Digital Photography Forum - Photo of the Day: Quoting images with TIMG

[zioxide]

The first time someone posts his/her image in a thread is not a bandwidth issue for MR because the image is being "hotlinked" from a hosting site elsewhere. The next guy who comes along, views the image and then decides to quote the whole post in its entirely, including the full-sized hotlinked image, is causing issues because this indeed does slow down thread and post loading

It doesn't necessarily slow down loading. Your browser doesn't load the image twice. Once it's loaded, it gets cached, and then displayed each time the page's HTML says it should be displayed. As far as TIMG goes, it just uses HTML to resize the image (it doesn't create a special thumbnailed version). So, if you load a page where the image is shown full sized and then it's quoted a couple posts down (whether TIMG'd or not), you're still only loading the image once.

 

[Grimace]

If only we would follow the original rules...

The majority of the "great shot XYZ!" posts refer to photographs that are immediately above or a few posts up. Not all, but most. Even on a 30" screen, scrolling through just one page takes a while because of all of the referenced images. With the sheer number of quoted pics, the page load times are also pretty slow (and I'm on a fast connection!)

When a user posts: "Here is one of a duck I saw at the pond." (picture follows) -- it is very sensible to think that MR users could quote the post without the picture itself, and we would all know what duck was being referenced for two reasons:

1. Most of the comments come in fairly rapid succession so unless someone is posting more than once per day, which is against the rules, we will know what photo was referenced.
2. Posters are supposed to include the relevant descriptive info: from the original rules:

1. ...as long as you only post ONE SINGLE IMAGE per day.
2. Please use this format when posting: Title, Location, Date

If we follow the rules, there is very little need for quoting the actual images. and those people who are on slower connections or hate scrolling for 20 minutes will be happier!

 

[compuwar]

I want to ban both the [I]and[/I] [img] tags all together. [B]Thus forcing people to attach the photos and use the [attach] tag.[/B]
[/quote]

This would decrease the number of contributors who are worried about rights and their images. People who may worry about entering into a exclusive use contract for an image at a later date, or who may have other reasons for removing or replacing an image with a smaller, or different version- let's say a contractual disagreement with a model. I think that limitation would make the thread in particular and site in general poorer.

[quote="xUKHCx, post: 5456351"]I don't really have time to put down my thoughts fully here at the moment but here is what I see.


Quoting images that are directly above is entirely pointless.
[/quote]

Except that pagination isn't guaranteed, so if someone goes back and edits a post, then "directly above" may go to "next page."

[quote="xUKHCx, post: 5456351"]
Quoting images from other pages causes (especially if there are many on a page) my page loading time to increase substantially due to me being on a slower internet connection.
[/quote]

Surely the tags are quoting the same URL and image caching on the browser negates this for any modern browser?

If your bandwidth is that bad, I'd honestly recommend installing a Squid cache in-line, then you'll be dealing with the issue less overall.

[quote="xUKHCx, post: 5456351"]
If you are commenting on a picture then both you and the OP know which picture is being referred to and if someone else wants to comment there after then they can view the picture quite easily.
[/quote]

For useful criticism, it's easier for all involved in the thumbnail is right there.

IMO, the thumbnails make the forum more useful to those using it. It has certainly made the thread in question much more readable to me.

 

[pdxflint]

I have to say, first of all; Great discussion, everybody! Seems like there are a lot of different opinions coming from different vantage points, combined with a willingness to listen to them. Cheers!

I don't think Carlos (original poster) was trying to alienate forum readers/visitors who don't actively contribute content, and I'm sure he'd concur on that point.

I find it interesting that even mods are coming down on different sides of an argument, which reflects the truth that there is no perfect solution - other than to try to accomodate the most people while offending the least number of people. Sounds a lot like politics.

Looking at a general approach here, I'd say we should go with a specific way of meeting the general needs of the thread users, meaning: If we allow quoted <timg> tagged images in reply posts, let's make sure that they are used. If any less experienced poster doesn't know how to change his <img> tags, then the mods should just clean that up without snipping the entire image.

Yes, we do run into the 3-4 repeated images being quoted whenever readers are responding to the same image, but we also see this in other threads on other forums when discussions are ongoing, and a long post is quoted just below the original post, and then again a few posts later. Of course, users of the forums ideally, rolleyes would know how, or use the ability to 'edit' their quoted replies whether in text replies or changing <img> tags to <timg> tags, but that is just not going to happen with every person at all times, so we bear with that.

Mods should feel free to change the <img> tags to <timg> tags, but should not worry about repeated 'same' quotes - that just goes with the territory. We all know that it happens, and it can be a bit annoying, yet there is no real way to make a rule outlawing something you can't define, such as; Who gets censored for being the nth (now we need to define 'n') person to quote the same post (whether a long 'text' quote or an image?)

I do see how linked images can disappear, and that messes with the archival quality of a thread for later generations to research. It bothers me a bit, because a lot of the images (and other quoted links, BTW) do tend to vanish into the ether of cyberspace just when you look for them, but... that's life on the internet. I think we can live with that. Requiring images to be attached would make things more consistent, and would probably be a reasonable alternative, other than the issues Carlos brought up about rights to a picture needing to be in the hands of the photographer, not the MR website.

Most of the objections to the <timg> tags seem to be about repetition and the ability to "skim" the thread quickly and have pages load fast. However, most of the folks commenting here in support of the <timg> tags seem willing to compromise those issues in order to be able to see' the image in the company of the words which apply to it.

So, again I say let POTD thread, and even other picture related threads in the digital photo forum have their <timg> tags, while stressing to new users (and old ) how to modify their <img> tags in their replies. A lot of folks know nothing at all about code, etc. and that's where the mods can quietly, and helpfully do it for them. Big originals quoted in post replies are not necessary, but thumbnails.... kind of... are! IMO, of course.

Cheers, all. -pdx

PS: xUKHCx, sorry to hear you are on a slower connection. I know what that's like, since I only got high-speed access via satellite within the last 6 months. It changed my world, I must say. So just know I can relate to your situation.

 

[xUKHCx]

Surely the tags are quoting the same URL and image caching on the browser negates this for any modern browser?

Meant in the general context with posts from other pages so it is not about caching but having to load a whole set of images that I have seen before when viewing the other pages.

Mods should feel free to change the <img> tags to <timg> tags

Key word should, lets not forget the whole palaver about changing img to timg with some users in those threads being outraged that their post was changed and others weren't.

So there needs to be agreement as to what constitutes an image that needs timg tags rather than img tags and this issue also brings back similar arguments about bandwidth and screensize.

 

[pdxflint]

Key word should, lets not forget the whole palaver about changing img to timg with some users in those threads being outraged that their post was changed and others weren't.

So there needs to be agreement as to what constitutes an image that needs timg tags rather than img tags and this issue also brings back similar arguments about bandwidth and screensize.

Yeah, I know some folks get steamed about any changes to their posts, but as long as it's consistent, they'll just have to deal with it. My solution to make it clear about what images need timg tags is this: Only the original post with it's img tag should display it at that size. All repeats (meaning quoted replies with img tag) should be timg. The odd image notwithstanding (where the original is actually smaller than the timg tag would make it, most original images being larger, would now be all the same size thumbnails throughout the thread. That way we get to keep our visual cues to the comments, and the pages would still look clean and orderly. So, all img tags in replies get changed.

Maybe the code on the site could be modified to automatically change img to timg when clicking "quote" on a post. Many people ask how to do this when they see others doing it while their replies show the image in original size, so I think most folks would actually prefer this. A simple rule on this would be easy to understand, and comply with. Everyone gets treated the same, and we can finally get this behind us.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

The next guy who comes along, views the image and then decides to quote the whole post in its entirely, including the full-sized hotlinked image, is causing issues because this indeed does slow down thread and post loading, and really is it necessary to quote everything, including the image, just to say, "gee, great photo!" NO.

The majority of the "great shot XYZ!" posts refer to photographs that are immediately above or a few posts up.

Just to make that clear, too. Any posts just saying "great shot", or any other short equivalent should be reported as a rule violation:

Useless posts. Do not bother making posts with only one or two words (e.g., LOL) or a smilie, or post simply to have the first reply in a thread. Such posts waste everyone's time and will be deleted. Posts saying "I agree", "me too", or the equivalent are also routinely removed.

If you want to praise a posted image, then - at least - make a small effort and a sentence or two about what it is you like about the image.

"Great shot" and similar short and pointless posts (although nice for the receiving poster) can and will be deleted.

 

[Grimace]

Just to make that clear, too. Any posts just saying "great shot", or any other short equivalent should be reported as a rule violation:
If you want to praise a posted image, then - at least - make a small effort and a sentence or two about what it is you like about the image.

"Great shot" and similar short and pointless posts (although nice for the receiving poster) can and will be deleted.

I'm there with you on that one, it was meant to read, "I loved the angle of the sun in that shot, XYZ."

 

[Eraserhead]

So there needs to be agreement as to what constitutes an image that needs timg tags rather than img tags and this issue also brings back similar arguments about bandwidth and screensize.

Frankly I'd say anything that would require scrolling to view in a full screen window at 1024x768 resolution including the side bars, and everything else is too big. This idea is shown as the black square below (I changed my resolution to 1024x768 to do it).



This works out to be around 750x550 pixels.

My reasoning is that that is the resolution most websites are designed for so it seems like a sensible limit.

 

[zioxide]

Mods should feel free to change the <img> tags to <timg> tags

Key word should, lets not forget the whole palaver about changing img to timg with some users in those threads being outraged that their post was changed and others weren't.

So there needs to be agreement as to what constitutes an image that needs timg tags rather than img tags and this issue also brings back similar arguments about bandwidth and screensize.

I believe what pdxflint was referring to was changing IMG to TIMG in quotes when someone forgets too. He wasn't referring to the original photographers showing their photos.

From what I've seen since the whole thing about IMG/TIMG in original posts a few months ago, the posters have been pretty good at keeping images at reasonable sizes. As long as people keep images around 800-900px wide, they fit fine.

 

[compuwar]

Meant in the general context with posts from other pages so it is not about caching but having to load a whole set of images that I have seen before when viewing the other pages.

I kind of see the same issue from the opposite side, if someone comes in late and comments on an image that's 3 pages ago, I'd rather see the thumb right there and then than go back through 3 pages that may not still be cached by my browser.

Perhaps looking at making timg a user option in VBulletin is a better compromise? Not sure how much that'd take on the server end resource-wise, but it might be worth-while investigating (too bad the forum isn't run on SMF, where we could investigate a base change a lot easier.)

The pledge posters seem overwhelmingly in favor, it's a question of what the super posters are going to decide that makes the whole thing hang in the balance

 

[pdxflint]

I believe what pdxflint was referring to was changing IMG to TIMG in quotes when someone forgets too. He wasn't referring to the original photographers showing their photos.

Yes, exactly what I meant. Most pics posted by the original poster are generally within acceptable dimensions (800-900pix wide) and the timg tags would only apply to every reply where the original pic was quoted. It's really pretty simple.

 

[66217]

OK, this may end being a lengthy post, but it is all for the best. I'll try and pass my thinking about how the Photo of the Day thread should be ruled, and then the mods can tell what they think.

1. I agree that the initial rules iGary posted have to be applied. Every picture most have Title, Location and Date. Or it could be changed to just contain the Title and Gear used. Remembering the Date and Location can be tricky sometimes This makes for an overall more professional and consistent look.

2. Images must be posted at maximum 800x600. Anything bigger than this is a huge problem for any users in a MacBook, MacBook Air or iBook. Also, centering the photo and the information helps for a tidier look.

3. Comments regarding another photo should include constructive comments. If you like a photo not just write "this photo is great!", write why you think is great or what you think can be improved. Obviously, offensive or destructive comments are prohibited.

4. When quoting another photo, it should be using <timg>. Also, when quoting another photo, be sure to remove any text the quote may contain, just leave the photo alone and nothing else.

5. And maybe this is me being picky, but I hate when people use incorrect writing format. Like writing "i" instead of "I", or using only CAPS, or starting without capital letter.

 

[66217]

Sample Post (Of how I think it should be)

A description of the photo could be included at the top.

Deep Yellow Eyes
Nikon D40x
Nikkor 80-200​

 

[66217]

Sample of how to quote images

Information of what you like or dislike of the photo here.

 

[xUKHCx]

OK, this may end being a lengthy post, but it is all for the best. I'll try and pass my thinking about how the Photo of the Day thread should be ruled, and then the mods can tell what they think.

5. And maybe this is me being picky, but I hate when people use incorrect writing format. Like writing "i" instead of "I", or using only CAPS, or starting without capital letter.

Well it is very late here now but I can tell you straight off the bat that 5. isn't going to get any traction whatsoever, as explicitly explained in the rules.

 

[Eraserhead]

2. Images must be posted at maximum 800x600. Anything bigger than this is a huge problem for any users in a MacBook, MacBook Air or iBook.

Even that is really too big, firstly your post is indented in from the standard indentation so it displays without scrolling, if that didn't happen or the photo was even a few pixels larger it'd be too big.



Secondly from a vertical perspective there is only just room for a single line of comment, if they wrote any more you couldn't see it all and the whole picture.



Both screenshots that I've taken are at 1024x768.

I suppose though 800x600 is a standard size, so if it was a strict limit it would be OK, but that would be quite difficult/time consuming to enforce.

 

[stcanard]

I agree on the idea that iGary's initial rules, if enforced, should be sufficient. The photo of the day thread existed for many years on those rules without significant issues.

I'm concerned about the idea of making the images attachment only -- the moderators have always turned somewhat of a blind eye to the size of the photos in the thread allowing it to stay as the one place where "you could post beautiful hi res photos" (I could probably find the comment with enough searching, it was in the original thread the last time this discussion came up in earnest). The idea was by limiting it in a single thread those people with slow connections could avoid that one and not be stuck waiting on load times.

Size limitations on attachments don't allow that combination of high quality and decent resolution (and makes sense, I'm sure the Macrumors servers have better things to do).

IMO, limiting the external links would really remove the reason why the photo of the day thread was created and maintained in the first place.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I'm concerned about the idea of making the images attachment only -- the moderators have always turned somewhat of a blind eye to the size of the photos in the thread allowing it to stay as the one place where "you could post beautiful hi res photos" (I could probably find the comment with enough searching, it was in the original thread the last time this discussion came up in earnest). The idea was by limiting it in a single thread those people with slow connections could avoid that one and not be stuck waiting on load times.

That wouldn't be a problem if people posted thumbnails, and I use the term loosely, up to 750px wide at the most (preferably a bit less) and a link to the high res version. Now I've seen "thumbs" up to 1280 width, and that's just insane...

Then you could also retract the high res version, if you want to use that for something, but - ideally - leave the low res "thumb" and not ruin the thread by making lots and lots of images just disappear (often after alarmingly short time).

 

[pdxflint]

As a user of picasaweb albums, when "linking" to a photo it can be done in several sizes, with the large size being 800 pix wide, the next smallest at 400px. Picasaweb resizes it for the link automatically, making it easy to post pics here without having to do any resizing via exporting, etc. in a photo editing software. Having previously used a laptop (old...) with an 800x600 display, I still didn't mind pics that big, and now with a Macbook pro (1440x900), 800 px seems almost too small, but definitely acceptable as a size for the forum.

As far as attachments go, is there a way to do an attachment where the thumbnail is bigger than the default size on the forum page? When I attach a pic, it shows small on the page, and links to an original of 1600px wide, which is too extreme on either end, unless I manually edit and resize all the pics I want to post here...

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this eventually works out.

 

[stcanard]

That wouldn't be a problem if people posted thumbnails, and I use the term loosely, up to 750px wide at the most (preferably a bit less) and a link to the high res version. Now I've seen "thumbs" up to 1280 width, and that's just insane...

Okay, I tried a test, and I see that either I've improved my jpeg compression or the limits have increased, because you're right -- the size / quality of image I typically post is well within the limits imposed by attachments. The last time I tried an attachment was many years ago, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

A number of people in the thread like to have the photos connected to the external hosting site so its an easy click through on the photo itself -- my bbcode isn't good enough, I can't figure out how to do that with an attachment (it just pops up a window with the attachment); wrapping a url tag around it appears to still give priority to the attachment link.

If we do go to attachment only -- is this possible or does it mean that people will have to add "Click here for full resolution" links at the bottom of each post?

This is what I was trying...

[ URL="http://my.external.com/photos/pic" ][ ATTACH ]116640[ /ATTACH ][ /URL ]

It may simply be that I know so little about bbcode that there is a simple solution I am missing.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Let's try...

I'll attach a thumbnail-sized image (480 width) and a full sized one (1280 width), both 60% jpegs, to this post... and play around a bit...

---

code: [URL="http://geek.no/mr/shiva.jpg"][ATTACH]116643[/ATTACH][/URL] <-- attached small image, linked to larger off site...



This one doesn't work, because the attach tag seem to override the url tag... so here you need to add a link to the full size, like this:

[ATTACH]116643[/ATTACH]
[size=1][URL="http://geek.no/mr/shiva.jpg"]Click here for full size[/URL][/size]


Click here for full size

---

code: [URL="http://geek.no/mr/shiva.jpg"][IMG]http://geek.no/mr/shiva.small.jpg[/IMG][/URL] <-- both thumb and full size off site



---

code: [ATTACH]116644[/ATTACH] <-- straight attach of full size

 

[stcanard]

Let's try...

I'll attach a thumbnail-sized image ans a full sized one to this post... and play around a bit...

That fits with my experiments -- so it looks like if you want to link to an external site, you either have to link to an external image or add a "click here" link under.

That's something I find inconvenient -- I find the ability to click the image directly cleaner, but I don't have insight into just how much of an issue disappearing hosted images are.

 

[iBlue]

Just an rundown/idea/whatever....

If it was agreed upon that the images posted were not excessive in size (like maybe not over 1024 pixels in width) and quoted images were always TIMGed (and if not, reported so a mod could TIMG it) would that satisfy everyone, users and mods alike?

I know TIMG rescales instead of actually thumbnails, thus not being a real page load saver, but it is tidier to see it used in quotes and seems to be favoured among the users of the threads as opposed to just links, so it seems like a friendly solution. <shrug>

 

[oblomow]

If it was agreed upon that the images posted were not excessive in size (like maybe not over 1024 pixels in width) and quoted images were always TIMGed (and if not, reported so a mod could TIMG it) would that satisfy everyone, users and mods alike?

I know TIMG rescales instead of actually thumbnails, thus not being a real page load saver, but it is tidier to see it used in quotes and seems to be favoured among the users of the threads as opposed to just links, so it seems like a friendly solution. <shrug>

Yes, I think that's all the users of the potd thread have been asking for!