# Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll



## Admin US West (Aug 9, 2014)

I have reduced the size of image thumbnails to 200 X 200. A viewer must click on a thumbnail to see a larger image.

At the same time, I increased the number of images allowed from 6 to 10.

The issue is that it takes a lot of time to have a large number of 770 X 770 loading, and not everyone has a blazing fast internet speed.

What do you, the users think? I do not know how many users have fast internet, or how many have slow internet, so tell us.


I'm willing to go with the majority on this. The poll runs for 5 days.

Thanks for your input.

ADDED:

The forum only allows one size regardless of the board.

I'll look at the options for removing images. As I recall, they are not repeated when used as a attachment, but when someone embeds a link, its copied. We would not ban embedding links.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 9, 2014)

The first option gives previews a little smaller than the previous setup, yes? Either way it seems big enough, and six photos in what I consider a lot in one post.

Jim


----------



## Arctic Photo (Aug 9, 2014)

Definitely want the large thumbnails, I rarely click on pictures but look at them in preview only. Smaller thumbnails ruins the whole gallery idea, my opinion.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 9, 2014)

I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?


----------



## Northstar (Aug 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?



+1


----------



## Northstar (Aug 9, 2014)

I like the larger images


----------



## danski0224 (Aug 9, 2014)

I prefer the larger thumbnails.

I am also one of the apparently few people that have "slow" internet.

It would be nice if there was a picture size (bytes) limit if the preview window is small.

I really do not see the need to upload images that are megabytes in size. I can use free software that makes web-friendly 800x533 images that are less than 300kb at the best quality setting with little apparent loss of detail. Setting the quality at 80% frequently makes the file size ~125kb.

Clicking on a 200x200 preview and viewing a 3mb attachment isn't happening here.

Attachments do not always work well on mobile devices, clicking on those 3mb files uses mobile data, too. 

+2 on removing the image from a reply quote.


----------



## infared (Aug 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?


I agree with this wholeheartedly!!!

I am beta testing the new Selling Forum...I like the smaller thumbnails and "ten-count" for the images in that forum, but the larger thumbs for the rest of the forums....but I am guessing that it is not possible to allow that??


----------



## Click (Aug 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate.



+1

...And I prefer large image 770 x 770


----------



## lion rock (Aug 9, 2014)

I like larger images displayed. Clicking to enlarge and going back to the original thread is not streamlined. Doing so does not improving viewing speed on fast or slow connection which I have at home.

Limiting number of photos summited is fine, posters can always send in a second or more posts with another set of photos.

Lastly, I like the idea that replies suppress attached photos. Maybe, that's where much smaller images would be included.
-r


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 9, 2014)

I like the big thumbnails. Saves a lot of time and is less jarring to the thread reading experience.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 9, 2014)

I used to have much slower Internet (1.5Mb/s down), and when I viewed a gallery I knew it would be slow -- that's just the nature of a gallery. The benefit of having a gallery is much diminished if it's all tiny thumbnails.



sagittariansrock said:


> I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate.



+1

If possible, it might be helpful to limit the number of displayed posts per page on gallery threads so that each page loads faster.


----------



## 2n10 (Aug 9, 2014)

I chose I have fast internet and would like more than 6 per post. My second choice would be keep the large thumbnails.

I do like the idea of removing images from replies.


----------



## Lorex (Aug 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?



+1

And the small previews have really reduced my fun looking through the gallery threads, so I'm also for the large previews.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 9, 2014)

infared said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?
> ...



Ditto. I think the selling forum is a great place to have the smaller thumbnails. I prefer larger images on the other threads BUT I'm willing to accept a slightly smaller image in the spirit of helping those less fortunate. Perhaps the original thumbnail could be larger and then the full size image available after clicking.

I understand that having different settings in different threads is likely not possible so I think a happy medium is necessary regardless of what we've all come to enjoy up to now. However, I don't want to lose folks or see the experience diminished too much as a result. It's a tough line to find. I hope everyone is able to be flexible.


----------



## nineyards (Aug 9, 2014)

The poll was a good move
Personally, I have a super fast internet so the bigger the better for me, but that doesn't help those who have to wait unacceptably long for downloads off this site
However, I am thinking a lot of good shots might be passed by from viewers because of the relatively small size of the thumbs, if I click on a photo here, it's because I saw some detail or aspect that jumped out at me and made me want to investigate further
The smaller the thumbs, the greater the chance of me just passing it by
Also I believe if you hit the quote button directly from he post you are reading instead of hitting "reply" then referencing the post you will be able to reply without the repetition of the image, correct me if I am wrong


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 9, 2014)

Great poll, indeed!
I prefer the bigger thumbnails.
I have to admit that Im guilty of replying by quoting posts with a full amount of photos in it at times. Kicked myself afterwards for the repetition of information that wouldn't make anyone happier. I do see the benefits of small thumbnails for a lighter load and speedy rendering for those with slow Internet connections, but it looks more professional with bigger shots and it invites me to look at them. I promise I will do my best to not add redundant information by having others photos quoted in my replies, if you keep the big thumbnails.


----------



## Joe M (Aug 10, 2014)

My preference is to see larger thumbnails. Personally I hate having to click on "img.jpg" to see a larger size. At the same time though, I think the number of images should be limited. My connection speed is more than enough to handle the content but it can sometimes be tedious to scroll endlessly past a post full of images to get to the next one in line and read the replies and so on.


----------



## Admin US West (Aug 10, 2014)

At this point, it looks to me to be a clear majority want the larger thumbnails.

I'm going to revert to them immediately, but leave the poll open. As a compromise, I'll allow 8 images and see what happens. I've not been able to find a way to remove the image links from a reply to a post. 

Also note:

I also have the ability to turn off the thumbnail and show images full size. 


While I was fooling with the image controls, I noticed a option that is checked to show the thumbnails as PNG format images. I did a little research, and the Simple Machines Manual says that's a higher quality setting. It just might be responsible for the frequent reports of poor colors and artifacts noted in uploaded images, so I will experiment with turning it off to see what we get. It is also possible that showing the image full size might improve the quality, the resize option is turned on now. I definitely don't want to bring down the forum by playing with the options too much, but it might be interesting to try settings for a few minutes to see what happens.

I'll first try turning off the png. Generally, the changes only apply to new posts and are not retroactive.

Anyone who wants to compare send me a PM and you can try a before and after.

Ed


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 10, 2014)

CR Backup Admin said:


> At this point, it looks to me to be a clear majority want the larger thumbnails.
> 
> I'm going to revert to them immediately, but leave the poll open. As a compromise, I'll allow 8 images and see what happens. I've not been able to find a way to remove the image links from a reply to a post.
> 
> ...



Thank you ;D


----------



## Click (Aug 11, 2014)

Thank you Ed !


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 11, 2014)

700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though. As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.

Jim


----------



## IMG_0001 (Aug 11, 2014)

I like big thumbs...

I beg every other users for pardon as I often did reply to post with images without removing them. Most of the times I reply while leaving images, it is because editing a quote from my not so smart phone is a bit of a pain in the ... well, you know.


----------



## Admin US West (Aug 11, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> 700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though. As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.
> 
> Jim



I tried setting multiple sizes, and by trial and error, I found that 700 pixels wide was the maximum width without the system adding a scroll bar at the bottom. That's where it sits now 700 X 700. I could make it taller, but did not to do too much at one time.


----------



## Admin US West (Aug 11, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> I like big thumbs...
> 
> I beg every other users for pardon as I often did reply to post with images without removing them. Most of the times I reply while leaving images, it is because editing a quote from my not so smart phone is a bit of a pain in the ... well, you know.



I understand. It would be nice if everyone could remove the linked images, but it would be nicer yet if they were removed automatically.

I'm still looking for a beter solution


----------



## tolusina (Aug 12, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> ..... As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.......


I found the same on the _Cars cars cars (and some bikes) thread_.
I tried to back up one page to 15, got a white page. Tried clicking through from page one, got as far as page 10, can't see anything between 11 and 15.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 12, 2014)

CR Backup Admin said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > 700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though. As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.
> ...



Current view is better than tiny prev. However, it still looks dull at 700x700. Can you increase to larger size?


----------



## Besisika (Aug 12, 2014)

Northstar said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?
> ...


+1 and small thunbnails


----------



## eml58 (Aug 12, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > ..... As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load? I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.......
> ...



Thought this was an issue with my Computer, so I'm finding the same issue as others, Blank Pages across most of the threads I've looked at.

The issue with the Images being left in the "reply" can be solved by someone putting together a small advice page on how to delete the Images from your reply, it's not exactly difficult, most people do this, some don't, perhaps because they are simply not aware you can, delete any part/parts of the Post you are replying to.


----------



## Admin US West (Aug 12, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> CR Backup Admin said:
> 
> 
> > Jim Saunders said:
> ...



700 X 700 is as large as the forum allows. after that, you have to scroll around to see it. Might as well click on the thumbnail as do that.


----------



## lion rock (Aug 12, 2014)

Thank you CR Admin. Your decision to revert back to a larger image is appreciated. I think most of the readers here agree it may be slower, but well worth the slight increase of time just to look at some extraordinary images.
If we can all do a bit more to delete links of included images in our replies, we can further reduce clutter and download time.
-r


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 12, 2014)

CR Backup Admin said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > CR Backup Admin said:
> ...



I see. Thanks


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 13, 2014)

Hi sagittariansrock. 
I see a lot of advantage to this, I often use a slow connection and loading the same post full of images over and over can be a bind. When possible I edit photos out of replies with a few exceptions, like I will edit all but one with "I prefer this one most" as the general reply. Also nested replies are a bore, 7 or 8 replies one inside the other in the quotes is mostly superfluous! 
I am not talking about the replies during a discussion where a response is broken down in to many parts with a reply to multiple quotes from the same post. 
Perhaps we could edit for brevity? 
I was also told off on forums years ago for not replying at the top of quotes, Hence my reply style! ;D
Please keep the large size pics as during the times I connect on the slower connections I cannot open large click throughs, and in general I find clicking out of a forum and back in detracts from the reading continuity of the site! 

Just a few of my thoughts!

Cheers Graham. 



sagittariansrock said:


> I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?


----------



## FEBS (Aug 13, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?



+1


----------



## agierke (Aug 13, 2014)

I'm fine with the large thumbnails but I think max 3 images per post is more than enough. 6 is too much and 10 is completely unnecessary. If you have that many images you want to show, post a link to your flicker page or website.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 13, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> ...... loading the same post full of images over and over can be a bind....


I'm not certain on this, perhaps someone more geeky like Rusty will conform or discredit.

As each unique image has it's own unique URL, when a page calls for that unique URL multiple times, it only gets downloaded once using only the bandwidth required for a single download, the browser then locally positions the display of that single copy in multiple locations.
So, if that ^ is correct, there's no bandwidth penalty when displaying the same image multiple times on the same page, the visual clutter issue certainly remains and is often very annoying even on a desktop, much worse when viewing mobile.

Best would be where posters learn how and implement a post/reply method that removes all from the quote that has no relevance to the reply. Being as we are all perfectly flawed humans with widely varied knowledge and experiences, this is not likely to happen.

Hmm, to eliminate visual clutter, let's all learn to post at f1.2, narrow focus and depth of field, clutter be banished to Bokeh.

edit...... visual clutter applies to text that is needlessly quoted, most especially when multi-quoted, visual clutter is not limited to images.


----------



## jackb (Aug 13, 2014)

I agree that quotes in replies should be as brief as possible - without repeated images or unnecessary nesting.

I like larger images so long as there is no horizontal scroll bar. I have been posting 900x600 images on my website which fit on a 1024x768 screen without scrolling, including the browser menu and task bars. File sizes, though, should be limited by setting the JPEG quality just high enough to avoid JPEG artifacts at the posted image resolution. For 700x700 images, I would guess that about 70% quality is high enough. Perhaps someone could do an objective test. I have been using 60% quality for 900x600 images on my website and get file sizes of 120-150KB, depending on the image complexity, which results in speedy downloading.


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 14, 2014)

Hi tolusina. 
I believe you are correct about the single call per page, but often replies quoting large numbers of images spread to the next page, and sometimes to a third page, though not often. 

Cheers Graham.



tolusina said:


> I'm not certain on this, perhaps someone more geeky like Rusty will conform or discredit.
> 
> As each unique image has it's own unique URL, when a page calls for that unique URL multiple times, it only gets downloaded once using only the bandwidth required for a single download, the browser then locally positions the display of that single copy in multiple locations.
> So, if that ^ is correct, there's no bandwidth penalty when displaying the same image multiple times on the same page, the visual clutter issue certainly remains and is often very annoying even on a desktop, much worse when viewing mobile.
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 14, 2014)

Click said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate.
> ...


+2


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 21, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > ...... loading the same post full of images over and over can be a bind....
> ...



Confirmed. That's the way I understand it as well. The Temporary Internet Cache files on your local hard drive store the image from the first time it loads, then that image file is used repeatedly until it is deleted or it expires from the cache area. So download performance is not an issue but the amount of post clutter might be a bother. Personally, I usually edit the quote if it's large and remove all but the relevant bits that relate to my comments.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 22, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> .... The Temporary Internet Cache files on your local hard drive store the image from the first time it loads, then that image file is used repeatedly until it is deleted or it expires from the cache area....


I learned about browser caching in a rather roundabout way many years back in the WIN 95-98 era, Netscape Navigator, I.E. 4 or 5.
I had built a web page of something or other using some WYSIWYG program, the page included an animated gif.
I copied the page and its files to floppy, took it to a friend's for review/critique/show off/whatever, friend was a NN user. 
While viewing the page in NN, I happened to notice the floppy kept getting accessed, didn't do this with I.E.. 
I somehow reasoned that NN was not caching at all, when the gif called for another frame, NN had to go back to the server (the floppy in this case) and download all over again for each and every repeated display of the gif's frames.
In contrast, I.E. accessed and cached the page in it's entirety, once downloaded, it didn't have to go back to the server again.

It may just be that we owe the bandwidth conserving efficiencies of modern browser caching to the snail pace of ancient dial up downloading.


----------



## Admin US West (Aug 23, 2014)

Allowing 8 large thumbnails seems to have caused a issue with pages loading, the memory setting in the forum software was exceeded. This caused blank pages in parts of the forum. We have plenty of memory, so the tech guy went into the innards and increased allowable memory.

Leson learned - fooling with forum settings can have unexpected results


----------

