(&(*#@^( Rule Reminder!

[GregP]

Oops, forgot to respond to sepultura999's comments.

Lee got one of them right. Pictures posted here do not use PG's bandwidth at all.

Regarding the mozilla suggestion-- I use Opera 7, which features tabs. It's still a hassle. I'll admit, it's a minor one. It's not ruining my life. But it's still a hassle. On the other side of the coin, though, if you don't like images, use mozilla or Opera or even IE and do not load images with the webpage. Then, just click the ones that you DO want to see. The end result is even better than the current method, because you still click only if you want to see them, but they come up in the context of the post.

<shrug>

If it takes using a different browser to make the experience 'enjoyable', then either side could be argued just as easily, and to be honest I think my suggestion above suits the needs of everybody even better, because it even works with IE.

I agree completely, BP, about the size thing, though. Frankly, I think even 600 X 600 is too big. 400 X 400 would suit me fine.

Greg

[GregP]

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.

Well, yeah... there's a limit. I've gone overboard in the past (in a relevant thread that SHOULD have pictures) since people sent me PMs saying they were enjoying how detailed my progress thread was. I didn't get ANY saying, "could you put fewer pics?" Part of that is probably due to the fact that I'm conscious of size, though, and I've always picked picture sizes that were very quick-loading and didn't garble up the PG display.

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

That is definitely something that I see as a middle ground, but the problem is that who is going to enforce the rules? It seems pretty silly to come into a thread as a moderator and say, "Don't post links without descriptions." But on the other hand, I find it a hassle when people say something simple like: "Check out these pictures of my neck" and then show 7 links. It's even worse than the old system, because not all of those links are worth looking at, but since they're not breaking forum rules, people do it anyhow. And then I have 7 blind links to follow before I either a) find a picture that gives me an idea of what's going on, or give up and don't bother with the pictures, which could inadvertently be a discredit to the person working on the project.

Following 7 links that open in separate windows or tabs is certainly more time consuming than having a user just pick one or two of those (the most meaningful or ones that show different angles). 2 vs. 7 isn't much of a choice for me. I'd rather just see the 2.

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

←

No, but Grimace may have been! I dunno, but he's got a thing against metal-heads. I've tried to tell him that metal rules, but he just keeps playing country and blues, the silly purple git.

I mean, in theory, we're all posting pictures because they're relevant and we want to share them and we think that the other members can get some use out of seeing them. I haven't seen many old-style threads filled with complete crap, but I HAVE seen threads containing too many blind picture -links- ever since the rule changed.

Greg

[AlGeeEater]

Ok, seriously. For everyone who is b!tch!n' about closing windows, download maxthon or firefox or mozilla. WHATEVER! i recommend maxthon because its based on IE, and the tabs are better than firefox, but whatever. These really arent hard rules to follow guys! Like BP said, where beating a dead horse, and its starting for freakin' stink!

[GregP]

AlGee-- my point was that it CAN go back the other way equally as easy. Check it out: "OK, for those bitching about all the pictures, all you have to do is change one setting in your browser and you don't have to see them. Click the links only of the pictures you want to see. It ain't that hard."

See? They're both valid points of view, and therefore cancel each other out. The browser issue is a non-issue because either side is equally as strong.

Regarding the topic itself--I'm not letting myself be painted as some sort of villain again just for sharing a different opinion. I don't go out of my way to break the rules, I didn't say they're hard to follow, and I'm far too old to rebel against authority as a form of self-expression. Before anyone dumps on me for being of a different opinion, please understand that it's simply in my nature to question faulty logic. LGM's initial post was fine, and I have no problem with it, so that's not even who I'm debating with, in case it wasn't clear.

I just think that there are circumstances in which multiple pictures are handier in a thread, I think that it CAN be done more efficiently than the current slow and bandwidth-hungry system, and I believe that in a community, there is ALWAYS room to re-address rules and procedures from time to time. It's Brian's house, but he's an open-minded guy and some day (though not today) there may be a need to update this or another rule, and I'm sure he and the moderators understand that nothing's set in stone forever.

FWIW, when *I* started using this forum, part of what attracted me was all of the tutorials with pictures showing. If it hadn't been for the neck-through tutorial page, including all the photos, I may not have realized what a valuable resource this place can be. Visual learners (and there are many!) will be attracted by illustrated examples. On the other hand, have you ever scanned a thread with no pictures and sat up to take notice? Probably not. I've likely already missed some very cool topics because my brain doesn't latch on to a list of hyperlinks as an inspirational thing.

I've said my share, so unless someone directly comments on the actual suggestions instead of making blanket statements, I guess that's good enough.

Greg

[feylya]

This thread is definately flogging a dead horse but I'd still like to give my opinion on it.

To LGM about scrolling to look at pictures - why not just write some code into the forum software to scale the pictures biggest edge to 600? That way it stays within the forum rules, means you don't have to scroll and whoever is linking to the pictures doesn't have to do any extra work on the picture. While the picture would still be the same file size meaning that it would take slightly longer for the pictures to load, the majority of users are on some sort of broadband connection and broadband connections are becoming more available and cheaper.

Re pictures in posts. If a Progress thread has no pictures, I'll more than likely not read it. If it has links, I'll randomly click one or two and then navigate away. If a thread has pictures in the post itself and I like the look of the guitar, I will read the posts and possibly (try to) contribute as best I can. Having the pictures do not contribute to PG's bandwidth bill more than a normal link would so costs do not go up. Perhaps some more code could be added to the PG forum software to allow in thread pictures to be viewed as links or as tags.

[westhemann]

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.

←

how many times does it have to be written in plain english before the wannabee intellectuals get it?

load times for threads get slower when more images are posted...end of story...capishe?i don't care if another site IS hosting the pic...pg thread load times are still affected.

anyway...have all the fun you want looking silly...we have been over this same thing enough that if you don't get it,you never will.

as always...if you don't like the rules,go play on stereokiller.com or something

and by the way...it is "their"

[AlGeeEater]

FWIW, when *I* started using this forum, part of what attracted me was all of the tutorials with pictures showing.  If it hadn't been for the neck-through tutorial page, including all the photos, I may not have realized what a valuable resource this place can be.  Visual learners (and there are many!) will be attracted by illustrated examples.  On the other hand, have you ever scanned a thread with no pictures and sat up to take notice?  Probably not.  I've likely already missed some very cool topics because my brain doesn't latch on to a list of hyperlinks as an inspirational thing.

←

Me too! But you're missing the point. Not everyone is on DSL, cable, any broadband! Links to pics are fine. You have to feel for those guys without it. But hell, too bad for them! Dial-up is very out-dated these days, and the internet isnt really made for it anymore, IMO. Whatever. It can go either-way. Theres gotta be a medium for it, say 3 pics a post in the "in progress" section, then the rest links. I remeber when i was on dial-up when i was first around here, and i didnt mind waiting to see the guitars.

[westhemann]

oh...by the way...tutorials and in progress are still unlimited pics,as far as i know,and always have been.

and brian(the guy who runs this place for you) is on dial up..

[feylya]

oh...by the way...tutorials and in progress are still unlimited pics,as far as i know,and always have been

←

You sure about the In Progress pics? I've seen a few warnings over there about pictures...

[westhemann]

oh...by the way...tutorials and in progress are still unlimited pics,as far as i know,and always have been

←

You sure about the In Progress pics? I've seen a few warnings over there about pictures...

←

sure they weren't warnings about pic size?

[westhemann]

- ONE PIC PER POST., except in the Tutorial sections, where you are allowed up to 10 pics per post.

sorry...tutorials section

[Maiden69]

ouch, Maiden got burned

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

←

No I didn't. I didn't said that Lee broke any rule, I was just pointing out the fact that why bitch about a rule that we already said that wasn't debatable!!!

Lee if you re-read my post, in any place I pointed that you "BROKE" any rule. I was just pointing the fact, that, eveif they are not to your liking, there are rules, and the mod work was to point it out to noobies before it becomes a problem.

(I haven't gone past this post by AlGee, so if somebody already pointed this out, I will edit as soon as I get done)

[AlGeeEater]

ouch, Maiden got burned

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

←

No I didn't. I didn't said that Lee broke any rule, I was just pointing out the fact that why bitch about a rule that we already said that wasn't debatable!!!

Lee if you re-read my post, in any place I pointed that you "BROKE" any rule. I was just pointing the fact, that, eveif they are not to your liking, there are rules, and the mod work was to point it out to noobies before it becomes a problem.

(I haven't gone past this post by AlGee, so if somebody already pointed this out, I will edit as soon as I get done)

←

Yeah you did.

Aw shucks, i was only kiddin' around

Edited April 12, 2005 by AlGeeEater

[westhemann]

ouch, Maiden got burned

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

←

No I didn't. I didn't said that Lee broke any rule, I was just pointing out the fact that why bitch about a rule that we already said that wasn't debatable!!!

Lee if you re-read my post, in any place I pointed that you "BROKE" any rule. I was just pointing the fact, that, eveif they are not to your liking, there are rules, and the mod work was to point it out to noobies before it becomes a problem.

(I haven't gone past this post by AlGee, so if somebody already pointed this out, I will edit as soon as I get done)

←

Yeah you did.

Aw shucks, i was only kiddin' around

←

you don't REALLY want a reminder of what a "burn" really is,do you?

[Maiden69]

you don't REALLY want a reminder of what a "burn" really is,do you?

←

Do you wan't some links to the one I have in mind

Right before "He who must not be named" left...

[feylya]

What do people think of my suggestions?

[Maiden69]

You mean something like and automatic pic resizer for bigger pics. I know that photobucket has one that makes the pics 250 if they are bigger, but you can still get a huge pic at 250, I haven't seen one that limits the actual size, but I ain't that computer inclined, so if Brian could do that it will be a good idea.

[feylya]

It should be a simple enough hack I reckon.

[westhemann]

What do people think of my suggestions?

←

i think it is a good idea...whether it is implementable at all i don't know.

[Daniel Sorbera]

Another forum I am a member of resizes your avatars so I guess It's possiable for your pics also...

[Devon Headen]

But wouldn't you only be able to do it if uploading to a forum server? When you're linking to the pics, you can't resize them without saving them somewhere.

and by the way...it is "their"

You have no idea how many times I've wanted to say that

[Maher]

in theory it works, but then you would have to upload the pictures here, which is going to cause the use of alot more of PGs bandwidth.

[LGM Guitars]

I like how this forum works www.helifreak.com It doesn't matter if I upload on the forum or use an image tag with my own server hosting pic's, they shrink in the forum, when you click the pic, it will go to full size, no clue how it works, but it's pretty cool.

[GregP]

Off Topic: I'm guilty of this, too, so the finger of blame is pointed firmly at myself, as well-->

Let's all learn to make a conscious effort not to tell other people they've "missed the point". Now that I've been on the receiving end a few times, I realize how irksome it is. No, I didn't miss the point. I just don't agree with your (the royal "your", here) point.

There's a universe of difference. Only one of those has the implied message, "you're an idiot who fails to grasp basic communication skills."

Back on topic: with regards to the In-Progress vs. Tutorial pics, there's another fuzzy line, isn't there? I mean, at least some of those tutorials started off as In-Progress threads.

LGM: that IS very cool, but it's also a high-speed function. In order to have that functionality, the full-sized picture is the one actually loaded, and then it's "shrunk down" when displayed on their forum. Which means that the exact same load time goes into it. Consequently, it addresses the issue of picture sizing in terms of keeping a post uncluttered and well-formatted, but it doesn't address the download speeds of the users. Could even make it worse as users get lazy about making small files.

Greg

[LGM Guitars]

ok, I didn't know that, but at least it allows you to see the whole picture and not have to scroll to read the text. Either way, the only thing I'm good at computer wise is my typing speed, the fact that I can even turn the damn thing on somedays impresses me