Page 1 of 2
Idea for uploading photos
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:39 pm
I hate to sound like I'm complaining, since I thoroughly enjoy this new site, but I need to bring something to light. We are getting a lot of posts with photos, and they are great. However, many of the photos are so large that it takes them a long time to load. This means that, if one wants to check the last post on a topic, they have to wait until the entire thread loads. On some of the topics, this takes over a minute, even with cable. While I hope nobody is offended by my suggestion, I wonder if it would be too much to ask for everyone to reduce the size of their photos before uploading them. It would sure make it easier for us to stay current on the posts.
Thanks to everyone who puts so much effort into this site. It is appreciated.
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:02 pm
Dave, Even ideally-sized photos will take a while to load if there are several of them. An easy work-around is to hit the stop button on your browser if you've already viewed the photos and just want to read the new replies; all of the text loads quickly.
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:30 pm
Hi Dave, yours is a good point. As Bruce suggested, using a resolution no larger than 640x480 for landscape and 480x640 for portrait orientations is just about right for pictures. They'll still be sizable enough for viewing, yet load "relatively" quickly. And Paul's (Greyfalcon) suggestion is also effective. (However, some of us , including myself, load bigger size pictures.
With cable modem, even these bigger pictures load within a few seconds.
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:25 pm
I too only have dial-up as we just converted over from the telegraph last year. I have found that all of the above mentioned solutions work. If I ever get to choose a photo posting site, I will make sure they are the correct size.
Just haven't picked one yet. Sort of reluck-tant that way. But I know when I do get one I will wonder why I took so long. That's just me. I have lots of photos to post and that's the hold up. Maybe this weekend as no models are avalible due to the Christmas season. Probably end up painting fruit again :-( To a figure painter/drawer that's a little depressing. (Kind of like when B&C get to a spring and the people in charge want them to wear suits) But last weeks fruit (is tomato a fruit?) turned out rather well after 6 months of no painting and falling on the ice with the tomatoes.
I do love this site and my only beef is the photo posting. But I know why it has to be that way and I support it!!!
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:31 am
Greyfalcon, I think you just might be a genius. I've waited, and waited, and waited for photos to load (even with cable). I've scrolled to the bottom, only to have the bottom move down while the next photo loads. Never once did I think about just stopping the browser, like you suggested. This works great!
Thanks for the idea.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:11 pm
ccso5667 wrote:Greyfalcon, I think you just might be a genius.
Not really....I endured the same aggravation you did for a while before I tried pausing the page download...probably less than a week before your post
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:27 am
The 'stop' button is the only way I can read posts or the captions to pictures. I may never have a chance of seeing the pictures in some of the picture-intense threads being posted. I have even left the computer running all night and not gotten thru them.
After temporary cache is emptied, of course, the pictures that have painstakingly downloaded have to be started over.
I offered what I thought was a not-bad idea: A thread should only cover as many springs as can be named in the title bar. If they have long names (Skinnydipper, Bonneville, Sacajawea, for example), that might have to be the extent of that thread's coverage.
When you have one thread covering umpteen hot springs, the thread grows exponentially if anyone replies regarding this spring or that one. The only practical solution is to start yet another thread, thus isolating the original. In the 'Idaho' forum, is there really any advantage to packing all your Idaho spring visits into one thread?
Someday, ultra-high-speed satellite connection may be available in my neck of the woods and everywhere else. In the meantime, no one can really see 'more' in a picture that doesn't even fit on the screen.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:57 am
In the past I have posted about 6 photos, then moved to start another thread.
Idaho springs I
Idaho springs II...
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:20 am
Jeff, I say you do it just about right. Waiting a few minutes for pictures to load is a lot different from waiting a few days.
It still seems like a good idea to name the spring(s) you're describing in the title of the thread. That's the only way I can possibly find an account of 'Pine Flats' on the first attempt. The forum name ('Idaho') tells me what state I'm looking at.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:44 am
I do name them by spring or trip report. Just stateing an example using Idaho...
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:38 am
Like Jeff, if the post and pictures are about a new spring, then I select "New Topic", and put the name of the spring in the Subject Line.
Threads regarding the same spring are fine- I like Jeff's idea about keeping the number of photos down to about 6 per topic, and hopefully no larger than 640 by 480. If you have more pictures, you could do a new topic with the same name but include "Part 2, Part 3", etc.
I truly have sympathy for those of you still on dial-up. I realize that's all that's available, but cable modem is absolutely the best investment in the digital age I've ever made. Maybe there are some satellite alternatives or something for you good folks that don't have cable..
Eric and Bruce, do have some ideas on this?
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:17 pm
Kim, Check your messages.
Even on a fat pipeline, that many images takes a while to load when the cache has been flushed. I'd prefer to see seperate articles (postings) per spring rather than per trip but I can see where it messes up the continuity. I work on 4 platforms (Solaris, Linux, Mac, windows) and none of these display very fast either...
If enough people have issues with postings that are too large, we'll need to break them up into smaller chunks... I'd much rather let the original posters do that than to be forced to moderate.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:35 pm
I heard it would take 200 million or so to put my own satellite in orbit;-)
If I spend that much there won't be enough to buy the Lotto Spring.
Then everybody will be dissipointed.
Here at work the photos down load in about 10 seconds, 100 times faster than at home...
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:50 pm
Good points Bruce -I did PM you.....
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:52 pm
Jeff, is your home or residential area wired for future cable modem?
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:38 pm
My thinking is that on-topic posts generally should not be edited by the site admins or moderators.
On the user's side, there are some common-sense guidelines to follow. 10 to 20 pictures in a single topic does not seem excessive, but 70 to 80 pictures is a lot and really should be broken into several topics. And as I've mentioned before, very wide pictures (>1024 px in width) will blow up the layout of the text in the thread, so wide pictures should be linked rather than pasted into the message.
I also sympathize with those who have no alternative to dial-up Internet access. But if you're in that situation, you must realize that full access to the pictures at sites like this isn't the only thing you're missing out on. There are people who still rely on an antenna to get their 3 or 4 television channels, and 90 percent of what's available on my 200 cable channels is total garbage, but I'd have a tough time getting by without ESPN and FSN.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:46 pm
That makes sense about the picture postings, Eric. We watch such little TV that its hardly worth it to have the cable for the TV. However, I MUST have my Laker basketball and HBO programming is far better than any network shows.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:45 pm
I've switched from HBO to Showtime this year so I can watch Weeds and Californication. Learning what you guys out there are really like.
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:36 am
We have an antenna and get 6 or 7 channels. I don't watch much but would like to see some of the cable world. A little history channel would be good. No ESPN for me, I'm just not a sports fan. How many ESPN's are there now, 4? What is FSN? (Fun Soaking Network)
Hey Jim, What are Weeds and Californication. I thought that was something that Californian's did to Colorado?
(soaking pool in the mts at sunset)
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:04 am
Jeff- I like that Sunset soaking pool... FSN is Fox Sports Network. The color commentator for the Lakers on FSN is a neighbor of mine. His name is Stu Lantz and he is a former NBA star.
Come to think of it..I have californicated in Colorado many years ago.
I haven't seen either show.