Forum Wishlists & Suggestions

[natvander]

So I can't post unresized images from my new 3440x1440 monitor?

[Mohegan13]

I honestly don't see a need for preview images above 800x450. They are large enough for large monitors and fit in to the rules for everyone else, they show enough so that you can see the image clearly and click it for the full image if you so wish.

Most decent hosts offer thumbnail options.

[Cadde]

Yes, as long as the images are actual thumbnails linking to larger alternatives. But if the "forum software" (read, HTML code is set up in such a way that the image is rescaled down from say 3440x1440) then the WHOLE image is loaded and then rescaled.
It doesn't matter how fast your PC and internet connection is. If a user is visiting a screenshot thread with many different hosting sites providing the imagery content, there's going to be a lot of connections being established all over the net.
Some hosting sites are quick to respond and serve the data, others are very slow in response and/or data delivery.

If user X is fine with a page taking 20 seconds to complete loading and doing layout stuff then that's good for them. For me personally, i seriously can't take it if a page takes longer than 2 seconds to complete loading. If it were up to me (which it kinda is in a sense) i would set the bar at that.
But like i said, there are exceptions to the rule. We are not gestapo, we are just looking to make the forums accessible for ANYONE on ANY device. If you really HAVE to post a large image then feel free to do so. I have made several posts with images larger than 960 pixels in height for instance.

Here's a particular post where exceeding the size limitations for images is OK: viewtopic.php?p=300470#p300470
And the forums used to be HARDCODED on the width limit when using the IMG tags but not so much for attachments.

We would still very much enforce the rules (as we come across violations) if you started sharing 2560x1440 images in various threads. Especially if they are BMP files.

Which brings me to one final point. A screenshot of the forums in 1920x1080 saves as a JPG will be LARGER than the same image saved as a PNG because of how encoding works. If it's a photograph (lots of changing pixels) then use JPG, otherwise use PNG.
All in the interest of saving users bandwidth and giving them a smooth load time.
And that's the essence of the forum rules as well. No matter how fast your PC and internet connection is, not everyone are like you. Please show kindness to those less fortunate than yourself.

[aradeth]

You really ask me for kindness because i want 200-300 pixels bigger images. p.s. in 2017.


I still don't understand why big images break the layout. Isn't this forum mobile-responsive that means it's responsive to the resolution of the browser?

If we consider the screenshot section as a NON mandatory section for users/devs/mods then maybe increasing the image size limit just for the screenshot section will be more reasonable.

But yes it also means more work for moderators. Maybe we can find the correct size for 1366x768 monitors. (like 1024)


In fact i surprised about all the disagreement. Thank you for your comments

[Mohegan13]

How about offering suggestions for good file hosts to use for forum images with in the rules?

As someone who does visit often as a mobile phone user with a fairly low monthly cap on internet usage, I tend to just stay away from screenshot threads (it's just common sense really) but I don't really find it to be much of an issue in other areas of the forums.

[IonutL]

It is possible to add more options for the dropdown Report options? Something like: "The reported message is in breach of the Forum Rules", or "The reported message does not follow the Bug reporting process" or any other wording that it can seem worthy of using.
Edit: grammar.

[Bandit & The Snowman]

+1 and add 'foul language' in particular, could have used it already.

[obelihnio]

We all know that a ton of users started posting high resolution images ever since moving to the new forum. It's an open secret at this point.

Since we are talking bandwidth I made a quick size comparison with one of my recent screenshots uploaded to flickr.
[ external image ]

Taken from direct image on the download page. Sizes are a result of Flickr built-in resizer.

• 4k original PNG: 14 308,57 KB
• 2048*1152 JPG: 924,88 KB
• 1600*900 JPG: 796,39 KB
• 1024*576 JPG: 250,92 KB
• 800*450 JPG (largest adhering to the limit): 195,17 KB

Maybe admins/moderator could think about a new rule for the screenshots sub forum:

Code: Select all

Threads containing high resolution images that exceed the forum limit need to be prefixed with an appropriate tag in the title, ex. [Hi-res]

This would have no effect on the forums general limit, but would allow people to decide if the want to open threads containing such images.

[Reef]

It has already been discussed that we will stick with the existing 960x960 rule, now we just need members to stop thinking they can re-invent or just simply ignore the rules as and when they please.

[aradeth]

It has been discussed and none of you gave a solid reason to stick to 960x960.

The bandwith excuse isn't reasonable. The image size differs from the Image formats and the complexity of the image. So just limiting the image size means nothing if we're talking about the image size/bandwith usage. Some user posts 30 images on a single post, and the other user posts only 3 images. Where is your kind bandwith usage limitations.

Also this was a wish/suggestion on wishlist/suggestion thread, there is nothing re-invented. A different image size just for the screenshot thread is very reasonable.

Don't be stubborn(not directly you, i speak general to who don't agree, includes you of course) please and be aware of we all here to contribute. This "bigger image size suggestion" can't/will not hurt someone.