Suggestion SB Setting Limits

[Ted S]

PM size/ count limits, Photo size limits, Avatar size limits, etc...

Do any of our settings interfere with what you want to do here? Are you running out of PM space? Do you want larger avatars? More IMG code? I can't promise changes but it's good to know how well the limits are working for you!

 

[Walter]

Jeff,

I know you were. I also know you are no longer part of the management team, so I wouldn't expect you to still be working on it. It's good to hear you are still looking for a solution.

 

[Spectre]

I wouldn't expect you to still be working on it. It's good to hear you are still looking for a solution.

Same software, same issues, same annoyances over on TDS. I can't say if it wasn't something I wanted as well I would share it, but I could probably say if it wasn't something I wanted, I wouldn't have continued to try and fix it... since it's a pain

 

[sapphire]

Ditto on the Buddy List functioning, and the larger size for profile photos - it's nice to be able to have more than one but it didn't look good in the smaller format. A lesser amount of PM space is OK too... thanks for asking for the input and thanks for all of the work it takes to "fine tune". We appreciate it!

 

[sapphire]

It would be nice to be able to post photos in other forums that Underwater Photography... I am thinking for trip reports that go in the section for that area of the world. I got around it by posting a link to the photos, but it seemed cumbersome. I don't have a web-hosting site...

 

[Spectre]

It would be nice to be able to post photos in other forums that Underwater Photography... I am thinking for trip reports that go in the section for that area of the world. I got around it by posting a link to the photos, but it seemed cumbersome. I don't have a web-hosting site...

How exactly do you mean? Unless things have changed [I've not been in the UW Photo section for a while], posting images was done exactly the same as posting a link to an image, but the IMG tag displayed the image rather than the HTML tag just posting the link. You'd still need an outside location for the photo...Or... the Photo Gallery [if it's up and running now].

Wouldn't putting attachments in more suit what you are describing? You can attach images to most [if not all] forums, and that actually uploads them onto the server and doesn't require you to have an offsite location to serve the photos from. A nice feature with the new software is you not only get to post more than one attachment, it gives a thumbnail so that you can get an idea of what the picture is to help know if you want to open it.

The posting of photos being limited to the UW photo section is nice in that those that it greatly affects can know to avoid that forum. After loosing a whole easter weekend a few years back due to a work emergency, I will forever be compassionate for those on dialup [what would have taken me a couple hours took over 20 across a 300 baud modem]. The thumbnails are quite a bit smaller, and give the nice feature of they don't have to open the whole attachment to see if they really wanted to wait to open it

Was there something else you were thinking of and I'm misunderstanding?

 

[sapphire]

How exactly do you mean? Unless things have changed [I've not been in the UW Photo section for a while], posting images was done exactly the same as posting a link to an image, but the IMG tag displayed the image rather than the HTML tag just posting the link. You'd still need an outside location for the photo...Or... the Photo Gallery [if it's up and running now].

That was the problem, Jeff. I don't have an outside location for the photo, and the Photo Gallery is still not up (to the best of my knowledge)

Wouldn't putting attachments in more suit what you are describing? You can attach images to most [if not all] forums, and that actually uploads them onto the server and doesn't require you to have an offsite location to serve the photos from. A nice feature with the new software is you not only get to post more than one attachment, it gives a thumbnail so that you can get an idea of what the picture is to help know if you want to open it.

Maybe this is what I didn't understand with the new software. I thought attachments still had to be posted on the web somewhere. If not, that would solve the problem very nicely.

The posting of photos being limited to the UW photo section is nice in that those that it greatly affects can know to avoid that forum. After loosing a whole easter weekend a few years back due to a work emergency, I will forever be compassionate for those on dialup [what would have taken me a couple hours took over 20 across a 300 baud modem]. The thumbnails are quite a bit smaller, and give the nice feature of they don't have to open the whole attachment to see if they really wanted to wait to open it

I agree - as a dial up user at home there have been some posts I have had to avoid...

Was there something else you were thinking of and I'm misunderstanding?

Thanks for responding, Jeff. It's obviously just me that doesn't understand. I will try the "attachments" thing next time, if that truly doesn't have to be on a hosted site out on the web somewhere...

I love learning things :biggrin:!

jennifer

 

[Ted S]

I got no problem with the PM counts. I believe it's higher than it had been in the past. I would like the profile picture size to be increased back to the limits it was pre-upgrade.

I believe it should now be higher than it was before the limits, but that just changed a day or so ago.

 

[Spectre]

Maybe this is what I didn't understand with the new software. I thought attachments still had to be posted on the web somewhere. If not, that would solve the problem very nicely.

Nope. You'll have two choices, one where you can give it a URL to go get the image from [I think that still exists], or the other option is to give a file location [with a browse button].

Of course it would be helpful to save lower quality and smaller jpgs for posting on the web, than to actually try and attach an original digital photo. I tend to use photoshop and 'save for web' making the images somewhere in the 300x400 range. It'll make it easier on those viewing it, the server load, and since your on dial-up, you're own uploading will be easier as well.

 

[sapphire]

Nope. You'll have two choices, one where you can give it a URL to go get the image from [I think that still exists], or the other option is to give a file location [with a browse button].

Of course it would be helpful to save lower quality and smaller jpgs for posting on the web, than to actually try and attach an original digital photo. I tend to use photoshop and 'save for web' making the images somewhere in the 300x400 range. It'll make it easier on those viewing it, the server load, and since your on dial-up, you're own uploading will be easier as well.

Thanks, Jeff. I will try that next time. And I will be sure to resize my gigantic 15 MB photos, LOL! I am learning a little Photoshop and need the practice

 

[DandyDon]

Ditto on the Buddy List functioning, and the larger size for profile photos - it's nice to be able to have more than one but it didn't look good in the smaller format. A lesser amount of PM space is OK too... thanks for asking for the input and thanks for all of the work it takes to "fine tune". We appreciate it!

Yep on those two. Can't find a way to use th ecurrent bubbdy list, and many members aren't posting photos because they can't get their's small enough. I had to email mine to a member who knows how to reduce these, and let him email it back to me.

thansk, don