Caution: Dumb question: how to post images?
Posted 09 July 2004 - 05:34 PM
Thanks for the help...
Posted 09 July 2004 - 06:03 PM
Posted 09 July 2004 - 07:20 PM
When I do a Reply are Post a new topic, all I see directly below the Post Icons section are the Add Reply and Preview Post buttons just like yourself.
Posted 09 July 2004 - 07:26 PM
Posted 09 July 2004 - 08:11 PM
Also disable any firewalls/virus protection in place and try again.
Posted 09 July 2004 - 08:18 PM
Posted 09 July 2004 - 08:23 PM
This forum is free for any/all, but I think some of the forums/features are not generally available. I will ask Marc about that when he returns from the NMRA convention next week.
Posted 09 July 2004 - 08:26 PM
I was wondering about that also. I noticed 2 that had problems were listed as "members" and didn't have access and rest of us at some point had Marc upgrade us for different forumns from purchases.
See Andre beat me buy a couple seconds
Posted 09 July 2004 - 08:38 PM
Posted 09 July 2004 - 08:42 PM
Hmm. I can't argue with someone who's giving me something for free - well, I guess I could - there are certainly enough people who do it, but I'd have a hard time bringing myself to argue with that logic.
If nothing else, I'll just refer folks to that other forum if I've got an image to share.
So far I think I've ruled out browser settings, firewall, and browser. I've tried different combinations of each, with no luck. So it may be a premium service. Life in the cheap lane, I guess.
Posted 09 July 2004 - 11:36 PM
Posted 10 July 2004 - 04:59 AM
Likewise, I can enable attachment authorization on a per-user or per-group basis just as Marc can. In addition, I have full control of how large an attachment an individual may be authorized and what kinds of attachments are allowable.
Attachments take storage, and with (some) people abusing it by posting 15 screenshots at once where one or two would suffice (I see lots of that here), controls of forum attachments to protect it are essential to thoughtful management.
Also, there are still many screenshot posters who do not understand how to control the .jpg compression options and who end up with an 800x600 .jpg of huge size. There is absolutely no excuse to have an 800x600 .jpg exceed 125K, and certainly most can be created and be perfectly clean and clear at less than 100K.
I have had people posting 600K+ screenshots in previously managed forums who became indignant and insulting when their abilities with their graphic software was challenged.
Yes. You must have Marc's permission and authorization to post photos here although anyone can post attachments in my forum--including large screen captures of up to 1600x1200 (without interfering with thread readability). Just be warned, if it's not at least a 50% .jpg compression, I'll either delete it, fix it, or remove the authorization to post attachments in my forum. And as I said elsewhere, I watch all that goes on in there. Hourly.
What I offer as software and forum access is free. No ads. I also have no paying customers and won't pussyfoot around when it comes to cleaning house.
Posted 10 July 2004 - 07:33 AM
Posted 10 July 2004 - 08:03 AM
Whereas the administrator of a forum can throttle both uploaded image size and dimension allowances, linking to an off-site image (if allowed), can really muck up a thread's readability.
Let's suppose a thread has 10 or more posts in it and all is well. Suddenly, someone jumps in the thread and adds a off-site hosted photo to be displayed in-line, that's a full 1024x768 or some size larger than 800x600. Admittedly in this circumstance file size doesn't matter to the forum host BUT IMAGE SIZE DOES!.
What happens? Well, every person trying to read the text in the thread must NOWscroll left and right across every message in the thread to read the text—even if their monitor is at the 1024x768 resolution because there is some width overhead on the left for the avatar and info and on the right for the scrollbar.
Those posting pictures into forum threads need to be aware of these things. It's not rocket science, certainly, but you would be amazed how difficult it is to manage a high-traffic forum where these things are constantly happening.
What ultimately results is that the forum, thread, (or both), become a sort of graphic school and the continuity of exchange is lost and the thread(s) drift so far off-topic people quit reading and/or participating. The screenshot forum on this board is a good example. I no longer bother with it.
Very little wonder most forum managers do not allow greenhorns attachment privileges. Don't intend to seem or sound harsh or uncaring but my forum, at least, is not a school in which to learn how to size and post images and frankly Marc's isn't either. There are other boards and forums better suited to that by design.
Posted 10 July 2004 - 08:22 AM
Posted 10 July 2004 - 08:35 AM
What I've done is to modify my forum with an attachment modification so that no matter what dimension size the user attaches, only an automatically generated thumbnail appears in the message body. When the reader hovers, they get the pointy finger and if clicked the full sized attached image launches in a new window.
This allows any user to attach any size image without fear of mucking up readability of the thread.
Unfortunately, it opens the door for all those ,jpg files uploaded by the graphic challenged who don't realize and/or don't know how to properly compress .jpg files for web resolution and I have seen attachments in the past which exceed half a Meg each! Just two of those, and I have been robbed of a Meg of storage by an inexperienced greenhorn.
And then there are those who link off-site (PhotoBucket) who can (and frequently DO) serve up a single image that renders hours of thoughtful typed responses unreadable. Those, I delete instantly and with no questions asked. As a payware purveyor, Marc is much more tolerant. Many here can be thankful I don't administer this board.
Posted 10 July 2004 - 08:43 AM
All I can reply is to recommend others run 1600x1200 res like I do--no left-right scrolling here!!
Posted 10 July 2004 - 09:38 AM
Your comments merely provided the stump. I stood on it. I don't recall any of your attachments in what I'd consider the inconsiderate/uneducated.
Please don't take my general comments personally.
Big danger of posting without sugar coating your words, I've found—being misunderstood.
But you know what? 9 out of 10 forum admins would applaud what I've said.
Posted 10 July 2004 - 10:06 AM
To me--if i can keep file size below 100k, regardles of the res, then I'm happy.
Drive space is not a concern here with 2 250gig SATA's
Have a good one man, and I'll pic up that update for the night stations whenever its ready for distribution!!