+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Main (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Forum: Site Announcements (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 (/showthread.php?tid=42940)
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Fiel - 2011-06-12
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.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Satellite - 2011-06-12
Going to be a big help when I browse SP with my phone.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - madanthony - 2011-06-12
Fiel Wrote:Simply linking to the image massively decreases page load.
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.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Locked - 2011-06-12
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.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Eos - 2011-06-12
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?
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Locked - 2011-06-12
Eosian Wrote: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.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Derosis - 2011-06-12
Eosian Wrote:List of minor changes made in the past week or so.
- Added a 1 blog per calendar day limit. This can be raised per user for users with a legitimate demonstrable need to blog more frequently
- Added cumulative image size limits to post so that all images in a post can not exceed 1 MB.
- Added a thread stencil to Amherst to give some ideas on what new users can tell about themselves when they post a hello.
- Added Groups to the tabs
- Added last 5 blogs & groups to the home page.
[*]Added Groups to the tabs
Thank you Eos.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - ImagineAll - 2011-06-12
Would Fields extractions be an exception to this limit?
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Eos - 2011-06-12
ImagineAll Wrote: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.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Devil - 2011-06-12
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! :+)
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Rick - 2011-06-12
Good grief that defeats the whole point.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Eos - 2011-06-12
Devil Wrote: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?
My signature alone is already 265kb!
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.
Rick Wrote:Good grief that defeats the whole point.
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.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Sarah - 2011-06-12
I'm pretty sure it's impossible to make a good post without using at least 1 terrabyte of bandwidth, Eos.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Hanabira.Kage - 2011-06-12
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.
Darn. On the exact same day I decided to do an EE CBT finale party image dump.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Eos - 2011-06-12
Sarah Wrote:I'm pretty sure it's impossible to make a good post without using at least 1 terrabyte of bandwidth, Eos.
Well the 300K for Cyadds entire ban appeal clearly wasn't enough so you may be right.
Hanabira.Kage Wrote:Darn. On the exact same day I decided to do an EE CBT finale party image dump.
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.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Locked - 2011-06-13
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
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Eos - 2011-06-13
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.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - OB3LISK - 2011-06-14
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.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Shidoshi - 2011-06-14
OB3LISK Wrote: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.
Minor Changes - 2011-06-11 - Eos - 2011-06-14
Shidoshi Wrote:That's true, unspoilered videos lag the page and take up bandwidth a lot more than (most) images.
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.