Posting Too Many Photos!!!!
deb22
Registered Users Posts: 428 Major grins
I happen to live in the country,GREAT RIGHT? Well not really I only have access to dial up like many who live outside the boundries. When I go to view a thread and see some one has uploaded 6 to8 pics I know I could go make coffee and a snack waiting for it to show up,so I just stop the page and return to main.I don't mind waiting for 2 or 3 photos but why the need to show your whole gallery if not for free advertising? I think a limit on amounts would be nice even if you are a fantastic photographer. You can post a few daily or weekly and keep my interest or I just punch to go to your gallery If I wish to see more. This really is not a rant I don't mind toooo much if you put in 30 pics I would just skip it like anyone with slow internet does so if your intention was to gain exposure it's not working doing it that way. Does anyone feel like me or do you think I need to move to the city and SHUT UP!!!:dunno
COUNTRY ROADS ARE NATURES HIGHWAY. http://dafontainewildlife.com
0
Comments
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Have you looked at Galaxy Broadband?
I understand your frustration....but, this is really your problem and not the community here.
Oddly enough, I asked something similar in the Street forum a couple of days ago. Why don't we use galleries more often? Plus I think it's unfair to say it's our problem and not the community's. We are part of the community and want to participate as much as anyone else. There are many members here on DGrin that live in the countryside, or in other countries that might not have as fast internet access as many in the US.
I'm not suggesting that there be a limit on the number of images in a post, I'm just genuinely curious why people don't make more active use of Smugmug or other galleries when there are a lot of images they want to share.
BUT what still gets me is when someone says things like "here are a couple" and then they post way more than a couple within that individual post!
Jane B.
Makes complete sense to me, Richard.:D
I too, find many images in a post irritating and respond to them less.
But complaining isn't going to get you more bandwidth...now is it!?
The plugin provides a toggle button so you can download them if you want to.
That would be silly.
I don't think anyone is begrudging images loading. The question is: What is good etiquette in terms of posting large numbers of images in a single entry. I think this also goes to the OP's intent in posting in the first place. I would hope there is a specific objective or request associated with large groups of images. If it's about notifying the community of a new series, some number of anchor images with a link to a gallery might be a better option.
I too think it is a matter of what is good etiquette in terms of posting large numbers of images in a single entry; especially if the person says "a couple" and it then includes many more.
Jane B.
If you're at the other end of a dial-up connection and you want to read a thread without loading 10 images, it's not silly. It is an option that allows the end user the ability to visit a thread and make a decision to download the images in a thread or not. The OP clearly has an issue with down-loading large numbers of images and often stops the page load without bothering with the thread--how valuable is that?
As far as etiquette goes, use however many images you need to to tell a story. The Journeys thread is a good example of this. Should I ask users there to post one or two images and link to their gallery? Or in the sports forum, to leave out a sequence of images? It's really up to the poster to decide how many.
As for linking, many folks that have more than one or two images to share, like those sports folks who shoot a competition, already link to a gallery when it's appropriate.
No need for a plugin. You can turn off images by going to You!->Options->Thread Display Options, and uncheck display images; you will get clickable links instead.
But as Michswiss said, that would be kind of silly for most of us. What might be nice for people with very slow connections would be to see small previews first and then decide whether they want to see larger versions. Don't know whether we'll be seeing this possibility in our future vBulletin upgrade.
I'd image those with bandwidth limited accounts may not want to drop a gallery URL and potentially burn a good portion of their allocation (this happens already for folks that post popular threads--I haven't seen it on dgrin as often but on it's sister site, advrider.com, it does happen).
It's a nice feature I wish we had today.
My pet peve (sp?) is when they say things like "here are a couple of mine" and then instead of the expected small post it goes on and on with image after image in the same post.
Jane B.
I have long dreamed of a way to get the text of a post to fit on my screen without scrolling from left to right (over and over in order to read each line at a comfortable size) even if I am going to have to in order to see someone's very large photo or pano.
Jane B.
I fairly recently posted a series where I noted that there were 10 images in the post. I then linked to the other 25 in a gallery. I really do appreciate that there are some sets that need more than a couple of images to get the point across and I'm not suggesting that people constrain themselves to two to three images and then link to another place. All I'm suggesting is some sensitivity and constructive thinking about intent and objective.
Thanks for also pointing out site traffic as another bandwidth issue.
Now, that, sounds good!
I suppose the folks running the forum determine the "appropriate" size? Would be nice if it were user selectable.
I don't know what you call it...but I love that effect where you click on an image and it becomes larger while graying out the rest of the page and providing forward and backward arrows to navigate multiple images.
Other Gear: Olympus E-PL1, Pan 20 1.7, Fuji 3D Camera, Lensbaby 2.0, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Alien Bees lighting, CyberSyncs, Domke, HONL, FlipIt.
~ Gear Pictures
Sometimes, quoting one image is desirable if your comments pertain to it and the thread is a couple of pages long. In general though, a complete quote with a comment like "nice set" should have the quote removed.
…and what I find to be especially annoying is to have the multi-image post quoted (with pics as well), even for a "Me Too!!!" or "+1", so the whole darned thing has to be re-loaded each time!!!
Fer gawd sake, if there's more than one picture, post links !
Aaaaaaarrrrrgggghhhh!
- Wil
I do disagree with this. What I would like to see is more people quote just the photo(s) that they are referring to in their own post rather than the complete series that was posted by the OP. On the other hand I am not that happy with scrolling up to find the photo referred to when none are quoted!
Also, what I was trying to say earlier (post #16) please make accurate reference when saying how many you are going to be posting. In other words, don't say "a couple" when it is going to be, say 6 or 7.
Jane B.
Just a point of clarification. Quoted images are not downloaded to your browser again. Instead, they come straight from your browser's cache, so they are effectively free. The only downside to them is that you have to scroll past them to get to the next post.
Link to my Smugmug site
Yes, this is normal behavior, it's just annoying to do all the scrolling. I prefer the photos to be numbered and the replies to respond to the number. I don't like the super long quotes.
Now if it's a 67 page post and the image is on page 19 then a quoted image would be more appropriate. But those are rare situations.
Other Gear: Olympus E-PL1, Pan 20 1.7, Fuji 3D Camera, Lensbaby 2.0, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Alien Bees lighting, CyberSyncs, Domke, HONL, FlipIt.
~ Gear Pictures
Hey hey!
I just noticed your post, and noticed you're from Alberta. Well probably, the 2 links in your signature are Alberta branded, so I figured I'd put in my 2 cents. I'm in the boonies in AB right now, living roughly 100km from Edmonton. The only thing we had (key word "had") was Dial-up. I now have xpornet, which is smokin fast wireless. You may want to give them a shot, I know they even have gear for people way out in the bush!
Nick
Ummm .. that's xPLORnet with an "L"
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
No, Deb, I think your point is valid. Maybe there should be another etiquette quideline in the site rules that says one should limit image posting to 4, tops, or just post the links. Too much of that could be spammy.
Jane,
I think one should say "a couple" and just post 2-3 images. That, to me, is good etiquette because 1) it keeps loading time short, 2) it doesn't overwhelm the viewer, and 3) is consistent with the behavior of the majority of posters.
I post images both to share and to gain exposure, like most everyone else. If the couple of images I posted sparked enough interest, they can click on the gallery link so they can see the rest. I think it's a win-win situation for poster and viewer.
Art