Since when.......... and how do i?

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Since when have comments needed to be approved in the photos section?


Also...

Maurice asked me to scale down my pics in posts. Im curious if anyone else has had to scroll to read the posts. Also if i do need to what shall i make the image width? I have been using 500 but i dont need to scroll so im really confused.

 

[tomgamber]

It has been my experience that file size is more important than picture size.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Ok so i should take the entire pic res down?

Tom do you have to scroll to read my posts when i post pics? Because as i said i dont. A few people ive talked to dont have too. Im still confused by this.

 

[jayL]

Sal,

I am on a hand sized netbook and do not have to scroll side to side.

That said, I have some middle aged and older relatives that use giant resolution because they can't see well. It's possible that there are complaints from that direction.

I recall seeing the approval for photo comments thing a while back, but I don't comment much on photos so who knows.

I don't mean to hijack, but this is a good place to ask:

Over the last few months, I have noticed that extra long links no longer hose the page. They are shown on multiple lines like normal text. Is this my browser, or is it a change to the site?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I noticed that too and i think its a site change, but what do i know

 

[tomgamber]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Ok so i should take the entire pic res down?

Tom do you have to scroll to read my posts when i post pics? Because as i said i dont. A few people ive talked to dont have too. I'm still confused by this.

when your posts w/pics begin to load they are bigger than my 20inch screen can show..as they load they are re sized and look fine. when your pic/pics are re sized your text is then also reset to fit the screen properly. (don't know if that makes sense0 but I rarely re size (pixel x pixel) any longer...I do make sure its less than 1MB though.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Ok thanks tom, thats what i have noticed also. I wonder if some people are on dial-up and they dont fully load before they give up.

From now on ill try to keep the pics smaller from the beginning.

 

[albatross]

I saw a couple robot accounts were created to post spam. The admins disabled the account and deleted the regular forum posts, but there remained spam comments on some photos. I imagine the workaround is to have all the comments require approval on photos.

 

[Maurice]

Albie is right we have close dthe open commenting to avoid such spam comments. We had some robot accounts leaving spam comments in several areas of the site and we are cleaning them up and trying to prevent them from reoccurring. I would add that like a crash on the highway that you can't look away from, these are hard to find and I wouldn't suggest looking for them, They are not that exciting anyway, just robot spam...but it was pretty significant for a short time around new years.

As for the pics, Tom is referring to uploading the photos to the site where the limit is 1mb. The photos are then thumbnailed into the post and when clicked on they enlarge. What Sal is doing, and others as well I think Squaretail does this often....is they are embedding links into the post directly to the post html and relying on the site software to "fit" them into the page width. This is where the problem comes about. Every time a new pic loads it comes in large (16 x 20) then jumps down to 5 x 7 sometimes once complete it leaves one or two large, sometimes all of them are large. If larger than the page is wide, you have to scroll to read the post. My screen resolution is 1152 x 864 Hardly at Fisher Price mode.

I would be curious to know what ST is doing to avoid this, his picture posts are clean and concise.

 

[JakesLeakyWaders]

When I plan on posting a pic, I reduce it from it's native resolution down to 400x600 2:3 ratio from 2,336x3,504. That usually brings it down between 200-500kb.

Everyones method is different I'm sure. I just use the attach file section at the bottom of the page when adding a pic.

Using the Canon Digital Photo Professional software, I first select a photo then I go to "Convert and Save", where I can change the size of the photo either by pixel or quality. I give the file a new name so when I go to add it to a post they are easy to find in my computer, also the photos that I've renamed are always at the bottom of the original folder belong to.

This being the only site I reduce the file sizes for, all of the pics I haved used for here and renamed,found at the bottom of my photo folders, all other pictures have a numeric file name.

 

[DaveKile]

Maurice is correct. We have had a significant amount of spammers jump in and make a mess of the comments. My doing and will turn it back on again. I wanted to see just what was going on with the issue.

Maurice was kind enough to go through the comments and clean up a lot of the problem. Thanks Maurice.

Dave

 

[JackM]

I would resize pictures so that the measured width is 600 pixels. If you cannot resize the hosted picture, then you can use the html coding expression to define how wide the picture displays in the message body. The form is (ignore the *):

 

[JackM]

The height does not matter:

 

[jayL]

Maurice wrote:
Albie is right we have close dthe open commenting to avoid such spam comments. We had some robot accounts leaving spam comments in several areas of the site and we are cleaning them up and trying to prevent them from reoccurring. I would add that like a crash on the highway that you can't look away from, these are hard to find and I wouldn't suggest looking for them, They are not that exciting anyway, just robot spam...but it was pretty significant for a short time around new years.

As for the pics, Tom is referring to uploading the photos to the site where the limit is 1mb. The photos are then thumbnailed into the post and when clicked on they enlarge. What Sal is doing, and others as well I think Squaretail does this often....is they are embedding links into the post directly to the post html and relying on the site software to "fit" them into the page width. This is where the problem comes about. Every time a new pic loads it comes in large (16 x 20) then jumps down to 5 x 7 sometimes once complete it leaves one or two large, sometimes all of them are large. If larger than the page is wide, you have to scroll to read the post. My screen resolution is 1152 x 864 Hardly at Fisher Price mode.

I would be curious to know what ST is doing to avoid this, his picture posts are clean and concise.

Mo,

Perhaps it's a difference in browsers. In chrome and firefox, I don't have to scroll.

Perhaps the site could add an option to "upload" from a link? I have seen other sites that do that. I don't host any photos on my own computer. I store them all on the web, so attaching to a post isn't possible unless I save and upload.