gioarmani Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 I think we seriously should get rid of the site's attachments function on all posts, for good. Not only would it free up a little more space on whatever servers the site uses, but it would also make those same pics actually "viewable". Too often--way too often--I wind up clicking on pics that have been attached to people's posts only to find their size too small to view or too big to view, at all. And there's no way to tell what size they're at, until you've already clicked to expand. I have a 24" screen and even with my monitor set on the high end of the resolution spectrum, on a lot of these attachments it's still impossible to get the whole pic on the screen--essentially, it makes the pic worthless, as a lot of them are impossible to properly view. Either members don't have the software to properly resize them, don't know how to use it, or simply don't bother to. Either way, it would serve both the poster and the viewer well to 86 the attachment feature, and simply provide a list of free, online picture hosting sites. For instance: Photobucket.com is the one I use. imageshack.us is another good free one imagevenue.com is also free--and all of the above will allow you to either upload one pic at a time, or to bulk upload multiples. At the very least, if the admin doesn't wish to disable that feature, then it might be beneficial to cap the maximum displayed output on the attachment function, to say 1024 x 786 or 800 x 600, so that any pic posted will automatically default to a size that makes it possible for them to actually be seen. I know some might grumble about having this feature disabled and being "forced" to use a third-party site, but in retrospect it would make a lot of threads more valuable to their intended audience. Nothing ruins a review or pictorial thread more than when the pics that actually make the thread aren't viewable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HaloArchive Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 +1 I use imageshack. You can bulk upload AND it will resize the image for you at your request. I think this sit should get the imageshack plug-in for attachments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gioarmani Posted August 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 Motion seconded? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwatch Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 I agree. I use photobucket and the pics always load up nicely. I usually avoid looking at any pics that were loaded as an attachment just because I don't want to have to move my screen around and see the pics in 4th's or 6th's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gioarmani Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Admin weigh-in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4GTR Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I can't say I disagree. And from an IT perspective, stick with photobucket. Image shack is b more frequently blocked by proxy servers based on my exp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Admin weigh-in? Thinking...thinking... seriously I, and I know most, do use offsite image hosting, however until our Admin has his say I can only guess there is a good reason why he allows attachments. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkay Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Until the board revamp last month, there WAS a tool in the editor to quick-post photos to ImageShack during post editing. It's gone now, AFAIK. Let me add bayimg.com to the hosting site list .. free uncensored hosting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Padge Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I simply don't even click on attached files any more, unless I must, they are always way too large, due to the page zoom I use with firefox (1900x1200 24" monitor requires this) Imageshack's thumbnail system works very well for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chronoluvvv Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 yep i hate clicking on attachments since they are generally 10x as big as my screen Photobucket FTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiker01 Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 +1 Imageshack......or if you have to attach, please reduce to 1024 at the most! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
its_urabus Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I'm a photobucket guy, however I think the ability to upload to the site is helpful for som. Photobucket will autoresize images to certain sizes, I think trying to get that feature for site uploads would be an awesome addition. Great thread topic.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gioarmani Posted September 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 I think it's a resounding, "yes", dearest Admin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jot9011 Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 I think attachments are the easy non-technical option, and that's why people are fscking it up. I even ranted about it here: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gioarmani Posted September 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 So Admin, back to brass tacks, I think the general consensus is to get rid of them. Seriously. I encountered some more attachments today that I can't even view on a 24" wide-screen at 1920 x 1200... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Whilst I don't disagree with the theory, personally I am too lazy, and maybe not tech savvy enough, to go through the whole image hosting offsite process! Maybe just lazy is the truth! If I can't post it from "my pics" it won't be posted! just another view point. Offshore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Whilst I don't disagree with the theory, personally I am too lazy, and maybe not tech savvy enough, to go through the whole image hosting offsite process! Maybe just lazy is the truth! If I can't post it from "my pics" it won't be posted! just another view point. Offshore Then we need an on-forum way of reducing the images to a usable size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gioarmani Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Absolutely. How about getting the board to force all pics posted via attachments to cap them at 800 x 600, or maybe 1024 x 640? Pretty please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.