19 replies to this topic

[Buzzard]

I'd like to know if the site can be made to block pictures from being uploaded that are grossly oversized? It seems that some people here either don't know how to reduce the size of their pictures or they are just inconsiderate of other members that are still on dial-up service. I keep posting over and over- "Please reduce the size of your pictures," but two weeks later a new member is posting billboard size pictures of there new "pride and joy." I see no harm in making the site's parameters for pictures being uploaded to be restricted to a certain size - if they are not - the pictures won't upload. Can that be done?

[JackTripper]

Industry leader vBulletin supports this feature. Admins can force JPGs to 256kb (or whatever they like)

Not sure the ipBoard software used here.

[Buzzard]

JackTripper, on 25 March 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

Industry leader vBulletin supports this feature. Admins can force JPGs to 256kb (or whatever they like)

Not sure the ipBoard software used here.

Does that mean the poster will have to reduce the pictures size to 256kb (for example) before they upload it to the thread?

My gripe is the very long time it takes the picture/page to load before the board reduces it. (Did I say that right?)

[JackTripper]

Yes. Otherwise the image is rejected. This is very common on other boards. Odd that it has never been implemented here.

[werdych]

is a plugin that automatically reduces the size of images.

Edited by werdych, 26 March 2012 - 03:53 AM.

[oneshot]

I was going to suggest using Proxify with their Text Only feature, but apparently they require you to subscribe to their site in order to access IC and it's $40/mo.    It might help you with other sites though.  If it's of interest to you, Google around for text only browsing + proxy, etc.  There are options out there.

[Geneseo1911]

I'm with Buzz.  I have a DSL, which is pretty decent for us country folk (usually run around 1.7mbps down), but It still takes 5 min. to load threads that are heavy with pictures that are bigger than my screen.  The car thread was especially painful.

On a side note, almost all the other forums I frequent use Vbulletin.  I like it A LOT more than this software.

[Buckfarrack]

JackTripper, on 25 March 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

Yes. Otherwise the image is rejected. This is very common on other boards. Odd that it has never been implemented here.

I agree,two other forums i visit if the pics aren't like 480x640 you cannot post them.Not to hi-jack but does anyone know if their is an "ignore member" option on this forum? Been wanting to ask this question for two weeks now.

[JackTripper]

Top right of the screen.

[JackTripper]

And for the record, that was 44KB

[Buckfarrack]

JackTripper, on 26 March 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Top right of the screen.


Capture.PNG

DUH. Thanks Jack, I must have searched tooooooooo hard.

Edited by Buckfarrack, 26 March 2012 - 05:36 PM.

[Federal Farmer]

Buckfarrack, on 26 March 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

JackTripper, on 26 March 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Top right of the screen.


Capture.PNG

DUH. Thanks Jack, I must have searched tooooooooo hard.

Don't feel too bad, I knew it was somewhere but couldn't find it when I was looking for it in response to your question.

[Buzzard]

This thread is now five days old - we have no objections and a couple posts that like the idea.........

What's the next step to implement this change?

[bersa380]

You don't like large pictures. You don't see any need for them. Why would a reasonable person need any picture that size. You can't hunt with that size of picture. Im an advocate of personal.choice and accountability. Less regulation not more. Just my personal opinion.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

[JackTripper]

Wow.

[papa]

bersa380 , have you ever had to use dial up internet? I have and can tell you it is a pain in the butt just to get online.

Besides , buzz isn't TELLING anyone to do anything. He has ASKED if people can reduce their pics!

Guess I better revert back to this>>>> <<< now.

Edited by papa, 29 March 2012 - 09:32 AM.

[Federal Farmer]

We are discussing this internally from a policy and technical perspective.

[Buzzard]

bersa380, on 29 March 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:

You don't like large pictures. You don't see any need for them. Why would a reasonable person need any picture that size. You can't hunt with that size of picture. Im an advocate of personal.choice and accountability. Less regulation not more. Just my personal opinion.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

That's not what I said. Bersa, so please, stop putting words in my mouth. Here is the problem. Some people that have high speed internet are posting UNNECESSARILY huge pictures - and letting the site's software reduce the size of the pictures for them. When this happens, us people that CANNOT AFFORD high speed and are stuck with dial-up service have to wait...and wait...and wait for the pictures to load up on the page, until finally they are uploaded and the site's software kicks in and reduces them.

I have been patient and asked that people not post these UNNECESSARILY large pictures.....to no avail. I too, am an advocate of personal choice and accountability. Less regulation - not more regulation. But in this instance it does not work. Most of the time we find people step up to the plate and police their own. Because they KNOW if freedom is used irresponsibly - someone must step up and say something before that freedom is taken away. People could have said something to the people about posting large pictures - but they didn't. So now I am asking the administrators to do something about it.

And what I'm asking is not that they don't post pictures - but merely to reduce the size before posting. MY GOD - is that so terrible??

[bersa380]

Buzzard, on 29 March 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

bersa380, on 29 March 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:

You don't like large pictures. You don't see any need for them. Why would a reasonable person need any picture that size. You can't hunt with that size of picture. Im an advocate of personal.choice and accountability. Less regulation not more. Just my personal opinion.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

That's not what I said. Bersa, so please, stop putting words in my mouth. Here is the problem. Some people that have high speed internet are posting UNNECESSARILY huge pictures - and letting the site's software reduce the size of the pictures for them. When this happens, us people that CANNOT AFFORD high speed and are stuck with dial-up service have to wait...and wait...and wait for the pictures to load up on the page, until finally they are uploaded and the site's software kicks in and reduces them.

I have been patient and asked that people not post these UNNECESSARILY large pictures.....to no avail. I too, am an advocate of personal choice and accountability. Less regulation - not more regulation. But in this instance it does not work. Most of the time we find people step up to the plate and police their own. Because they KNOW if freedom is used irresponsibly - someone must step up and say something before that freedom is taken away. People could have said something to the people about posting large pictures - but they didn't. So now I am asking the administrators to do something about it.

And what I'm asking is not that they don't post pictures - but merely to reduce the size before posting. MY GOD - is that so terrible??

I was not targeting you personally. Sometimes things posted online don't come across exactly like we intend. I could have worded it better. My post stems from a conversation I had yesterday where someone was saying boy I sure hope they pass concealed carry and then in the same breath said they saw no need for anyone to own a semi automatic rifle. I see this all the time where someone will say x type of firearm is ok but nobody should have this other type. I guess I am just frustrated. Again I am not trying to pick on you and I can understand your frustration of load times. I really should not have posted here. Like the old saying goes if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all. My apologies.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

[Buzzard]

bersa380, on 29 March 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Buzzard, on 29 March 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

bersa380, on 29 March 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:

You don't like large pictures. You don't see any need for them. Why would a reasonable person need any picture that size. You can't hunt with that size of picture. Im an advocate of personal.choice and accountability. Less regulation not more. Just my personal opinion.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

That's not what I said. Bersa, so please, stop putting words in my mouth. Here is the problem. Some people that have high speed internet are posting UNNECESSARILY huge pictures - and letting the site's software reduce the size of the pictures for them. When this happens, us people that CANNOT AFFORD high speed and are stuck with dial-up service have to wait...and wait...and wait for the pictures to load up on the page, until finally they are uploaded and the site's software kicks in and reduces them.

I have been patient and asked that people not post these UNNECESSARILY large pictures.....to no avail. I too, am an advocate of personal choice and accountability. Less regulation - not more regulation. But in this instance it does not work. Most of the time we find people step up to the plate and police their own. Because they KNOW if freedom is used irresponsibly - someone must step up and say something before that freedom is taken away. People could have said something to the people about posting large pictures - but they didn't. So now I am asking the administrators to do something about it.

And what I'm asking is not that they don't post pictures - but merely to reduce the size before posting. MY GOD - is that so terrible??

I was not targeting you personally. Sometimes things posted online don't come across exactly like we intend. I could have worded it better. My post stems from a conversation I had yesterday where someone was saying boy I sure hope they pass concealed carry and then in the same breath said they saw no need for anyone to own a semi automatic rifle. I see this all the time where someone will say x type of firearm is ok but nobody should have this other type. I guess I am just frustrated. Again I am not trying to pick on you and I can understand your frustration of load times. I really should not have posted here. Like the old saying goes if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all. My apologies.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

I can certainly understand your frustration, Bersa. I get very frustrated by those "take the semi-autos - but keep your government hands off a daddy's ol' shotgun" type of gun owners too!! Don't these people understand that it's ALL guns that the antis want to get rid of?? Not just the "evil, black rifles"...... ALL of them.......your daddy's ol' shotgun too!!

So don't worry - you're still on my "like" list.