SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Images and netiquette

2133 views
15 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, October 15, 2004 10:40 AM
There is no such " theory". Anything man made is not set in stone. It is only to further one's interest.

Only God made things like mathematics and physics are worthy to be called "theory".
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:43 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lawrence Hansen

Once you give it, you can't take it away.....


Sounds good in theory, but most of us know differently? Dont we!Wink [;)]
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: North East Texas
Posted by roadkill_275 on Thursday, October 14, 2004 3:49 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by BlackWolf3945 Take 2

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lawrence Hansen

Once you give it, you can't take it away.....


Kinda like the Off-Topic Forum, Forum Games etc... right?


Fade to Black...


Big Smile [:D]Big Smile [:D]Wink [;)]Evil [}:)]
Kevin M. Bodkins "Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup" American By Birth, Southern By the Grace of God! www.milavia.com Christian Modelers For McCain
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 4:26 PM
Having just visited this site and forum after a long absence I must agree with U-96. The images are way to big and very distracting. I have never come across a site with so much junk added after the message. The only ones of interest are the group build icons and these should be half the size they are now.

Kyle
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Pominville, NY
Posted by BlackWolf3945 on Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:25 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lawrence Hansen

Once you give it, you can't take it away.....


Kinda like the Off-Topic Forum, Forum Games etc... right?


Fade to Black...
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: Rowland Heights, California
Posted by Duke Maddog on Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:58 PM
Well then I think it's time to re-edit my profile.....
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:23 AM
perhaps a forceful limitation will not be neccary, rather a nice message that asks everyone to bear this problem in mind when designing sigs for themselves ? this way a rule doesnt have to be stuffed down throats. it may become neccary to make a rule, but im just saying that an appeal might go down better and have the desired effects. and the turn off sig option is always available, but i must agree that this is indeed a relevant issue about visual clutter
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 16, 2004 2:30 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lawrence Hansen

Some sort of file size limitations (relax, nothing draconian) might be in the works for the future, but we're probably never going to elminate the option of having images in signatures. Once you give it, you can't take it away.....


That would be a good idea. Some of the sig photos are really quite large (ex. ddayp51b02.jpg which weighs in at 236 kilos) and for many people they really slow things down. I can't imagine why any attached photo should be more that around 60-80 KB at the most, and that's for an image that measures 700 pixels across. It doesn't make sense to post images that large anyway, since the forum resizes them...
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:34 AM
Some sort of file size limitations (relax, nothing draconian) might be in the works for the future, but we're probably never going to elminate the option of having images in signatures. Once you give it, you can't take it away.....
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 5:14 PM
I have to agree here with U-96 that the visual clutter in this forum is beyond anything I've ever seen, and makes for horrendously long page loading @ 115 Kb/sec. It would be a shame to shut off all images, but I might have to. (Also interesting for me is the question of cost for running a forum that needs so much bandwidth!)

Would it be a problem to limit file attachment size and signature images to a given size (say 600 pixels (longest side) max for attachments and 300 pixels (longest size) for signature images? This would help the pages from bouncing around so much while loading, and allow us to attach images without being rude. I'm also willing to help anyone who has questions about how to resize and compress their images. Write to the admin on www.petros.pl for help.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Fort Knox
Posted by Rob Gronovius on Sunday, September 12, 2004 11:16 AM
Check this thread out to see what I'm referring to. Lots of clutter without a whole lot of pertinent information:
http://www.finescale.com/fsm/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=27247
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Fort Knox
Posted by Rob Gronovius on Sunday, September 12, 2004 11:13 AM
I find that they just add clutter to the threads as well. Some hold valuable links to model related sites so I would not want to use an option that deletes everyone's signature information.

I think the group build icons are fine and a way of showing pride in FSM community involvement. I even think the League of Extrodinary Modelers icons are interesting.

But some of those same posters also list the umpteen kits they've completed and have in progress. What's that about? Some insecure need to prove to others that they actually build models versus just post about them? Some of these lists are close to a dozen kits each. That's just ridiculous.

Yeah, let me post "hey great kit!" and then have the next 20 lines be a list of kits I'm working on or have already built. Get real.
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: United Kingdom
Posted by U-96 on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 2:37 PM
thanks chaps, hadn't realised that option existed. A shame to use it, as many sigs have fun or interesting stuff in, and being a nosey so-and-so, I'm afraid I'll miss something.

But yes, it might come to the "text-only" option.

(and I'm on a T3. Not a matter of bandwidth, just visual clutter Wink [;)])

Sorry to be a sourpuss!
On the bench: 1/35 Dragon Sturmpanzer Late Recent: Academy 1/48 Bf-109D (Nov 06) Academy 1/72 A-37 (Oct 06) Revell 1/72 Merkava III (Aug 06) Italeri 1/35 T-26 (Aug 06)
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: A Spartan in the Wolverine State
Posted by rjkplasticmod on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 1:29 PM
Like Foster says, you can turn the sigs off if you want. I like them personally & I'm a dial up user, but the option is yours.

Regards, Rick
RICK At My Age, I've Seen It All, Done It All, But I Don't Remember It All...
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Pensacola, FL
Posted by Foster7155 on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 11:28 AM
U-96,

Do like I do...go into your profile and under signatures select "text only" and then update your profile. All the graphical "stuff" will no longer load or be visible. I much prefer the forums this way.

Enjoy your modeling...

Robert Foster

Pensacola Modeleers

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: United Kingdom
Images and netiquette
Posted by U-96 on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 11:00 AM
Not wanting to be a whinging old windbag but... Tongue [:P]

I can't help but notice the amount of redundant images on the forums.

Now I appreciate the importance of images to this hobby - it after all a primarily visual one - and I as much as anyone else enjoy seeing people post their models and would whole-heartedly encourage them to do so.

I also love the Group Build icons that people proudly display like badges of honour, and the image links that many post to their own clubs, interest groups etc.

However, there is also the issue of "signature" images that get included every time someone posts. Many of these are the aforementioned GB and SIG icons, fine, almost all are small GIFs and JPGs. But there are many, of whatever nature, that are HUGE! Several hundred KB! Often tagged onto a message of a few bytes like "wow! that looks great!".

Maybe we're spoiled by broadband, and fooled by the forum software that shrinks images so they look small but retain their filesize for when they are blown up. But when irrelevant sig images suck bandwidth and crowd out someone's pics of their lovingly crafted model in their own threads, I just think it's a bit, well... rude.

So I suppose my request would be, for fellow posters to be more considerate when designing their sigs. Shy [8)]

Thanks,

U-96

/rant Evil [}:)]
On the bench: 1/35 Dragon Sturmpanzer Late Recent: Academy 1/48 Bf-109D (Nov 06) Academy 1/72 A-37 (Oct 06) Revell 1/72 Merkava III (Aug 06) Italeri 1/35 T-26 (Aug 06)
JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.