Why do we need Thumbnails in the Gallery?

[Elcid]

Hello everyone:

I've recently found that when I look at threads in the gallery section they appear as thumbnails rather than the full blown pic. Then I have to click on the thumbnail to view the pic. Then I have to close the window of the pic and click on another thumbnail to view the next pic. Maybe there is an easier way to do it? Before, I would open the thread and pic after pic would load and then I could just type a reply or just enjoy the pics. Before, I never had any issue with the pics taking a long time to load, a few seconds at most since the file size of pics on Simply are pretty small anyway. So what's the benefit of these thumbnails? I do notice that instead of several replys with pics now a single post can have multiple pics which is great but unless I'm loading 20 or 30 pics to scroll through on a single post I really don't see any point where this thumnail feature is useful for me.

JMO,
Sandeep

[brewmaster15]

Hi sandeep,
Thanks for the feedback.. Ryan can probably add to this but the basic reason we did this was Peoplehad requested that they be able to insert multiple attachments into a post.. This software allows for that and we have installed it as a ways to try and give people what they asked for.:)

It also has the benefit of being a little easier on our server..but Ryan can address that , I could be wrong in my understanding of its benefits over the previous method of attachment.


At this point we have not gotten any bad comments, only Good. I'll open this up here to see what everyone thinks..

also..else where you mentioned that you find it to be a slow process...

BTW, I REALLY HATE THE THUMBNAILS, it never took long to load the pics on my computer full size. Were others having issues? has any one else had this issue?

Thanks,
al

[jeep]

I'm not either way on it. I think it's nice to have large photos the first time a page loads, but I also like multiple photos in a single post without having to use a photo host, but I do think it would be easier and faster for people without high-speed access. I know a sponsor here with dial-up that cannot frequent Simply because all the photos can take a long time to load a page...

[Ryan]

People have complained for 2 years about not being able to attach multiple pictures at one time. So I decided to increase that number to 5 pictures per post. However, each thread shows 15 messages per page. If I didn't use thumbnails, and people posted 5 full sized pictures per message, do the math:

5 full sized pics @ 85KB max = 425KB per message
425KB x 15 messages in a thread = 6375KB...

So with multiple attachments per message, if every message contained a picture, would be over 6 megs per page in a thread. That is extremely large for people on dial-up or even things like satellite (which I use).

The options are A) Use thumbnails, or B) only post one (large) attachment per thread. You will have people that don't like thumbnails, and you'll have people that complain about only being able to post 1 attachment per message. So I'm stuck either way.

Ryan

[jaydoc]

Given the options, I prefered the old format. I am sure others will disagree. I know when there are multiple thumbnails i frequently don't take the time to open them all, which seems to defeat the purpose of having posted them. Could we consider a short poll to decide?
Cary

[LizStreithorst]

Given the options, I prefer things this way. Yea Cary, a poll's the way to go.

[tpl*co]

Hi sandeep,
Thanks for the feedback.. Ryan can probably add to this but the basic reason we did this was Peoplehad requested that they be able to insert multiple attachments into a post.. This software allows for that and we have installed it as a ways to try and give people what they asked for.:)

It also has the benefit of being a little easier on our server..but Ryan can address that , I could be wrong in my understanding of its benefits over the previous method of attachment.


At this point we have not gotten any bad comments, only Good. I'll open this up here to see what everyone thinks..

also..else where you mentioned that you find it to be a slow process...
has any one else had this issue?

Thanks,
al



I was going back to look at a "how to" on the moonlights and it only had the links to the jpg images and I had to open each one. This would be a problem if I wanted to print it out the thread to reference the instructions (the original big pictures printed out with the post which was good, now I'd have to open the pictures individually and I haven't tried what would happen if I printed those yet or if I could).

Just my imput Al

Ryan, on the "How to" posts can we have it the other way, or is it one way only thing?

Tina

[Greg Richardson]

I like the old way also. I now look at less pictures also.

Love the new look here. Did a great job on that Ryan!

And yes Ryan, anyone who is a mod or does tech changes will always be stuck in the middle.

What counts though is your desire to make things better.

No matter if people agree with decisions or not feel good that you are doing your best!

[Elcid]

Dear Al and Ryan:

Thanks for your replies. If you guyz really think that these Thumbnails are the best way to go so be it. It's just when Mario posted all those Albino beauties the devil in me couldn't wait the extra clicks! Being able to upload 5 pics per post is wonderful :) 75 pics per page, wow bring em on! :) I'm one of those guyz that used emacs as an editor for those of you remember, Ctrl F, Ctrl B, Ctrl N, Ctrl X s :)

thanks guyz,
Sandeep

[lhforbes12]

While I agree with those that prefer the "old" way, I do admit that Ryan has a point. For those with dial-up the old way must have been a nightmare.

<--------- Trying to remember what dial-up was like since we first had DSL 6 years ago and now have cable

[traco]

I also preferred the old way where you could look at all the pictures in the thread instead of clicking on each photo. But I used Photobucket and would post multiple pics to a thread.

[Greg Richardson]

Larry.
While I agree with those that prefer the "old" way, I do admit that Ryan has a point. For those with dial-up the old way must have been a nightmare.


Few more thoughts...........

I remember dialup, and yes you had to wait a while for the page to load.
But you had to do that every where you went just not here.
I remember it well.

Imo though the majority here do not have dial up.

If I'm right, and I sure do believe I am, it seems to me it should work the old way for the majority.

Another perspective is talking about load up time with dialup what about the time clicking off each picture you want to view?

And for some like myself with more than one monitor those pictures coming up on a screen you don't want them on.

[Ryan]

We will take a vote. The poll will run for 1 week. You may only vote once.

http://forum.simplydiscus.com//general-discus-discussion/53645-vote-picture-display-options.html

[Darren's Discus]

I love spending time on simplydiscus and i cant believe it could be a hassle for anyone to click on individual pics to increase there size,i hate waiting in line at the bank,i hate waiting in line for the doctor.but geez people a couple of seconds for a pic ! al and ryan great job love this site.

[t_j]

I didn't know where to put this so I'm putting it here. I have DSL or High Speed and when I click on a thumbnail some times it takes awhile for the picture or it won't show up and I have to reopen it. Is this suppose to happen or is it just certain pictures?