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.
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.
Going to be a big help when I browse SP with my phone.
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.Originally Posted by Fiel
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?
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, where he ignores all the links except the last one. Not saying that one person represents everyone.
[*]Added Groups to the tabs
Thank you Eos.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm pretty sure it's impossible to make a good post without using at least 1 terrabyte of bandwidth, Eos.
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.
Well the 300K for Cyadds entire ban appeal clearly wasn't enough so you may be right.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Shidoshi; 2011-06-14 at 10:51 AM. Reason: For truth!
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.
Posting Permissions
|
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks