(&(*#@^( Rule Reminder!

[LGM Guitars]

Ok, not to be the prick here or anything, but I REALLY liked the rule about keeping pics no bigger than 600 pixels in either direction! I didn't have to scroll my screen around, you can see the whole image, it was nice!

Today I took a couple minutes and read through some posts about new projects that I haven't looked at yet and holy crap!!!!!!! Pics that are well over 1000 wide. You can't even see the whole thing. First of all, it's annoying, secondly, it does nothing flattering for your pictures!!!! If you can't see the whole image it takes away from it.

Also, not that I care about the number of pics in posts, but remember, it's one pic per post except in GOTM or in a tutorial.

Anyway, it was just driving me up the wall to have to move all over the computer screen to try to see the whole guitar. Keep the pics a size that fits on the screen, or just post a link. PLEASE!

[thedoctor]

I hate to sound technically illeterate but I am. Does this apply to pictures or Jpegs posted OUTSIDE the forum? I am slowly achieving the required technology to post some of my stuff that way and want to know if it is best to keep it kinda low-res. You might just be talking about stuff on this forum.

[marksound]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd just as soon the pics not be over 600 wide anywhere they're posted.

[LGM Guitars]

The rules are for any picture posted using the tags, no more then 600 in any direction. It just makes it so much nicer when going through threads. If you're just posting links to images, make them as big as you like

[Kevan]

If the pics are 'on' this board, 600 pixels is the MAXIMUM length for ANY side.

If you're posting a link to a pic, size it however you want.

In my experience, 600 x 600 is PLENTY big enough to show great detail. After all, none of us are printing Vogue covers, right?

Also, ONE PIC PER POST. The rest should be links.

Reference Link:

http://projectguitar.ibforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11235

[Maher]

i agree with the 600 x 600 limit, but the one pic per post i think is bollocks.

[Guitarfrenzy]

Haven't we already been over this before? lol.. I side with LGM on this matter, when the picture size gets that big, then you really can't see everything in the picture at one time, so you have to scroll up and sideways just to see it. Plus even though I'm on DSL, I'm sure there are others who have to wait an eternity for a page to load. Kevan has already explained this in great detail, and as far as I know it's been 1 picture per post unless it's a tutorial or GOTM like Jeremy said. I think that the Mod's should just take the image link off if it's unreasonably large and give them a message describing why the picture has been removed and repost when it is resized.. That's a lot of extra work.. but now that PG has 3 more mods, maybe they can clean up some of this mess.

[Daniel Sorbera]

but the one pic per post i think is bollocks.

Well frankly it doesn't really matter what you think. lol. Kevan has set it up this way and we need to respect it.

Edited April 11, 2005 by Godin SD

[marksound]

but the one pic per post i think is bollocks.

Well frankly it doesn't really matter what you think. lol. Kevan has set it up this way and we need to respect it.

←

Now that's my kind of thinkin!

[Kevan]

It's actually not my rule, per se, it's the forum rules.

Today, most dig. cameras have a setting of 640 x 480. That is *plenty* big enough to show off detail. I'm gonna get with Bri and the other Mods about this and we might make an adjustment. That way, folks won't have to Photoshop stuff down to 600 just for the site.

And guys, take it easy on the Mods. First off, they're brand new at this, so they're still figuring stuff out. Secondly, it was hard enough with Simon, Wes and I. 3 more Mods helps, but it's still A LOT to go thru each day to make sure it's all up to snuff. I'd like to thank those that have clicked the "Report This Post To A Moderator". Those notifications REALLY help us out.

I'll keep everyone abreast of the 640 x 480 details.

[Maher]

but the one pic per post i think is bollocks.

Well frankly it doesn't really matter what you think. lol. Kevan has set it up this way and we need to respect it.

←

i respect the members here, with a few exceptions, i respect the guys that donate and brian for keeping this place going, what i dont respect is petty rules, idiot members that jump on people for posting 5 pictures in there threads and moderators that think because they have the "power" to close, edit or sticky a thread they are a cut above the rest.

[Maiden69]

i respect the members here, with a few exceptions, i respect the guys that donate and brian for keeping this place going, what i dont respect is petty rules, idiot members that jump on people for posting 5 pictures in there threads and moderators that think because they have the "power" to close, edit or sticky a thread they are a cut above the rest.

←

Dude you are way out of line here. Put yourself in the Mod place. You are giving your time for free, and are only to check the forum and make sure that the rules that Brian and the others have palced on it. This is all they are doing, so I don't know why you are complaining so much, since this has been disscussed atleast once a month.

It is simple, there are rules everywere, and to keep the order you just have to abide to them. I don't like driving at the speed limit, and I still have too. If you want to place a4 pics on the post, do Like I do, I size them so that if I put all 4 together they won't be more than 600x600, and I haven't had anybody complain yet, but the ones that Jeremy is talking about had a lot of pics, well over 1000, I usualy just scroll thru them, since I find it a hassle to just slide side to side then up and down to see the whole pic.

They might be petty rules, but they are rules and when you registered into the forum, you basicly said that you will obey them, basicly. I don't think it's such a burden to comply.

[Maher]

i respect the members here, with a few exceptions, i respect the guys that donate and brian for keeping this place going, what i dont respect is petty rules, idiot members that jump on people for posting 5 pictures in there threads and moderators that think because they have the "power" to close, edit or sticky a thread they are a cut above the rest.

←

Dude you are way out of line here. Put yourself in the Mod place. You are giving your time for free, and are only to check the forum and make sure that the rules that Brian and the others have palced on it. This is all they are doing, so I don't know why you are complaining so much, since this has been disscussed atleast once a month.

It is simple, there are rules everywere, and to keep the order you just have to abide to them. I don't like driving at the speed limit, and I still have too. If you want to place a4 pics on the post, do Like I do, I size them so that if I put all 4 together they won't be more than 600x600, and I haven't had anybody complain yet, but the ones that Jeremy is talking about had a lot of pics, well over 1000, I usualy just scroll thru them, since I find it a hassle to just slide side to side then up and down to see the whole pic.

They might be petty rules, but they are rules and when you registered into the forum, you basicly said that you will obey them, basicly. I don't think it's such a burden to comply.

←

have i broken any rules?

have i disputed the 600x600 limit?

i just dont like posts with 10-15 links to pictures, when the could all be on one page, i prefer it much better like that.

[GregP]

I think there's a happy middle ground somewhere, but I dunno.

No way am I going through my Project Lucy thread to edit it. If a mod wants to do that, they're welcome to though I'd like to be told in advance so that i can archive the thread first.

I know the matter isn't even up for debate right now, so any arguments here are purely academic-->

-600 X 600 is way more than enough. I like pics even smaller than that, actually.

-However, if I open someone's progress thread, it's because I want to see pictures. It used to be a burning-at-the-stake offence if you opened up such a thread and there were no pics.

-Therefore, it's actually MORE work and MORE hassle to have to click each of those pics separately, then close the window that's been opened for it, and also to try to get the context of the picture. When I see someone write, "Notice where I flubbed and got some tear-out" I'd rather just see the tear-out right in front of me.

I dunno. Since all of would generally like to see the pics anyhow, I don't see why not just have them posted. I think it's actually accomplishing the opposite intended goal. The idea is that dial-up people won't have to wait while the thread loads. But I'm not on dial-up, the majority of us aren't on dial-up, and the ones that ARE on dial-up are usually still clicking those links anyhow. On the other hand, even though I have a speedy connection, I DO NOT open all of the links, because it's annoying to have to do so, even though in fact I DO want to see the pics.

The way I see it, there are 2 different middle grounds:

1. Allow more threads per post, but make sure they're not hi-res

2. Keep the 1 picture per thread post, but enforce a rule whereby the links are described. I'm not going to click "http://www.myphotos.com/Kevan_2005/guitarpicture1.jpg" unless I know what that link is. You should need to put a description along with each link.

In situation #1, there will always be people who (for whatever reason) go overboard, and that'll be a hassle.

In situation #2, there will always be people who are too lazy to write descriptions, but that's where we're already at.

Since either is a decent solution, and neither will be strictly followed all the time by all people, it strikes me that #1 will still be the better option for the majority of the users, who either a) have hi-speed; or want to see the pics and would click the links anyhow.

The ONLY demographic that the current rule appeals to is: people with dial-up who don't want to see most of the pictures.

That's a pretty limited demographic, and I find it weird that they're the group that would be catered to.

However, until I hear differently, I'll make more effort to limit my pics to 1 per post. I'm sure my in-progress thread will be worse for it, but that's life.

Greg

[AlGeeEater]

i respect the members here, with a few exceptions, i respect the guys that donate and brian for keeping this place going, what i dont respect is petty rules, idiot members that jump on people for posting 5 pictures in there threads and moderators that think because they have the "power" to close, edit or sticky a thread they are a cut above the rest.

←

Dude you are way out of line here. Put yourself in the Mod place. You are giving your time for free, and are only to check the forum and make sure that the rules that Brian and the others have palced on it. This is all they are doing, so I don't know why you are complaining so much, since this has been disscussed atleast once a month.

It is simple, there are rules everywere, and to keep the order you just have to abide to them. I don't like driving at the speed limit, and I still have too. If you want to place a4 pics on the post, do Like I do, I size them so that if I put all 4 together they won't be more than 600x600, and I haven't had anybody complain yet, but the ones that Jeremy is talking about had a lot of pics, well over 1000, I usualy just scroll thru them, since I find it a hassle to just slide side to side then up and down to see the whole pic.

They might be petty rules, but they are rules and when you registered into the forum, you basicly said that you will obey them, basicly. I don't think it's such a burden to comply.

←

have i broken any rules?

have i disputed the 600x600 limit?

i just dont like posts with 10-15 links to pictures, when the could all be on one page, i prefer it much better like that.

←

ouch, Maiden got burned

What i dont get is why its so hard to follow the rules. They arent exactly brain surgery to perform

Edited April 11, 2005 by AlGeeEater

[Devon Headen]

I'm on dial up. I personally would prefer if all the pictures were visible. I DON'T want to wait 30 minutes for a page with 2 pictures to load. I don't see any reason any in progress picture should be any more than 40kb or so. I think we should inform people about how to shrink their pictures. Let's face it, some people here are a lot better with guitars than they are with computers . This is the software I use most of the time to shrink pics. MUCH faster that photoshopping them all especially with the bundle function.

http://www.download.com/Easy-Thumbnails/30...tml?tag=lst-0-1

I think I found it in a MIMF newsletter or something. Very small, no spyware attatched, easy to use, and free. Give me a good reason to post 3MB pictures now.

EDIT It wasn't supposed to say 'so spyware attatched', there is no spyware with the software. It really is very good.

[Maher]

I think there's a happy middle ground somewhere, but I dunno.

No way am I going through my Project Lucy thread to edit it.  If a mod wants to do that, they're welcome to though I'd like to be told in advance so that i can archive the thread first. 

I know the matter isn't even up for debate right now, so any arguments here are purely academic-->

-600 X 600 is way more than enough.  I like pics even smaller than that, actually.

-However, if I open someone's progress thread, it's because I want to see pictures.  It used to be a burning-at-the-stake offence if you opened up such a thread and there were no pics.

-Therefore, it's actually MORE work and MORE hassle to have to click each of those pics separately, then close the window that's been opened for it, and also to try to get the context of the picture.  When I see someone write, "Notice where I flubbed and got some tear-out" I'd rather just see the tear-out right in front of me.

I dunno.  Since all of would generally like to see the pics anyhow, I don't see why not just have them posted.  I think it's actually accomplishing the opposite intended goal.  The idea is that dial-up people won't have to wait while the thread loads.  But I'm not on dial-up, the majority of us aren't on dial-up, and the ones that ARE on dial-up are usually still clicking those links anyhow.  On the other hand, even though I have a speedy connection, I DO NOT open all of the links, because it's annoying to have to do so, even though in fact I DO want to see the pics.

The way I see it, there are 2 different middle grounds:

1.  Allow more threads per post, but make sure they're not hi-res

2.  Keep the 1 picture per thread post, but enforce a rule whereby the links are described.  I'm not going to click "http://www.myphotos.com/Kevan_2005/guitarpicture1.jpg" unless I know what that link is.  You should need to put a description along with each link.

In situation #1, there will always be people who (for whatever reason) go overboard, and that'll be a hassle.

In situation #2, there will always be people who are too lazy to write descriptions, but that's where we're already at.

Since either is a decent solution, and neither will be strictly followed all the time by all people, it strikes me that #1 will still be the better option for the majority of the users, who either a) have hi-speed; or want to see the pics and would click the links anyhow.

The ONLY demographic that the current rule appeals to is:  people with dial-up who don't want to see most of the pictures.

That's a pretty limited demographic, and I find it weird that they're the group that would be catered to. 

However, until I hear differently, I'll make more effort to limit my pics to 1 per post.  I'm sure my in-progress thread will be worse for it, but that's life.

Greg

←

i 100% agree.

[Daniel Sorbera]

this is Brians house. He has been nice enough to host this phnominal forum taking time and money out of his life (mods also) just for us. Now when your staying in someone else's house you abide by THERE rules or you get to spend the night on the street corner You dont tell them why there rules suck and it's diffren't at your house etc etc. You just shut up and do what your told, or leave...

Ps. sorry If I'm sounding mean but I've got a bunch of people in my life right now who just dont follow rules and think there way is the only way and let me just tell you that NO one wants to be around those type of people. I just can't take it any more.

Edited April 11, 2005 by Godin SD

[westhemann]

I think there's a happy middle ground somewhere, but I dunno.

No way am I going through my Project Lucy thread to edit it.  If a mod wants to do that, they're welcome to though I'd like to be told in advance so that i can archive the thread first. 

I know the matter isn't even up for debate right now, so any arguments here are purely academic-->

-600 X 600 is way more than enough.  I like pics even smaller than that, actually.

-However, if I open someone's progress thread, it's because I want to see pictures.  It used to be a burning-at-the-stake offence if you opened up such a thread and there were no pics.

-Therefore, it's actually MORE work and MORE hassle to have to click each of those pics separately, then close the window that's been opened for it, and also to try to get the context of the picture.  When I see someone write, "Notice where I flubbed and got some tear-out" I'd rather just see the tear-out right in front of me.

I dunno.  Since all of would generally like to see the pics anyhow, I don't see why not just have them posted.  I think it's actually accomplishing the opposite intended goal.  The idea is that dial-up people won't have to wait while the thread loads.  But I'm not on dial-up, the majority of us aren't on dial-up, and the ones that ARE on dial-up are usually still clicking those links anyhow.  On the other hand, even though I have a speedy connection, I DO NOT open all of the links, because it's annoying to have to do so, even though in fact I DO want to see the pics.

The way I see it, there are 2 different middle grounds:

1.  Allow more threads per post, but make sure they're not hi-res

2.  Keep the 1 picture per thread post, but enforce a rule whereby the links are described.  I'm not going to click "http://www.myphotos.com/Kevan_2005/guitarpicture1.jpg" unless I know what that link is.  You should need to put a description along with each link.

In situation #1, there will always be people who (for whatever reason) go overboard, and that'll be a hassle.

In situation #2, there will always be people who are too lazy to write descriptions, but that's where we're already at.

Since either is a decent solution, and neither will be strictly followed all the time by all people, it strikes me that #1 will still be the better option for the majority of the users, who either a) have hi-speed; or want to see the pics and would click the links anyhow.

The ONLY demographic that the current rule appeals to is:  people with dial-up who don't want to see most of the pictures.

That's a pretty limited demographic, and I find it weird that they're the group that would be catered to. 

However, until I hear differently, I'll make more effort to limit my pics to 1 per post.  I'm sure my in-progress thread will be worse for it, but that's life.

Greg

←

i 100% agree.

←

tough.

what you guys are forgetting about are the load times for dial up AFTER the initial opening.

guy opens up topic to keep up with the new replies and every stinking time he opens the page he has to wait for all those high res pics to load...and then all he sees most times is one new post that says "lol" or "bump" or "nice"

would you not agree with that logic ,greg?as far as lee is concerned,i am afraid his next post will be "well those people on dial up should bow down to those of us on cable,for we are the MASTERS!!!!!

you may think that sounds silly,but that is an actual paraphrasing of an answer to this subject previously

[bluespresence]

I smell something......

Oh, it's a dead horse.........

Can we just quit beating this thing over and over every month??

The pic rules are here for a reason that has been explained again and again and again. Some of us like them and some don't. Get over it. I'm with Jeremy (LGM) here. Big pics are a pain since the text follows the pic and you have to scroll sideways to read the post.

I also like Kevan's idea of getting the pic size to 640x480 so you can set up your camera and not have to reduce pics in software just for the forum.

moderators that think because they have the "power" to close, edit or sticky a thread they are a cut above the rest

Maybe you could explain this better. I don't see any of the mod's using some fantasy "power" and closing, editing or deleting threads. We edit out profanity to keep the forum family friendly, we close reduntant threads and questions and we close threads where the members just can't be nice to each other....If you have some specific examples I (and the other mods) would love to see them.

[sepultura999]

get mozilla, firefox or any other browser that allows you to use the option. instead of going back and forth, or opening in new windows, click on the link with the scroll ball on your mouse. It's all opened in the same browser as multiple tabs (like a binder with those coloured tabs).

it's a simple rule, it's not going to kill you. it's really annoying to have to wait for pages to load, and i'm on dsl. projectguitar does have its laggy moments, and there's no need to make it slower. Let imageshack and other places host the images and leave the forum to posting threads and the occasional image.

I agree with you Godin. If I haven't have found this board, I probably would've boughten one of those 99 dollar strat guitars on ebay where they state the body as "solid wood".

GregP: There was a thread a few months ago of how slow PG was getting, and how come it was going down all the time. Even if we all have DSL, it would still take time to load all the pics. At least that's what i think, unless i'm the only one experiencing it and everyone who did complain about PG being slow doesn't have this problem anymore.

Jamie

[Mickguard]

.

[GregP]

Wes: I'm not forgetting anything. I understand the rules, I just don't like them. I understand that's 'tough', and I'm not particularly upset either way. It's an inconvenience, but compared to the huge -convenience- of this forum, it's a trade-off I'm willing to make until people change their minds.

[Maher]

GregP: There was a thread a few months ago of how slow PG was getting, and how come it was going down all the time. Even if we all have DSL, it would still take time to load all the pics. At least that's what i think, unless i'm the only one experiencing it and everyone who did complain about PG being slow doesn't have this problem anymore.

Jamie

←

everyone hosts there pictures externally so that wouldn't affect PG bandwidth.

Edited April 11, 2005 by Lee

[sepultura999]

right but i'm talking about even general posts, and the pg forum taking minutes to load. I don't think 50 pictures will be a nice addition. I like multiple pictures too, but since PG is slow as it is and tends to lag as it is, then why add more garbage to the full bag. Like that simpsons episode when they keep filling garbage and stapling things? hehe.

I think you should post the link, and write a description of what the picture is about.

GregP, are you giving Wes the finger in your last post?

Edited April 11, 2005 by sepultura999