Jump to content

Recommended Posts

lovekraft, I don't know why you're so against it! I'm with Gorecki-- the 'text-labelled link' is still blind-loading (and if we're curious, we'll do it no matter the description) and the newbies are even less prone to do properly annotated links than they would be to follow a blanket thumbnailing rules. I can't remember the last time I saw a text description that either made me think, "Yeah, gotta check that out!" or "Nah, not interested" because a description simply cannot tell you what the usefulness will be.

Even 150 X 150 seems too large, but I guess I'd rather have the rules accomodate larger so that they'll have a longer shelf-life before requiring an update to policy. :D I think the thumbnailing idea is a step in the right direction. I'd go for maximum of 4 per post, too, as a compromise and so that I don't seem ungrateful, but to be completely honest: at 4K each (less than some of my text-only posts!!!) I don't know why there should be such a small limit. Some math, to put things into perspective:

- A 56kps connection (dial-up) can download 2 of those thumbnails per second.

- loading a page with 8 such thumbnails would only take a dial-up user 4 seconds, which is likely a much better savings of time for dial-up users than text links, which we will STILL follow out of curiousity.

- Having cached browsing means that they may end up only loading the first time you read the thread, depending on how much permission you give your browser to keep stuff cached. For non-techie people, it is usually defaulted "on" and allows for a considerable cache size.

- As a frame of reference, Kevan's avatar is what I would consider a good 'thumbnail' amount at 3.7K, while lovekraft's is a bit large at 9-ish K. Mine is a svelte 2.7K. :D

- Dial-up users are already accustomed to compromise. Either they don't mind a slightly slower waiting time (in order to pay substantially less for internet!), or in the event that they have no choice (rural location, older technology) they have already optimized their experience and wouldn't cringe at a 4X8 = 32K download. The girlie pictures they download are a lot bigger than that. B)

- the current policy of 1 pic (the size of which can range from 80K - 600K or more) is still taking them twice as long to load as a whole set of thumbnails.

- since many users will follow some of those blink text-based links, the amount of time and bandwith used goes up arithmatically with each new link clicked, as opposed to the thumbnailing in which there is a more informed choice.

I'm just trying to project here, and as a broadband user size doesn't actually matter to me. But thinking as a dial-up user, I'd much rather be able to see 8 thumbs and pick and choose than see 4 and then have the remaining 4 as blind links that I'll likely load, which at the end of the day will take more time and effort.

I don't mean to seem pushy or ungrateful since Kevan's already offered a compromise, but I really think that thumbnailing is the way to solve all the problems about images at once, and I'd rather see a full solution than something half-done that people may eventually bring up again. It strikes me as easier to say to complainers about a thumbnail policy in general: "Sorry, that's the way it is. We use thumbnails." Than it is to direct them to the rules, "1 large picture and then a maximum of 4 thumbnails, with the rest being text-description links."

I think that a fully thumbnailed solution (excepting GOTM entries) across the board is the way to go. :D Makes moderating easy, makes forum hacks at least a little bit easier to accomplish (assuming that you can make a different rule for sub-forums and give GOTM entries their own dedicated forum), makes enforcement easier, saves people bandwidth, and I'm sure there are other benefits I haven't mentioned.

Sorry that I've repeated some points twice, but I'm not sure that I worded it very well the first time around.

Greg

Link to comment
  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Russell Garehan...the man who started a revolution...the man who brought thumbnails to ProjectGuitar.com

Don't forget your trademarked 'launchpad' :D

Kevan's compromise sounds just fine to me --in fact, because thumbnails are a faster download for 56k'ers (because they still have to follow links to larger photos), the use of thumbnails should be actively encouraged over links.

There should be an exception for the tutorials section of course --it's nice to have large-sized photos embedded in the text.

Link to comment
lovekraft, I don't know why you're so against it!
:D It's not the idea of thumbnailing that i'm against - it's the attitude that
  1. "It won't make more work for the admins. After all, any fool can do thumbnails!" ..., and
  2. "My time is much too valuable to look at pictures I don't want to see, so somebody else should do whatever is necessary to make it easy for me, the viewer, so I don't have to waste any effort."
I know we live in an age of instant gratification, but when enjoying a free lunch, it falls on the diner to graciously accept the presentation, and not complain about the garnishing, regardless of how pedestrianly it is done. :D This idea puts the pressure on the guy who is doing the work to format his post so it doesn't inconvenience casual viewers, and I don't see that as his problem. Besides, if the speed poll is any indication, it shouldn't take any time for most of you to load a blind link in a new window, glance at it to see if it interests you, and close it if it doesn't. And while you are correct that clicking on those blind links consumes bandwith, you neglected to mention that it doesn't use any Project Guitar bandwidth. And furthermore, as a dial-up user myself, I don't have to imagine what it's like to connect at 26.4K, and I'm starting to resent the (probably unintentional, but nevertheless obvious) implication that anybody who doesn't have broadband isn't cool! B)

I have no problem with Kevan's proposal whatsoever, but I've been involved in administering organizations long enough to know that it will increase the need for moderation - the more complicated the rules, the more work is necessary to enforce them, without exception. TANSTAAFL. And que sera, sera, and stuff like that! :D

Link to comment
I know we live in an age of instant gratification, but when enjoying a free lunch, it falls on the diner to graciously accept the presentation, and not complain about the garnishing, regardless of how pedestrianly it is done.

Except that there's a community spirit here --which means that we can all make an attempt to make this place more user friendly for everyone...even for the 'uncool' (that anything like undead?) dialup users... :D

In order to post a thumbnail from Photobucket it literally requires no more extra effort than two clicks --one to select the photo/s, the second to generate the code. It's that easy.

And it'll make it easier for you to see images --and then choose which ones to look at in more detail, since your connection is so slow. So your experience here will be more enjoyable.

That's what I call community --I'm willing to make those two extra clicks for you! :D

But I agree with you about making things too complex --easier to simply allow the use of multiple thumbnails rather than rule for or against them.

Link to comment
[*]"My time is much too valuable to look at pictures I don't want to see, so somebody else should do whatever is necessary to make it easy for me, the viewer, so I don't have to waste any effort."

Well, I’m certainly taking that one as a personal assault. Granted I did leave a window open because I expressed things from a personal preference perspective (as I should) instead of from someone whose been doing internet development for longer than many have had access to it! But, no I left a window open so a stab suggesting a degree of laziness could be derived instead of a perspective of user interface optimization discussion.

Also, I in no way represented anyone would have to use a thumb matrix with links. The use of equal real estate to that of a single image may make presentation more pleasant and for those who are willing to go through the additional formatting effort to satisfy a more desirable presentation.

My intension when offering computer technologies related suggestions is to share knowledge I have that most do not to benefit the whole. That gives me the sense of offering something to the community that has provided me so much knowledge and has expected nothing in return. Now it’s really getting to the point where I’m considering not bothering to post at all. This isn’t a reaction from a single situation, it an accumulative from letting it slide.

For the record, there is no free lunch!

Link to comment

There are pro's and cons to the different pic rules.

I agree saving bandwidth is an admirable cause. (But who is still on dial-up, anyhow????)And this certainly applies for people filling their threads with a number of large pics, and the people quoting these pics, and then adding small comment. I don't see the point of that.

I do see the point of adding some pics to a thread. I personally hate opening these links. All these additional clicks I could do without.

Yeah, I sometimes use one or two pics in my posts. Just making sure they're small enough not to bother anyone.

Yeah, I sometimes hotlink. Personally I think that's the power of the internet. Yeah, I know, it's stealing bandwidth........but putting link to it will be the same. Yeah, I realize then the personal or company that has made the page can show off their other work too.....

I do like the tumbnail feature. I did not know how to use that, and appreciate you guys posting it. I will definte use it.

Just my $0.02.

Link to comment

Except that there's a community spirit here --which means that we can all make an attempt to make this place more user friendly for everyone...even for the 'uncool' (that anything like undead?) dialup users... :D

In order to post a thumbnail from Photobucket it literally requires no more extra effort than two clicks --one to select the photo/s, the second to generate the code. It's that easy.

That's what I call community --I'm willing to make those two extra clicks for you!  :D

I disagree in the community spirit comment lately, I don't see a lot of it. I guess I'm wondering, why would people be willing to "make an extra 2 clicks" to make it a thumbnail, when they don't want to make 2 extra clicks to view a picture in a link (one to open it, one to close it)

Personally, I have my own upload section, it doesn't give me the option of creating a thumbnail, and I don't really want to open another account with photobucket or whoever it is. I think the thumbnails would be a great idea IF it was something I thought people would actually do on a regular basis. But if following the rules by putting up ONE picture and links is to difficult for people (as is continually proven by the posts where people STILL put up multiple pictures) then how on gods green earth will they actually do the thumbnail thing?

I guess I'm just truly sick of the bullschnittzle that's been happening lately, I am just at that point (as we got to on another board where I do moderate) that if you can't follow the rules, you get an instant 2 week vacation, simple as that. True, we lose a couple members at the other site, but we rarely have rule issues. And it's still a fun place to be. Part of the problem is that the moderators here go in and edit the persons post to be within the rules, and nothing happens to the poster, so people get that attitude where "I can do it, the mods will change it if they don't like it" well, that's fine if you want to continue to create more and more work for the mods. I don't think thumbnails will solve the problem of posters not following rules personally. My personal feeling is, if somebody breaks the size limit, they get one warning, they do it again, goodbye for 2 weeks, you break the rules by posting more than one picture, adios, 2 week holiday. You are SUPPOSED to read the rules before you regisiter here so I don't buy that "sorry, I'm new and didn't know" bull either, you have to accept the rules to become a member.

When I was in school, you break the rules, you had to write lines, or got detention, or suspended, (when I was in school we still got the strap for crying out loud). You had to apologize, but there was no lenience, you break the rules you were punished, plain and simple. It's not like people here DON'T know the rules. And if you've been here either as a member or lurker for any amount of time, you MUST have figured out there is some rule limiting pictures just by reading the posts and only seeing one picture per post even if you haven't read the rules!

Yes, I am grumpy, I'm getting tired of it, personally, I don't care how many pictures are in a post, but I'm tired of seeing rules broken that I personally got a stern talking to about in the past. I'm computer stupid, if I can figure out the rules, surely anyone can!

Just my 2 cents

Jeremy

Link to comment

I dont post as many pics, or help out with images that WILL benefit members of this forum, BECAUSE of the current picture rules. When this rule was first implemented, we had a poll on the forum at the same time that showed more than 95% of members were on broadband, or they didnt care about download times.

Why are we catering for a minority??

Link to comment

I was going to vote in that poll but it took too long to load. :D

Seriously, I'm on 56k and no DSL in my area until possibly early '06. Plus the phone lines themselves are old and dirty so I have connection issues. It's just something I've learned to deal with. But some things are unnecessary, regardless of connection speed, like pics repeated in multiple quotes. Or huge 5-paragraph rants that are then immediately quoted with a one or two line response. As if I need to re-read the huge rant again, I just read it! That's why your post came AFTER that one, right? B) But I accept my connection speed as my own deficiency. I don't expect any changes on the part of the forum to accomodate me.

The argument about rules being broken is seperate, and valid. It doesn't matter how crazy the rules are, you should follow them. So we have two sub-topics going really:

1. Is it okay to break the posting rules? No, ignorance notwithstanding.

2. Should they be changed to accomodate new technology? Maybe. :D

Link to comment
Why are we catering for a minority??

Perry, did you miss Kevan's last post? The "minority" owns the board! I also believe that Brian's aim was (and is) to make this board easy to use for everybody, regardless of creed, color or connection speed.

Gorecki, peace!! Sorry if you felt singled out, but the attitude is pandemic, and you're certainly not the worst, so relax. As for anyone else who felt like I trampled them in that last post of mine, let me make this clear once and for all - I am not a person who is subtle in discourse, and since any subtlety would be lost in print anyway, unless I address you by name, I am referring to general cases, and not singling you out for criticism. I'm contentious enough that if I have a problem with an individual, I'll jump him/her/it face to face. If you weren't named, you weren't blamed - passive aggressive is not my style. If my "lack" of language skills causes this kind of problem, I can only imagine how difficult it must be for the younger members who don't have several years of college English.

I've caused entirely enough trouble here - whatever Brian decides is OK with me. :D

Link to comment

I think if everyone started using thumbnails, the people that are constantly breaking the rules, will continue to do so, BUT it will not be as bad with 5 or 6 thumbnails compare to even 2 or 3 regular sized pics. I don't know if those people will even use the thumbnails but if they did it wouldn't be nearly as bad as regular pics. Greg explained it best size wise thumbnails vs full size pics. And I think kevans compromise was more than fair, the mods and admin have had their hands full as of late, but they still take the time to address possible improvements, but just give them time to decide, make sure that there won't be any drastic problems caused, and if there isn't I'm sure they would have no problems changing it. They really do a good job around here, if people feel otherwise and think they know of a better place to be, then go there, don't constantly question the motives of the admin and mods, they know what they are doing, believe it or not.

And I think this place gets along great, other than the last couple weeks, I haven't seen any other issues, I only just became a member a short while ago but I have been reading and researching here for a lot longer! And I feel that 99% get along really good. I just think that tempers have been a little flared as of recently because of a person or two that have some mental issues. And in reality they know nothing about guitars or have any other motives than making money and have been trying to piss everyone off. All the long time members here have gotten along fine and have been a huge help to the new comers, that shouldn't be spoiled by a couple of jerks!

So lets build guitars, you guys are wasting time discussing stuff like this, if you have a suggestion post it and give the mods and admin time to mill it over and make their decision, other than that lets forget about what's his name and all the drama that ensued and get on with learning and teaching, building and playing guitars. The off topic, and announcement chat should not be the most used threads on this site, they weren't but seems to be becoming so. Well just some more opinions and a rant, please guys lets just do what we were doing before all this crap started, it was so much more fun and we had a much better welcome mat to new comers, now I would definately look around for other sites after I found this one, if I was a new comer. Well hope to see you guys in the other threads more, you know the ones about guitars! Jason

Link to comment

A warmer welcome would certainly be nice. As for images, I've said almost all I can say on the subject, but if we're going to compare forum environments, I can say the following:

- None of the other forums I'm on have 'picture rules' and yet none of them have problems related to this issue. If there were a laissez-fair attitude around here, I find it unlikely that we'd suddenly be flooded by every thread containing huge pictures. When people spam a thread with a too-wide image, the other members quickly say, "***?" and the original poster cleans it up him/herself.

- Regardless, speaking as a veteran of a few different boards, none of them still maintain the sense of focus (we STILL mainly talk about guitars around here) and community that this one does. A little bit of bullshnizzle from time to time is par for the course, and I believe that PG has less of it, and is overall a much stronger and better place than most.

Greg

Link to comment

i think he is just speaking to the "powers that be",as it were...

again though,it's not always a bandwidth issue...sometimes it is just,as lovekraft puts it,our "signal to noise ratio"

or to put it simply...a matter of clutter.

a nice,clean,clutter free topic is much more pleasant to read than a topic with 30 posted quotes followed by the posters input,which sometimes is nothing more than "ROFLMAO"

Link to comment

I agree with LGM, to make thumbnails it needs to be something that the Invision Board will do automatically, not something that you must do every post, otherwise you know the rules will be broken. If they can't tell how to keep a picture within the size limit, how are you going to expect them to add all those extra lines to their IMG code? Surely there is a code that will resize the picture to the correct size no matter what the picture is. It will help with the scrolling problem, but not with the bandwith issue. Then all the mods would have to do is make sure that the picture file size hasn't gone over a predetermined limit, which also may be able to be programmed into the messageboard. That would be the best solution, since we can still use our own servers to post our pictures and not something like Photobucket or some unrealiable picture hosting site that loads slow. Just my opinion.

Matt V

Link to comment
I agree with LGM, to make thumbnails it needs to be something that the Invision Board will do automatically, not something that you must do every post, otherwise you know the rules will be broken. If they can't tell how to keep a picture within the size limit, how are you going to expect them to add all those extra lines to their IMG code? Surely there is a code that will resize the picture to the correct size no matter what the picture is. It will help with the scrolling problem, but not with the bandwith issue. Then all the mods would have to do is make sure that the picture file size hasn't gone over a predetermined limit, which also may be able to be programmed into the messageboard. That would be the best solution, since we can still use our own servers to post our pictures and not something like Photobucket or some unrealiable picture hosting site that loads slow. Just my opinion.

Matt V

I fully agree with you guys, having a size limit will in effect limit any abuse of rules by members, a good idea, But I think a lot of the current problems are not so much that people can't figure out have to down size their pics, or to only have one pic and links to the rest. I think that they know perfectly well how to do it but they choose not to. As most people said they are not afraid of getting banned, and it is very difficult to get banned, so they feel there will be no negative consequences as a result of abusing the rules. Some of the abusers I have seen follow the rules in many posts, but then in another will completey disregard them. So I agree with the limit, but I don't feel it's a good idea because people that don't know what they are doing won't be able to make mistakes, I think it's good because the people that want to break the rules won't be able to. Thats just what I see in this situation. Jason

Link to comment

The only way for the PG forum to limit picture size itself is to completely forbid the picture to be posted when you try. It can't re-size the pic for us, because it would have to have the full-sized pic to begin with. And that would mean using PG's bandwidth instead of your picture host's.

It CAN in theory pre-fetch a picture size without downloading the whole thing, though, and if Pic > limit, then an error message could be generated. That would involve a code hack, though, and I'm certainly not knowledgable enough in the practice of it to say whether or not it's realistic. I can say that it's "doable" but since the people in charge are doing this for free, it'd be unfair to expect it from them if it turns out to be a difficult task.

Greg

Link to comment
Holy Crap,

this thread is getting ridiculously asinine and redundant!!!!!!!!

unfortunately...that is usually what happens with these types of threads..which is why i am not crazy about them...but i still do read them because every now and then someone makes a good point.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...