Is it time to update CoC to officially allow larger images in non-picture threads?

[Red_Rattler]

This is not a complaint, just a suggestion.

According to point 18 of the Coc (HERE) "officially" the size in non-picture threads is meant to be 800x600.

That figure is now outdated, and is now quite small.

Is it now time for this forum to officially allow larger size images in non-picture threads? Say a limit of 1,000 or 1,200 depending whichever is more suitable.

While people do ignore that 800x600, perhaps it is time to officially change the CoC about non-picture threads.

---
PS: Note that thread is only about main picutres, NOT about signatures, as they should remain as is, as they are not meant to "overpower" the main thread.

 

[Scottbe8]

I wholeheartedly agree. Pic sizes should be maxed at something that's 16x9. 1280x720 seems like a good size.

 

[sniper297]

I sent that in as a suggestion, never got an answer. If the intent is to save bandwidth, it makes much more sense to restrict file size rather than image size. Most websites have a 100kB to 150kB file size restriction, if you can compress a 2048x1024 image to less than 100kB it will accept it - but all these people uploading 3 megabyte 800x600 uncompressed PNG files would get them kicked back automatically. My images are always 50% compressed JPG files, 40 to 100 kilobytes for a 1024x768 image. Which with today's monitor sizes are pretty much minimum if you want to see any kind of detail, nobody has a 12 inch CRT anymore.

Other suggestion was to change the automatic logout bot to not detect posting as "idle time", I get irritated when I type for 5 minutes then have to open the forum in a new tab so I can log in again for permission to post what I just typed. Back in a minute, I gotta log in again.

 

[Euphod]

I'm not sure it matters.

 

[shaneturner12]

I personally prefer the 800 x 600 or at a maximum 1024 x 768, as I cannot view threads that have images larger than this due to an account problem, and also, there's the issue of users using dial-up to view these forums (which I know sounds odd in this day and age, but it does happen)

Shane

 

[matruck]

Great idea as it will be one less thing for the wanna be mod's to complain about.
Cheers Mick.

 

[sniper297]

"I personally prefer the 800 x 600 or at a maximum 1024 x 768, as I cannot view threads that have images larger than this due to an account problem, and also, there's the issue of users using dial-up to view these forums (which I know sounds odd in this day and age, but it does happen)"

Again, I think we all understand that some people are still on dialup and some have account restrictions that limits the total gigs per month they can download, but a pixel size restriction does not help that at all. A file size restriction WOULD help, that's why most websites have an automatic restriction on file size, not image size. If you view ten 800x600 images that are uncompressed 500 kilobytes each, you used 5 megs of bandwidth. If you view ten 1024x768 compressed images that are 50 kilobytes each, you use 500 kilobytes of bandwidth.

I'm all in favor of restrictions if the restrictions make sense, if the objective is to reduce the total number of megabytes downloaded, a file size restriction will do that, an image size restriction with no compression requirement will not.

 

[PerRock]

I think the issue is that most people don't know how to properly down-scale the file size of an image. So for the general non-picture-savy people restricting the pixel dimensions is much more doable for most people.

peter

 

[KrisDeagle]

We shall keep this in mind and let you know if there is to be any changes.

Kris

 

[sniper297]

Might wanna have a chat with Nels Anderson at www.trainsim.com, he's using the same vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 you have here, and he has it set up to automatically kick back any file over 100kB with a 5 image per post limit, doesn't need any monitoring or moderating.

 

[JamesMoody]

If the intent is to save bandwidth, it makes much more sense to restrict file size rather than image size.

No, the intention is to not have images which disrupt the right hand edge of the forum, requiring scrolling left and right to read post text.

nobody has a 12 inch CRT anymore.

... no, but there are plenty of 7" and 10" tablets. Small format screens are actually becoming more popular at the moment.

However, web forum software and browsers are getting smarter with this kind of problem. We've run some tests, and haven't found any modern browser software that still shows this problem on our forum, so there's no reason to keep the rule in it's current form.

Might wanna have a chat with Nels Anderson at www.trainsim.com, he's using the same vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 you have here, and he has it set up to automatically kick back any file over 100kB with a 5 image per post limit, doesn't need any monitoring or moderating.

File size restrictions are easy to do if you are allowing the files to be attached to posts (i.e. hosted on the forum webserver). You just block upload for anything overly large.

We don't permit local upload here at all, so a restriction of this form is both much harder to set up, and all too easy to get round.

I've edited the CoC to permit larger images. It now reads:

Screen shots posted to the Trainz Community Discussion Forums should be in .jpg format and should not exceed a reasonable pixel size and file size. Any screen shots that are considered excessively large by the moderation team will be modified to links or removed from the post altogether.* Exception: Larger format images are encouraged in the Screenshot forum. Screen shots posted to the Screenshot forum should be in .jpg format, but can be of unlimited pixel size. Keeping to a reasonable file size is still required.

This places the definition of "reasonable" and "excessive" in the hands of the moderators. I'm not going to set any hard limits, but from the examples you've given, you seem to get what's intended .

 

[Dermmy]

As someone with a slow connection I would wholeheartedly support a move to a file size limit rather than the antiquated pixel size that applies now. Either that or ban png support! I have no idea why they are so popular, but they gotta be about 100 times bigger than even a 90% jpeg of identcal pixel size. If the supposed 'protection' being offered by the COC is indeed to help those of us with slow connections, pixel dimensions are irrelevant....

EDIT: Simu-post with James!

Another EDIT now that I've read James' post - Good Move

 

[WindWalkr]

Either that or ban png support! I have no idea why they are so popular, but they gotta be about 100 times bigger than even a 90% jpeg of identcal pixel size.

They're mainly popular because they look better than JPEG images and offer features such as transparency. For most people the difference in size is irrelevant these days. Both JPEGs and PNGs are tiny compared to youtube movies, digital download games, etc.

chris

 

[sniper297]

Miller Time!

Okay, everyone crack a beer, our work here is done! Thanks to the whole N3V team, this will make life a whole lot easier when trying to illustrate something.

 

[Retro00064]

No, the intention is to not have images which disrupt the right hand edge of the forum, requiring scrolling left and right to read post text.

<snip>

Here on my end, the images in posts automatically scale down to fit the width of my browser window up to a certain small window width where it stops scaling down. I do not recall this occuring under the old forum software before the February redesign.

 

[Winnaa]

Forgive me here if im wrong but, doesn't a "non picture thread" mean no pictures?

garry

 

[Euphod]

Here on my end, the images in posts automatically scale down to fit the width of my browser window up to a certain small window width where it stops scaling down. I do not recall this occuring under the old forum software before the February redesign.

It depends on your browser. I know at my work they still use IE7 and it doesn't display large images well.

Forgive me here if im wrong but, doesn't a "non picture thread" mean no pictures?

garry

Stop making sense!

 

[Red_Rattler]

Forgive me here if im wrong but, doesn't a "non picture thread" mean no pictures?

garry

I should have said for other than the screenshot threads. Sometimes you need pictures/screenshots to show what you mean. Screenshot threads are their to show your Trainz items.

 

[Euphod]

Now why don't you remove the limits on sig banners as well? What's good for the goose...

 

[Scottbe8]

... may not be good for the swan. We should keep signatures the same as the OP suggested.