View Full Version : Minor Changes - 2011-06-11
List of minor changes made in the past week or so.
Added a 1 blog per calendar day limit. This can be raised per user for users with a legitimate demonstrable need to blog more frequently
Added cumulative image size limits to post so that all images in a post can not exceed 1 MB.
Added a thread stencil to Amherst to give some ideas on what new users can tell about themselves when they post a hello.
Added Groups to the tabs
Added last 5 blogs & groups to the home page.
madanthony
2011-06-11, 06:56 PM
Hehe. High quality space images can be a bit rough.
Locked
2011-06-11, 06:59 PM
So.. we can't post multiple images if it reaches over 1 MB..?
Can you raise the limit to 2 mbs? 1 mb seems tiny and likely to encourage double posting.
1 mb is more than enough.
Sarah
2011-06-11, 08:12 PM
Can you raise the limit to 2 mbs? 1 mb seems tiny and likely to encourage double posting.
The point is to discourage posting that many images in the first place.
MetaSeraphim
2011-06-11, 08:17 PM
The final death of mass image dumps in one post.
FenixR
2011-06-11, 08:33 PM
Can we have image autorisizing? sometimes some people post so much high resolution images in sequence that it gets annoying
madanthony
2011-06-11, 08:59 PM
I'd like to personally take credit (http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php?t=44823&p=751402&viewfull=1#post751402) for the 1MB thing. My bad, world.
/smug assumption
Sarah
2011-06-11, 09:03 PM
I'd like to personally take credit (http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php?t=44823&p=751402&viewfull=1#post751402) for the 1MB thing. My bad, world.
/smug assumption
Not even close. :(
Not even close. :(
What date did I announce this was forthcoming to the content testers again?
Sarah
2011-06-11, 09:11 PM
What date did I announce this was forthcoming to the content testers again?
June 5th at 10:46 PM EST!
madanthony
2011-06-11, 09:13 PM
Let me live in my sad, little, fantasy world! So mean.
MetaSeraphim
2011-06-11, 09:46 PM
Let me live in my sad, little, fantasy world! So mean.
Is it obvious that is my thread (http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php?t=44400) that caused this.
Is it obvious that is my thread (http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php?t=44400) that caused this.
Incorrect. It was this thread (http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php?t=44523).
Incorrect. It was this thread (http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php?t=44523).
Yep yep. That was the last straw. Three times :f3:
Shidoshi
2011-06-12, 01:21 AM
I really think 1mb is too little, a lot of images I have are above 1mb by themselves. It wouldn't even have to be an image dump.
Well, I guess we will have to resort to linking to the images instead, though for big images the forum auto-resize already makes it a necessity to open the image on a new window or using the forum image viewer thing.
This could possibly be changed to "maximum 1 image or 1mb, whichever is higher", so you avoid dumps but doesn't cut on higher quality images which may be interesting.
I really think 1mb is too little, a lot of images I have are above 1mb by themselves. It wouldn't even have to be an image dump.
Your signature picture is 130 kb. Allowing 8 to 10 of that is hardly denying anyone the ability to post several images.
I can easily post 15 decent sized pics from my camera in less than 1 MB, so I'm not seeing any proof here that we need to allow larger images per post.
Compress it better. tinypic it. Something.
If you compare:
http://www.gamejudgment.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Mudkip.jpg
to:
http://oi53.tinypic.com/9s9i85.jpg
You can post the compressed version of it nearly five times over in a single post.
No one here deserves the right to waste everyone else's bandwidth just because they're too lazy to use an image that isn't practically a RAW BMP.
Shidoshi
2011-06-12, 02:04 AM
Your signature picture is 130 kb. Allowing 8 to 10 of that is hardly denying anyone the ability to post several images.
I can easily post 15 decent sized pics from my camera in less than 1 MB, so I'm not seeing any proof here that we need to allow larger images per post.
Compress it better. tinypic it. Something.
If you compare:
http://www.gamejudgment.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Mudkip.jpg
to:
http://oi53.tinypic.com/9s9i85.jpg
You can post the compressed version of it nearly five times over in a single post.
No one here deserves the right to waste everyone else's bandwidth just because they're too lazy to use an image that isn't practically a RAW BMP.
Except for really gifs, hard to work around those to make them less than 1mb. Also, sometimes a high quality picture taken with a camera is worth seeing in true quality.
The main issue with GIFs is that not only do they consume bandwidth but they also massively lag the page when someone image spams them. Simply linking to the image massively decreases page load.
Satellite
2011-06-12, 04:28 AM
Going to be a big help when I browse SP with my phone.
madanthony
2011-06-12, 08:13 AM
Simply linking to the image massively decreases page load.
At first I thought, "a lot of hosting sites stop you at 2MB, so that would make sense." But then I decided linking was the stupidly easy solution.
Locked
2011-06-12, 08:45 AM
I think it should be a requirement to spoiler images bigger than 1 MB, that way it avoids some of the problem.
5 MB seems reasonable for certain threads like art threads and high quality wallpaper threads that happen sometimes.
Why can't those threads just link to the images?
Why do they have to be included as IMG tags that force everyone who goes to the page to download the entire thing in it's absolute highest resolution without any opportunity to preview it?
Locked
2011-06-12, 08:57 AM
Why can't those threads just link to the images?
Why do they have to be included as IMG tags that force everyone who goes to the page to download the entire thing in it's absolute highest resolution without any opportunity to preview it?
I'm not exactly a reader of minds.
Although if I were to guess it would be the laziness of people and their preference. I'm sure people don't feel like clicking a plethora of links. You can kind of see it here (http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php?t=44853), where he ignores all the links except the last one. Not saying that one person represents everyone.
Derosis
2011-06-12, 11:08 AM
List of minor changes made in the past week or so.
Added a 1 blog per calendar day limit. This can be raised per user for users with a legitimate demonstrable need to blog more frequently
Added cumulative image size limits to post so that all images in a post can not exceed 1 MB.
Added a thread stencil to Amherst to give some ideas on what new users can tell about themselves when they post a hello.
Added Groups to the tabs
Added last 5 blogs & groups to the home page.
Added Groups to the tabs
Thank you Eos.
ImagineAll
2011-06-12, 07:13 PM
Would Fields extractions be an exception to this limit?
Would Fields extractions be an exception to this limit?
Fiel has virtually no limits on anything, especially not on anything he needs to do his job.
Devil
2011-06-12, 07:38 PM
1mb per post? That is really low... o.0
Can we get a rule that's allowed to make multiple posts for multiple images in a row without getting a double post infraction for that?
1mb really sounds like 1998 to me...
My signature alone is already 265kb! :+)
Good grief that defeats the whole point.
Can we get a rule that's allowed to make multiple posts for multiple images in a row without getting a double post infraction for that?
My signature alone is already 265kb!
A) Why would you need a rule that allows you to do something that no rule says you can't already do?
B) Your signature has it's own size limit that has no bearing on your post content.
Considering screen shots in Scroll Lock average 140k, and thats for a full client screen, the complaining about this seems rather silly.
Good grief that defeats the whole point.
Actually at the current implementation of 1 mb per post and 1 mb per signature it means you can be reasonably sure that each page will consume no more bandwidth than your post per page setting times 2 mb. Having multiple posts for multiple images remains that degree of certainty/control.
Sarah
2011-06-12, 08:12 PM
I'm pretty sure it's impossible to make a good post without using at least 1 terrabyte of bandwidth, Eos.
Hanabira.Kage
2011-06-12, 08:51 PM
o.O so it was a new feature. I was wondering why there was a 1 MB limit haha.
Darn. On the exact same day I decided to do an EE CBT finale party image dump.
I'm pretty sure it's impossible to make a good post without using at least 1 terrabyte of bandwidth, Eos.
Well the 300K for Cyadds entire ban appeal clearly wasn't enough so you may be right.
Darn. On the exact same day I decided to do an EE CBT finale party image dump.
Yes, but you proved my point perfectly that for most legitimate usage it worked nicely. You were able to show off several screen shots and link the rest for people who wanted yet more. (http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php?t=44883)
Locked
2011-06-13, 07:42 PM
Eos can you please make the image resizing cap at 1024x768 since that's the second resolution for Maple screenshots? Or is that out of the question
That's a full screen for most people.
There's no reason to permit posting full screen images into a space that is meant to occupy less than 80% of the screen.
It's not like they can't just click it to see that full size.
OB3LISK
2011-06-14, 01:49 AM
Alright guys, time to move on to videos.
Edit: Actually I'm not computer smart. Videos could be included in that magic quota number that was said.
Shidoshi
2011-06-14, 10:33 AM
Alright guys, time to move on to videos.
Edit: Actually I'm not computer smart. Videos could be included in that magic quota number that was said.
That's true, unspoilered videos lag the page with their embeddedness.
That's true, unspoilered videos lag the page and take up bandwidth a lot more than (most) images.
I call BS.
Videos don't begin loading until you press play so they're not using bandwidth.
If anything they're using CPU to load the plugins and we already have a user option to block videos for people who don't want to see them embedded.
Since 80% (of voters) feel 1 mb per post is too little I've expanded the limit.
Since 65% still thought 5mb was too much the limit is now 2 mb, since it had 40% of the < 5 mb vote ( or > 50% if you don't count staff votes).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.