60 replies to this topic

[SeV]

Hmmm.. I wonder if I can edity YOUR post, SeV!

I supposed it would be, "Good idea, Ryu" and than listed ideas and such.

[Soul_Slayer]

I'm on a DSL connection, and it only takes about 10 seconds at the most to load the pages the way they are now, but I can understand the problems Dial-up users face, so I think that the 3 MAX img tags, and the rest as either links or thumbnails is the way to go.

You must have the world's fastest DSL. Perhaps you should sell stock in it?

I'm on a 1Mbps (rated) cable connection. I decided to test actual page loading. So, I clicked on a page of the screenshot thread at random - page 2: 167 images, totalling ~37MB. Took just about 90 seconds total to load the load the page. I suspect on DSL it should take at least that long (up to four times as long if it's a 256kbps connection).

Guess I should have tested a full page, the page you mentioned took me 85 seconds to load, guess I was a little off.

[sanityCheck]

Just wanted to chime in. I do believe that the screenshots thread is getting really hard to view quickly. I don't think limiting it to 5 shots per post will solve the problem, but I don't think leaving it be as a solution. There's probably a way out there for people to display their shots without having to provide a link, but right now I think that's the best choice.

[lemonio]

i voted dont care, because it does not matter to me, but i had a terrible temptation to vote for "hells yea" just because it sounded so funny.

[jackmix69]

No

[Zombie216]

wow im happy, this is a good thread, i thought it was gonna die away

[kalia]

Yeah, I'm really glad you set this poll up, Zombie216! It seems the consensus in the replies, if perhaps not so overwhelming in the poll numbers, is that a limit on the img-tags would be desirable.

[kalia]

I'm still against this idea.

I think we need to merge comments and picture thread back together. I understand why we seperated it to make the thread a little less fast-paced. But the picture thread lasted WAY to long for me, please let us re-merge them folks?

Yes, we already have a topic about this. Please visit it.

To reply to Hector's comment in the comments thread, I'm quoting & unavoidably double-posting here.

I kinda agree. Even with 2 shots/post, pages load very slowly when they're all pics, even at times for little ol' broadband internet access me! Just look at the Possibles thread - most are 2 pics/post (though some have gone beyond that - you know who you are! )

However, with a merged thread, you have some posts of pictures and some posts of just comments & general chitchat. I think it's possible that *more* pictures are being overlooked in the split threads than were before, just because of long loading times & people kind of giving up.

[Hector the Hooded]

Excatly.

Strong in the force you are, MC Catcheen.

[Spike4072]

The only problem I have is that there are over two times the number of comments as screenshot posts

[Hector the Hooded]

I'd rather have that than super-slow loading and peoples pictures sorta being washed over .

[SeV]

The only problem I have is that there are over two times the number of comments as screenshot posts

yes... but that's gonna happen regardless, whether it's in one post or two posts...

[Spike4072]

The only problem I have is that there are over two times the number of comments as screenshot posts

yes... but that's gonna happen regardless, whether it's in one post or two posts...

Yes but it isnt a problem when they are separate threads.

[SeV]

ah ok, that's an argument for keeping two threads, I get it

[kalia]

This thread - http://www.shsforums...p...26785&st=40.

I think MC Catcheen's last post said all of my opinions pretty much.

If you're referring to Kalia-bear's thread, she said that she thinks people's images might be overlooked because of slower loading times. This method of 2-3 pics and the rest links cuts down these loading times.

Yep, he's decided that's a good nickname for me. It refers to my more "street" alter ego.

Thing is, SeV, I'm not sure it really cuts down the loading times. I clicked on the last page of the possibles thread - which is all screenshots, but not more than two per post, and it still took quite a while for the thread to load completely & get all the shots into their little tagged boxes. I would've thought it would make a really big difference, but it doesn't seem to. Perhaps if all the tagged shots were attached here, rather than having to load from a remote site, that would be faster? I haven't really been able to effectively test that.

The only problem I have is that there are over two times the number of comments as screenshot posts

If it's only over two times, and not over 5 times, I think we're doing good! That is a valid point. It can become too much towards conversation and have barely any screenshots/page. But with at least one shot img-tagged per post, it's really easy, at least for me, to scan through the conversation & catch up on screenshots I've not yet seen.

Anywho, that's just my two cents. Just think it's a good idea to keep the discussion going, as apparently we haven't quite gotten the thing sorted out yet. Kind of like settling in on the couch for a good long session of doing nothing - you have to get the pillows/cushions/blankets just *so*. I'm sure it's never going to be exactly perfect for every person - but it just doesn't quite feel like we've carved out the right butt-mark in the sofa yet.

[SeV]

well.. what are our options:

1. we keep it like this

2. we merge the threads again with full pics

3. we merge the threads again with 3 pics and the rest links

4. we merge the threads again with all links

[Chiglet]

<snip>
Thing is, SeV, I'm not sure it really cuts down the loading times. I clicked on the last page of the possibles thread - which is all screenshots, but not more than two per post, and it still took quite a while for the thread to load completely & get all the shots into their little tagged boxes. I would've thought it would make a really big difference, but it doesn't seem to. Perhaps if all the tagged shots were attached here, rather than having to load from a remote site, that would be faster? I haven't really been able to effectively test that.

The only problem I have is that there are over two times the number of comments as screenshot posts

If it's only over two times, and not over 5 times, I think we're doing good! That is a valid point. It can become too much towards conversation and have barely any screenshots/page. But with at least one shot img-tagged per post, it's really easy, at least for me, to scan through the conversation & catch up on screenshots I've not yet seen.

Anywho, that's just my two cents. Just think it's a good idea to keep the discussion going, as apparently we haven't quite gotten the thing sorted out yet. Kind of like settling in on the couch for a good long session of doing nothing - you have to get the pillows/cushions/blankets just *so*. I'm sure it's never going to be exactly perfect for every person - but it just doesn't quite feel like we've carved out the right butt-mark in the sofa yet.

Most of the time I just do a refresh to get all the new pics and stuff, which, of course, reloads the page. This morning, it took just as long as before the three full and rest links/thumbnails for the poage I was on to reload. The slow facter for me (cable connection) has never been the number pf pics per page, but the final item loading to the page. No idea what that item is, but it normally takes between 1 min30 sec, to a couple times nearly 10 minutes to finally load. I finally took to either going back to the previous page (if on at least p2 of the thread) and then forward again, or just scrolling through and looking at the oversized pics as I can.
Personally, I like the pics and comments threads being separate. Can't tell you how many times I've gone to work, and come back home to find that 2 threads (sometimes more) had passed by. Due to bad vision, I tend to click on even the large sized pics in the thread to really be able to see them. I HAVE to open thumbnails just to see what's there. And (apologies to those who like just numbering their pics), thread 7 was the first time I've bothered opening more than one number-named link per person's post. If the separated threads seem to be going too slowly now, maybe (as I think SeV suggested) we can shorten the number of posts per thread. Personally, I didn't mind the legnth of time it took. Gave me time to really pore over people's pics.

well.. what are our options:

1. we keep it like this

2. we merge the threads again with full pics

3. we merge the threads again with 3 pics and the rest links

4. we merge the threads again with all links

My choice would be 1 preferred, second choice would be 2.

Chiglet (sticking her nose in places again)

[Zombie216]

3

[CapsAdmin]

If it takes a long time to load each page, I think you should decrease the ammount of posts per page.

[Soul_Slayer]

If it takes a long time to load each page, I think you should decrease the ammount of posts per page.

You can change how many posts are displayed per page in your profile.