Moderators - Photo of the Day and TIMGS

[TheReef]

G'day all,
As most of you have noticed the Mods are timging the images again.

To the mods, its a nice idea shrinking the images and linking them in practise, however when browsing this thread I and I am sure many others agree that it is nicer to scroll through full size images.

This has happened before, when new mods starts working on the thread, I'm pretty sure it was agreed a while ago that POTD would only contain TIMGS for quotes. Would it be possible to have this issue communicated through the standard moderation procedure conduct…thing?

Cheers,
TheReef

 

[GoCubsGo]

This belongs in the site forum and feedback section. However, while I see your point, as many others will, you have to know how annoying it is when someone can't follow simple directions and pictures span across the screen so much so that it doesn't even fit on my 30" screen. Are you certain the TIMG is not being applied to those that insist on posting photos with a resolution of 2500 pixels across?

 

[TheReef]

This belongs in the site forum and feedback section. However, while I see your point, as many others will, you have to know how annoying it is when someone can't follow simple directions and pictures span across the screen so much so that it doesn't even fit on my 30" screen.

Yeah - extremely large images that require scrolling I understand, but shrinking properly sized images down into a little box seems a bit drastic.

Most displays these days can view images 1024px wide, that's the size I have seen and roughly what other people have been using.

 

[iBlue]

Maybe the new mods are not aware of that [sort of] unofficial agreement.

I totally agree that in those sorts of threads TIMGing images that are a mere 1000-some pixels wide is unnecessary and actually a bit annoying when you just want to scroll down the page without clicking clicking clicking clicking clicking.


I've reported a couple images from those threads that were freakin massive, those are in obvious need of TIMG though.

 

[dmmcintyre3]

I wish you could set the size yourself. Like you can with HTML.

<IMG SRC=IMAGE.JPG WIDTH=1000>

Maybe vbcode could do something like this

[img width=1000]image.jpg[/img]

 

[jsw]

There is discussion underway, and we will announce/document the rules once they're finalized. I don't think that the version of BB software that we use can pre-verify image sizes, so there will likely always be some policing of rules until/unless vBulletin (or a version/plugin that arn installs) can verify image sizes.

The rules will likely apply to all forums, but there could conceivably be exceptions for photo-specific threads. Yes, clicking is annoying, but no, this isn't a photography forum. The goal is to allow the largest images which won't adversely affect the viewing experience of the majority of our members.

 

[xUKHCx]

Maybe the new mods are not aware of that [sort of] unofficial agreement.

As far as I am aware there is no sort of unoffical agreement.



The rough semi guideline that I am use for timg tags is that if an image is over 800px wide then it is considered to be too big.

As to timg only being in quotes that is not true, the idea behind being lenient with that is if someone wants to comment on an image that may appear on the previous page that it allows for people interest to follow that conversation. There are many many examples of people quote the image directly above.

As to the sentiment that this might be a new mod thing there is some truth to the matter. The truth being that the more experience mods grew tired of the constant editting that was required and then the responses by some members of the picture of the day crew.

The rules apply to all forums, we try to be more lenient with the picture forums but there is only so much.

Not everyone has large displays.

We are hoping that we can find an automatic solution to this and one that allows people to adjust their largest size displayed but right now it is not high up the list.

 

[iBlue]

^ I thought there had been some sort of 'agreement' a while back about those threads and allowing a bit more size without TIMG. *shrug*

I'm just stating what I recall and what I'd prefer just as a user but not necessarily a participant of those threads, for what it's worth.

 

[GoCubsGo]

As far as I am aware there is no sort of unoffical agreement.



The rough semi guideline that I am use for timg tags is that if an image is over 800px wide then it is considered to be too big.

As to timg only being in quotes that is not true, the idea behind being lenient with that is if someone wants to comment on an image that may appear on the previous page that it allows for people interest to follow that conversation. There are many many examples of people quote the image directly above.

As to the sentiment that this might be a new mod thing there is some truth to the matter. The truth being that the more experience mods grew tired of the constant editting that was required and then the responses by some members of the picture of the day crew.

The rules apply to all forums, we try to be more lenient with the picture forums but there is only so much.

Not everyone has large displays.

We are hoping that we can find an automatic solution to this and one that allows people to adjust their largest size displayed but right now it is not high up the list.

As I believe you were in the center of the decision to TIMG all images regardless of size, I believe at some point there was some unspoken agreement that members took as the unofficial guideline because suddenly the TIMG of many images stopped. Call it misunderstanding and lack of communication, but I do believe it was seen as implied intent to let it rest when the TIMG of all images ceased. Of course, that could all be wrong because I believe it was all based on assumptions and that is hardly ever accurate.

That said, if there is an image over 1000 px that isn't TIMG I think it should be tagged with TIMG because it's a PITA to view. Scrolling horizontally through a photo results in missing the overall feel of the actual image.

 

[xUKHCx]

As I believe you were in the center of the decision to TIMG all images regardless of size

I was timging large images as I did used to enjoy following those threads in the past. I did not timg every image regardless of size.

I believe at some point there was some unspoken agreement that members took as the unofficial guideline because suddenly the TIMG of many images stopped.

The timging stopped because I simply left the thread, refer to my previous comments about that.

That said, if there is an image over 1000 px that isn't TIMG I think it should be tagged with TIMG because it's a PITA to view. Scrolling horizontally through a photo results in missing the overall feel of the actual image.

What size screen do you use? I use a 1280 so if an image is 1000 then it would be horizontal scrolling and indeed images generally above 850, 900 do so as well.

 

[jsw]

Maybe vbcode could do something like this

[img width=1000]image.jpg[/img]

That's exactly what the TIMG tag does; the problem is that it forces everything to that size, including smaller images.

We are hoping that we can find an automatic solution to this and one that allows people to adjust their largest size displayed but right now it is not high up the list.

Most likely, the only way we can accomplish that is to eliminate the IMG and TIMG tags and allow only attachments. This is not unappealing to me, although it would break a lot of previous posts, which means we might just need to ensure no new posts have those tags.

If every image is an attachment, then we can control the sizes and, in the future, allow for user-specific max sizes. In any event, it'll come down to an administrator decision, which we'll then enforce. Or try to.

 

[edesignuk]

That's exactly what the TIMG tag does; the problem is that it forces everything to that size, including smaller images.

The TIMG tag allows you to specify the scaling size yourself?

 

[SilentPanda]

The TIMG tag allows you to specify the scaling size yourself?

No. It just automatically makes in 1000 wide. Which I think is why we don't TIMG things under 1000 because well... you know...

 

[edesignuk]

No. It just automatically makes in 1000 wide. Which I think is why we don't TIMG things under 1000 because well... you know...

dmmcintyre3 suggested the TIMG tag could be adapted so users can set the scaling size. jsw then said it already did that. Then you say it doesn't, as I thought.

 

[SilentPanda]

dmmcintyre3 suggested the TIMG tag could be adapted so users can set the scaling size. jsw then said it already did that. Then you say it doesn't, as I thought.

I think jsw was implying that it actually set the image width to 1000, not that the user could set the size. Maybe I'm reading it wrong though.

 

[jsw]

dmmcintyre3 suggested the TIMG tag could be adapted so users can set the scaling size. jsw then said it already did that. Then you say it doesn't, as I thought.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The current TIMG tag looks like the vB code shown above - it sets a definite (not user-settable) size (not 1000, though). I meant it uses that sort of code to set a single size, not one that is settable by users.

 

[edesignuk]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The current TIMG tag looks like the vB code shown above - it sets a definite (not user-settable) size (not 1000, though). I meant it uses that sort of code to set a single size, not one that is settable by users.

ah, well that's where the confusion is. I think dmmcintyre3 was asking that the TIMG tag have the option to specify size within it.

 

[iBlue]

Most likely, the only way we can accomplish that is to eliminate the IMG and TIMG tags and allow only attachments. This is not unappealing to me, although it would break a lot of previous posts, which means we might just need to ensure no new posts have those tags.

If every image is an attachment, then we can control the sizes and, in the future, allow for user-specific max sizes. In any event, it'll come down to an administrator decision, which we'll then enforce. Or try to.

That may be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard and I hope that doesn't happen. Personally I like being able to host my own images and don't want to be punished because some users post big images and mods sometimes have to clean it up. I can't believe it's a big enough problem to warrant something like that.

 

[TheReef]

That may be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard and I hope that doesn't happen. Personally I like being able to host my own images and don't want to be punished because some users post big images and mods sometimes have to clean it up. I can't believe it's a big enough problem to warrant something like that.

Mmm yeah, not keen for that idea.

 

[GoCubsGo]

What size screen do you use? I use a 1280 so if an image is 1000 then it would be horizontal scrolling and indeed images generally above 850, 900 do so as well.

I use a 13" a 20" a 30" and a 47" depending upon where I sit that day.
1000 is never scrolling horizontal for me, it may scroll vertically however.

 

[jsw]

Fortunately, I think we might have a wonderful idea, suggested by one of the much-maligned new mods, which will not only allow us to ensure no images are shown above a certain size, but which will eliminate the need to restrict use to attachments and which might allow customization on a per-member basis. A win overall. But we'll see if that actually works in the system. It's hypothetical now. Regardless, the issue is being looked into.

@iBlue: I like hosting my own images as well and wasn't fond of the attachments-only thing, but there are limits to how much busy work should need to be done, and this wouldn't have been the first case where a few undesirable actions led to restrictions on everyone (the Marketplace is a good example; among other things, someone now has to be here 6+ months and post over 250 times just to be able to ask how much their old Mac is worth, all because of some past scams, which is just sad, IMHO).

 

[iBlue]

^ If that good idea is something similar to setting a maximum size, that is an excellent idea.


As for the other stuff, I think you MR staff peeps just need to chiiiiiiill. *offers a doob* Worry less, it's good for ya!

 

[SilentPanda]

As for the other stuff, I think you MR staff peeps just need to chiiiiiiill. *offers a doob* Worry less, it's good for ya!

With WWDC next week we can't chill! To be honest even typing this frivolousness could get me a beating!

*runs away screaming*

 

[iBlue]

^ I get the feeling lots of you are stressed at the moment. Just something in your collective posts. I worry what they're doing to you back there. (as in behind the scenes, not back there... errrrrm.)

In seriousness though occasionally I do think things are over-thought and could be simpler. I have to hand it to the mods, your jobs don't always sound particularly fun. Like herding cats!

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

That may be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard and I hope that doesn't happen. Personally I like being able to host my own images and don't want to be punished because some users post big images and mods sometimes have to clean it up. I can't believe it's a big enough problem to warrant something like that.

The problem with that, especially in image heavy threads - which is what we're talking about here, is that those images off site tends to disappear after a while. Often a very short while. Making even quite new threads more or less un-readable, with lots of "Image has been removed"-placeholders and/or seemingly empty posts.

If those images were attached, you wouldn't have that problem.