.


Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:33 am
Profile
Lord of the Venom Sword
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 12:58 pm
Posts: 2171
Location: London
Post 
I aggree that pics in threads are not needed. Those of you who say most people will use the option sensibly IMO are wrong. I uploaded about a dozen pics to the album of my army last night and linked to all of them from one thread. If pics were allowed in threads I'm sure I would have put them all in that thread, making a stupidly long thread of pics. This would obviously be a bad idea but, I would still want to post all the pics somewhere, and it would be just as annoying to have 3 different threads for different pics. Links are definitely the best way.

Thumbnails could be a good idea though, just to give people some idea of what they are linking to.

_________________
Ash010110 wrote:
I completely agree with Ant (Reynolds, I presume?).

(Please note, I am NOT Anthony Reynolds)


Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:15 am
Profile
Morathi's Best Friend
Morathi's Best Friend
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:06 pm
Posts: 1203
Location: Flanders, Belgium
Post 
Well, most people don't and wouldn't use images at all. ;) I count those with the percentage I guessed.

_________________
SAU XV: Pawn of the Dead | SAU XVII: The Frosty Dozen | SAU XIX: On the Brink of Madministration | Running fiction: House Arhakuyl


Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:59 pm
Profile
Follower of Malal
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 2726
Location: Colchester, Essex (UK).
Post 
Of course, we could always hardcode a limit to the number of images present in a single post (Warseer does that, IIRC), but that would just lead to people double- or triple-posting to put all the images in.

And Eldacar, what with the number of people who read the FAQ, do you really think they'll bother reading a page-long tech manual on how to make your pictures dial-up friendly?

Like I said: allow ImageShack thumbnails, which are only 3-5kb heavy at the most. Nothing else is needed.

_________________
General Kala wrote:
Cenyu wrote:
Hail to the King, baby.
All my eloquence fails to express it as well as this.


Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:12 pm
Profile
Lord of the Venom Sword
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 12:58 pm
Posts: 2171
Location: London
Post 
Quote:
Of course, we could always hardcode a limit to the number of images present in a single post (Warseer does that, IIRC), but that would just lead to people double- or triple-posting to put all the images in.

Even if people do follow the rules it still won't solve the problems. We all WANT all the pics of someones army accessible from one thread. It would be even more annoying if they were all in different threads. links and thumbnails is the way to go.

_________________
Ash010110 wrote:
I completely agree with Ant (Reynolds, I presume?).

(Please note, I am NOT Anthony Reynolds)


Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:54 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software