Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Doofy · Mar 30, 2007, 09:54 AM

Is there some reason why certain people are allowed to continually break the image size rule - as if the rule doesn't apply to them or something? Didn't Demonhood state in the feedback forum that the inline image size rule was still in place, despite the new auto-resizer?

Inline images may not be wider than 480 pixels, nor taller than 720 pixels, UNLESS the thread title explicitly includes "Picture Thread", "JPEG Orgy" or something to that effect.

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...e-yesterday/2/

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...er-200k-miles/

brassplayersrock² · Mar 30, 2007, 10:28 AM

what the heck are you talking about?? that's just retarded!

i as well ponder this question.

alex

Railroader · Mar 30, 2007, 10:40 AM

You are correct Doofy. It was stated in a thread I started in the feedback forum.

mac128k-1984 · Apr 1, 2007, 05:21 PM

Well you have to remember Doofy, there's rules and then there's Ca$h rules (no pun intended). He gets to do his own thing while others get banned..

imitchellg5 · Apr 1, 2007, 05:35 PM

This thread is useless without pics®.

Gossamer · Apr 2, 2007, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

Well you have to remember Doofy, there's rules and then there's Ca$h rules (no pun intended).

(No pun found).

But yeah. IE7 doesn't resize the images, which is a pain when I'm checking from the labs on campus.

imitchellg5 · Apr 2, 2007, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

(No pun found).

But yeah. IE7 doesn't resize the images, which is a pain when I'm checking from the labs on campus.

It does when I use it at school.

Gossamer · Apr 2, 2007, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

It does when I use it at school.

Hm...they might have disabled Javascript on the ones we have. Either way I remember a mod saying that the resizer was meant as a temporary fix until a mod could fix it for real.

Demonhood · Apr 3, 2007, 12:39 AM

if you see an inline image violating the rules, click that little 'report abuse' button.

centerchannel68 · Apr 3, 2007, 11:21 AM

How about instead of this, you make it so regular members are allowed to edit their thread titles to say JPG ORGY or something. Is there a setting somewhere that could at JPG ORGY to every thread I make? Because as far as I'm concerned, thanks to the image resizer, the rule is basically outdated. What is the point of the rule if the software resizes it?

centerchannel68 · Apr 3, 2007, 11:23 AM

PS: It ain't just me. Lots of people are posting large images now.

Doofy · Apr 3, 2007, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

What is the point of the rule if the software resizes it?

Load speed.

Chuckit · Apr 3, 2007, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Load speed.

And memory use. A page full of ****ing 3 MB pictures eats up RAM muy rapido.

mac128k-1984 · Apr 3, 2007, 08:39 PM

Load speed and its pain to have to wade through the large images.

centerchannel68 · Apr 4, 2007, 02:00 AM

Who is posting 3 meg images?!

Eug · Apr 5, 2007, 01:35 PM

I have to agree. What's the point of the image resizer if you don't post images over 480 pixels wide?

480:

500:

P.S. Back in a couple of threads, the mods rapped the knuckles of those who posted images that were humungous (eg. 2048x1536 or whatever) but in those very same threads the same mods didn't seem to care about say 800x600 images.

Thus, I too thought the image rule was basically dead. I guess I'm mistaken, but see first point.

Perhaps the mods can update the rule so that the image resizer remains useful but isn't abused.

How about images up to 640xXXX or say 720xXXX?

xi_hyperon · Apr 5, 2007, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

500:

Reported!

j/k

Kevin · Apr 6, 2007, 05:17 AM

The thread has to load the images first at FULL SIZE. It's not till the page is fully loaded does the image resize happen. The image resize feature is just there as a temp fix till a mod can come and remove the pic.

Eug · Apr 6, 2007, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

The thread has to load the images first at FULL SIZE. It's not till the page is fully loaded does the image resize happen. The image resize feature is just there as a temp fix till a mod can come and remove the pic.

Except that the mods don't remove the pix (at least not consistently), when they have been relatively small.

Hence my suggestion of say 640xXXX. The reason I suggest this size is because 640 pixel wide pix are very common out there, yet the files are still small, and shouldn't distort the browser page significantly while loading for most people.

Kevin · Apr 6, 2007, 07:29 PM

I don't think the mods go searching from post to post for image rule violations no..
The mods will remove them if they are reported.

Eug · Apr 6, 2007, 07:53 PM

Well, I do specifically remember one mod saying that s/he wasn't worrying about images unless the images were humungous. Perhaps at the time s/he was being a little lax because it was shortly after the new theme was implemented, I dunno.

Whatever the case, I would still like to see 640 pixel wide images formally allowed if possible. It seems like a reasonable request to me because it doesn't mean a large change in the image size, but it makes it easier for us to find images to embed without having to manually resize them first.

OreoCookie · Apr 6, 2007, 08:32 PM

The image size rule was important for two reasons: first of all, huge images screwed up the layout of our previous design. Second of all, it might consume bandwidth.

The first issue is solved now, images are automatically rescaled and the second reason becomes less and less important these days as broadband internet is widely available.

Demonhood · Apr 7, 2007, 12:43 AM

but the rule remains. and the reason it seems that it is enforced less is because the javascript resizer makes it hard to tell (upon a quick glance) if the image is compliant or has that little header.

centerchannel68 · Apr 7, 2007, 02:23 AM

It's lame. We are mac users. Most of us have widescreens. Most of us have broadband. And apparently most of us are crybabies.

mac128k-1984 · Apr 7, 2007, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

It's lame. We are mac users. Most of us have widescreens. Most of us have broadband. And apparently most of us are crybabies.

crybabies, because we don't want to waste our time with lame pictures loading. Rules are in place to make a pleasant experience for us all. Beside you seem to do your own fair share of whining.

besson3c · Apr 7, 2007, 10:43 AM

Aren't we blowing this "problem" out of proportion just a wee bit?

mac128k-1984 · Apr 7, 2007, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Aren't we blowing this "problem" out of proportion just a wee bit?

This wouldn't be 'NN if we didn't

centerchannel68 · Apr 7, 2007, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

crybabies, because we don't want to waste our time with lame pictures loading. Rules are in place to make a pleasant experience for us all. Beside you seem to do your own fair share of whining.

1. Waste time? Open-apple+click= open in new tab. That tab loads while you continue reading something else. You should try it sometime.

2. Hrm... hold on, I'm looking for my violin, I'm sure it's around here somewhere.... ... oh, here it is:

PS: 1995 called. It wants it's internet connection back, when image loading was actually an issue. Get broadband.

mac128k-1984 · Apr 7, 2007, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

1. Waste time? Open-apple+click= open in new tab. That tab loads while you continue reading something else. You should try it sometime.

2. Hrm... hold on, I'm looking for my violin, I'm sure it's around here somewhere.... ... oh, here it is:

PS: 1995 called. It wants it's internet connection back, when image loading was actually an issue. Get broadband.

Pretty funny,

are you now going to post a thread in the feedback forum and whine about getting me banned

by the way I have broadband, but that doesn't mean I don't want to have things delayed because people are inconsiderate.

Eug · Apr 7, 2007, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by Demonhood

but the rule remains. and the reason it seems that it is enforced less is because the javascript resizer makes it hard to tell (upon a quick glance) if the image is compliant or has that little header.

If anything, the automatic image resizer makes it easier to tell which images are too big. All images that are too large are now automatically labelled as such, whereas in the past, the mods would have a hard time telling if a 500 px wide picture was too big or not. (See my post above.)

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The image size rule was important for two reasons: first of all, huge images screwed up the layout of our previous design. Second of all, it might consume bandwidth.

The first issue is solved now, images are automatically rescaled and the second reason becomes less and less important these days as broadband internet is widely available.

Indeed. Perhaps the rules will be changed sooner rather than later.

centerchannel68 · Apr 8, 2007, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

bla bla bla

I suggest you switch shampoo:

turtle777 · Apr 8, 2007, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock

what the heck

'Sup, Alex ?

-t

mac128k-1984 · Apr 8, 2007, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

'Sup, Alex ?

-t

He's not going to answer you - he's banned.

mac128k-1984 · Apr 8, 2007, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

I suggest you switch shampoo:

From all of the the threads you've created here Rob, looks like you need to practice what you preach but then you seem so adept at whining. I suppose some people need to be good at something and you found your gift

Railroader · Apr 8, 2007, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

He's not going to answer you - he's banned.

AMAZING! WHAT FOR?!?!

mac128k-1984 · Apr 8, 2007, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

AMAZING! WHAT FOR?!?!

What else, he "implied" that Rob was an idiot.

Railroader · Apr 8, 2007, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

What else, he "implied" that Rob was an idiot.

Which is about 0.01% as bad of behavior that Rob exhibits. I hope I don't get banned for saying that.

mac128k-1984 · Apr 8, 2007, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Which is about 0.01% as bad of behavior that Rob exhibits. I hope I don't get banned for saying that.

That's why I put it in quotes, otherwise he'd have a hissy fit and I'd get banned.

slpdLoad · Apr 8, 2007, 03:05 PM

You know, this isn't really a problem with a difficult solution. Instead of a "resizer", the forum should just automatically delete (not load, display, etc) any image that is over 480 or whatever the limit is.

That way, if you post an image that's too big, it doesn't show up. Want your image to show? Follow the guidelines.

If the forums can recognize an image and resize it, then it can easily be coded to recognize it and delete it.

turtle777 · Apr 8, 2007, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

He's not going to answer you - he's banned.

Originally Posted by Railroader

AMAZING! WHAT FOR?!?!

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

What else, he "implied" that Rob was an idiot.

You gotta be freakin kiddin me ?

What happened to MacNN ? Did the P.C. Nazis take over ?

-t

Railroader · Apr 8, 2007, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

You gotta be freakin kiddin me ?

What happened to MacNN ? Did the P.C. Nazis take over ?

-t

It's been VERY weird. Rob is nearly unbannable. I had a couple questionable posts and was VERY quickly told I would get "a vacation" (I admit it, there!), yet about 50% of Rob's posts are attacks or harassment. One mod even PMed me with a bunch of FUD that Rob has spewed on here in attempts to have me banned.

I don't get it.

centerchannel68 · Apr 8, 2007, 08:09 PM

That's because you have a past history of harassing me and starting fights and turning anything you possibly can into a flamewar, Kilbey. There really isn't much else to get. Minus you, I'm a pretty docile posting member. When you get one of your kicks and start attacking me whenever you can, everything turns into a flamefest. You've been asked repeatedly to knock it off by many different people and yet you still try to push the envelope.

PS: I'm unbannable?! ME?! Okay, that's really really funny. I was banned for almost a complete year, thanks in no small part to your antics of harassment.

centerchannel68 · Apr 8, 2007, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

yet about 50% of Rob's posts are attacks or harassment.

I'd like to see you back up those stats. I really would. Please do so. I'm challenging you to put up or shutup.

So anyway, who has been posting 3 meg images? I was told that was the reason for this thread. Anybody?

Railroader · Apr 8, 2007, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

Kilbey.

Please don't call me Kilbey. That is considered baiting and trollish behavior.

centerchannel68 · Apr 8, 2007, 08:33 PM

So is making up false statistics and posting them like they're true.

OreoCookie · Apr 8, 2007, 08:47 PM

People, put the discussion back on track or I'll have to close this thread. Oh, and no threads about other members

centerchannel68 · Apr 8, 2007, 09:43 PM

I keep asking who's posting 3 meg images, and nobody is responding.

besson3c · Apr 9, 2007, 07:57 AM

Doofy:

What problem are you trying to solve? I must admit, I've never found a thread that took an unusually long time to load. Could this not be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than giving some people something new to be extremely pedantic and anal about? We have enough arm-chair mods as it is.

Gossamer · Apr 9, 2007, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by slpdLoad

You know, this isn't really a problem with a difficult solution. Instead of a "resizer", the forum should just automatically delete (not load, display, etc) any image that is over 480 or whatever the limit is.

That way, if you post an image that's too big, it doesn't show up. Want your image to show? Follow the guidelines.

If the forums can recognize an image and resize it, then it can easily be coded to recognize it and delete it.

What if someone wants to post large images, and labels the thread as such? There would have to be an option to turn that off.

mac128k-1984 · Apr 9, 2007, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

What if someone wants to post large images, and labels the thread as such? There would have to be an option to turn that off.

They could also just create a link instead.