Forum Members, Please be considerate when using photos with your signature......

[AntonioFP45]

I don't know how much memory the large photos used, but I notice the "slow loading" with photos that are large squares or are tall, like the one just above this post. As mentioned, hopefully the slow dial ups will become a thing of the past as the price of faster internet services continues to drop. This photo size issue would become moot.

I should have my Net Zero 3G "Broad Band" service within the next few days. From what a friend told me, even though it's dial-up I will notice a big improvement in download speeds.

But again, this thread is a courteous request and not a "slam-boom" mandate.

Thanks again, fellas!

[wctransfer]

Well, wait wouldnt it load faster if you just turned off seeing our sigs? I mean, they can be small, but it will still take a little bit longer to load. You can barely see any detail in my pic right now. I guess ill see what i can do.

Alec

[joeyegarner]

A silmple solution is to change the file type of your photo, take some time look in to it it could help everyone and it's not a lot of trouble. I am at work now so I can't tell you what program I used it's on my comp at home. But it's no more complex than loading a pic and changing the file type and resaving,

[AntonioFP45]

Guys,

Thanks to those of you that shrank your photos. It does help those of us with the slower connections. I've noticed the difference today as I clicked open various threads. [:D]

There are still a couple of "signatures with huge"photos, but again, it's the member's choice.[8)]

Peace! [:)][:D]

[Javern]

I have to say thanks to everyone for keeping this post positive, when i first saw the subject and number of replies I thought there would be some fightin!

[cnw4001]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark R.

I just went to my update profile page and modified it under the section regarding viewing posts. I selected the text only box, and presto - no more signature pix !!! ( sorry, no offence guys, it was just taking too long to load sometimes). Now the threads come up MUCH quicker.

Mark.

Thanks for the tip, I too now read "picture free."

Dale

[railroadyoshi]

tommyr, your photos total about 160K, which is still a bit too far up. Resizing them would be helpful. You can always check how much space the picture uses by right-clicking the picture and selecting properties if you are on a PC. Total picture space under 100K is reasonable, but under 50K is preferable.
Rotor, your pictures are fine!. They don't need to be resized at the moment

[Anonymous]

I haven't read this thread in it's entirety yet, but agree 100% that far too many people misuse (however innocently) the ability to post images with replies. I can understand someone wanting to post a small photo of himself or herself for identification purposes, but anything beyond that is just a time-consuming, space-grabbing, slow-loading waste.

One of the "rules" of web page design is that you intentionally design for the slowest, smallest-screen computer. In other words, you first consider the end user--the recipient of your message--and not your own interests.

Many discussion forums place restrictions on image posting and provide separate areas or albums for image posting. I personally feel that is a very good thing because it leaves the discussion forum open for its primary purpose: discussions.

I'm sure many folks like to show off their capability with a digital camera and they like to demonstrate their cleverness in designing logos for their railroad, etc., but the truth is that this sort of thing temds to limit the ability of some--perhaps many--people to read and learn from a forum in a timely and enjoyable manner. It really would be nice if folks would be considerate of others in this regard.

[rolleiman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Rotorranch

OK...I plead ignorance....I have NO IDEA how to resize my pics! ( OK, I admit it...I'm a computer dummy! I lived for over 40 years without one, and have no idea what I'm doing with one! )

Is it the actual area of the pic, or what that I need to change? How do I do it?

If someone can fix my pics for me, I'll gladly change them!

Rotor

Your sig photos are fine, less than 80k total.. To resize photos in general here's a nice simple freebie...

http://picasa.google.com/index.html

Jeff
[swg]

[Rotorranch]

OK...I plead ignorance....I have NO IDEA how to resize my pics! ( OK, I admit it...I'm a computer dummy! I lived for over 40 years without one, and have no idea what I'm doing with one! )

Is it the actual area of the pic, or what that I need to change? How do I do it?

If someone can fix my pics for me, I'll gladly change them!

Rotor

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

Telling Members to turn off the view pictures and view avatars is blaming the victim. Its like telling a person bothered by an inconsiderate neighbors loud stereo at 2:00 AM that it's their problem and earplugs are the solution.

I want to see the pictures.

I think a better analogy is this: Blaming members with large signature pictures for someone's long load time is like blaming the airport for noise around your house, when you went and buit your house under the already-existing runway approaches. They're a victim of their slow internet connection, not of the other members of the forum. Until a couple of months ago I had dial-up, and I just tolerated the slow loads. It was my problem, and it never even occurred to me to blame members with large signature photos.

Still, in the interest of good neighborliness, limiting the size of the signature photo is a considerate thing to do (mine is about 29k right now).

You are mistaken.

Posting large photos in a thread or signature is due to ingnorance (excusable), lazyness (inexcusable) or lack of consideration for others (inexcusable). They serve no usefull purpose. High resolution is not needed for viewing on a computer monitor.

If there is some reason for a large photo it should be offered as a link. A smaller version could be posted in the thread to show what the picture is.

Thankyou to those who have downsized their photos.

[modelmaker51]

I resized my avatar.

[Darth Santa Fe]

Antonio, I know what you mean with all these huge pictures. I have DSL, and it still takes a long time to load and get through a page with a lot of huge pictures. I try to keep my signature small so you can get by easily.[:D][:D]

[Mark R.]

I just went to my update profile page and modified it under the section regarding viewing posts. I selected the text only box, and presto - no more signature pix !!! ( sorry, no offence guys, it was just taking too long to load sometimes). Now the threads come up MUCH quicker.

Mark.

[TrainFreak409]

I used to have a dial-up modem, running at only 26.6kbps, so it took forever...But now I have cable, and size isn't really a problem. I know how y'all feel though, The Coffee Shop used to crash my iMac....

I limit myself to one picture, and they shouldn't be that big at all. I used to have three pictures at one point though.[:0]

[MAbruce]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AntonioFP45
I'm now looking at getting Broad Band from NetZero, which is supposedly faster than standard dial-up. (Any of you all know anything about Broad Band?)

That's a cable company offering around here. I hear it's good, but my cable company (Comcast) has yet to make me an attractive offer for it. In fact, with what I pay for cable already, they should be throwing it in for a couple of bucks more a month!!!!

Yeah, like that will ever happen. [(-D]

[AntonioFP45]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MAbruce
They're a victim of their slow internet connection, not of the other members of the forum. Until a couple of months ago I had dial-up, and I just tolerated the slow loads. It was my problem, and it never even occurred to me to blame members with large signature photos.

- I do agree that for those of us with dial-up web service, it is our problem. In many cases it's either the costs or availability that keeps us from getting higher speed service.

QUOTE: It's as simple as some people either can’t afford high speed Internet connections, or it’s just not available to them.

---------A Verizon rep told me that high speed isn't available in my area but "may be" in the future. I'm now looking at getting Broad Band from NetZero, which is supposedly faster than standard dial-up. (Any of you all know anything about Broad Band?)

QUOTE: We all simply need to be more accommodating to everyone.

--- That's all I've requested guys, not demanded. I don't believe in ramming ideas down people's throats. If Forum members wi***o keep their large photos, than that is their choice. Still, I felt it was important to point out that It makes it harder on Dial-Up members. Spare "relaxation time" for working adults and busy teens is harder to come by these days.

QUOTE: I've noticed this issue on dial-up at home too. I think the forum admins need to find a way to build in file size restrictions on all pics. Any pic over a certain file size should not be allowed to load. That should resolve the issue once and for all.

-- That's pretty reasonable. I do like looking at some of the cool photos that members have. With a size / memory standard this issue would quickly become moot.

[tommyr]

I have resized my pics. Are they OK now ?

[cwclark]

I totally agree with tony....I too have dial up and it's really slow and large pictures make it too slow for some of us to navigate in a timely manner... that's why i have such a small signature icon....chuck

[Anonymous]

So far, I don't post pictures on the internet anywhere so I can't link to them from the forum. We do not subscribe to cable at our house and Comcast won't put in a cable internet connection unless you take the TV package. SBC has not yet seen fit to make DSL available at our location. A couple of blocks either way it's there, but not at our house so dial up it is. However; at my office, which is in a non Comcast service area, I have RoadRunner cable modem. Since I work for myself I can check out the internet and the fourms on the slower days and man oh man, do I love broadband. As soon as SBC makes it available at home it's in! There are posts that I don't even notice loading time on here at the office that seem to take forever at home so I think this discussion is very productive.
Would you believe it? Where DSL is available here it's only $14.95 per month. Most dial up costs more than that.

[rolleiman]

It's nice to ask for the consideration and even nicer that some people give it. But threads like this are generally a wasted exercise.. There are always those that say something to the effect of "since I'm paying for high speed, to [censored] with the rest of you". It isn't always a case of affordability or availabilitiy.. Sometimes it's a case of better things to do with the money, like buy trains... In a couple days, this thread will be dead, and the promised consideration will be gone. Doubt me?? Watch this weekends photofun. I've seen this too many times to believe otherwise.

Jeff

[Train 284]

I keep mine at a good size without ruining the photo. Even though I have high spped DSL, when looking at Weekend Photo Fun, it still take a few minutes to load, depending on how many photos are on the thread.

[Pruitt]

If you right-click on the photo in your signature (at least in IE on a PC; on a Mac you can't right click, of course), a memu pops up. Click on properties at the botton, and it will tell you the size of the image.

[oleirish]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Eddie Landreth

QUOTE: Originally posted by oleirish

O(k give us a size to shoot for,I think this has been on here before,and we will try and keep things small,but to small and and they can't be seen,by the way how is the size on mine?????

JIM

Yours are 7k and 78k....just right!

[:D]Thanks Eddie,by the way you have an outstanding model railroad[^]Keep up the great work
JIM[:)]

[maandg]

My apologies, gentlemen. I never thought about the size of the image I have been using. I'm actually a considerate person - I always place my shopping cart in one of the designated return stalls instead of just leaving it in a parking space when I'm through with it. I have reduced the size of my image to 31.85K which is within the suggested range of the group. I have also taken this opportunity to change the image itself to a different one (I was ready for a change myself).

If this new image still causes anyone problems, please let me know and I will either further reduce the file size or remove it completely.

Hope this helps!!

[joeyegarner]

Good point, I really like alot of the pics but some are just too big. US guys with the slow connection have a heck of a time loading the images. Thank you. Joey

[MAbruce]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

Telling Members to turn off the view pictures and view avatars is blaming the victim. Its like telling a person bothered by an inconsiderate neighbors loud stereo at 2:00 AM that it's their problem and earplugs are the solution.

I want to see the pictures.

I think a better analogy is this: Blaming members with large signature pictures for someone's long load time is like blaming the airport for noise around your house, when you went and buit your house under the already-existing runway approaches. They're a victim of their slow internet connection, not of the other members of the forum. Until a couple of months ago I had dial-up, and I just tolerated the slow loads. It was my problem, and it never even occurred to me to blame members with large signature photos.

I think both are weak examples. It's as simple as some people either can’t afford high speed Internet connections, or it’s just not available to them. We all simply need to be more accommodating to everyone.

I've noticed this issue on dial-up at home too. I think the forum admins need to find a way to build in file size restrictions on all pics. Any pic over a certain file size should not be allowed to load. That should resolve the issue once and for all.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

Telling Members to turn off the view pictures and view avatars is blaming the victim. Its like telling a person bothered by an inconsiderate neighbors loud stereo at 2:00 AM that it's their problem and earplugs are the solution.

I want to see the pictures.

I think a better analogy is this: Blaming members with large signature pictures for someone's long load time is like blaming the airport for noise around your house, when you went and buit your house under the already-existing runway approaches. They're a victim of their slow internet connection, not of the other members of the forum. Until a couple of months ago I had dial-up, and I just tolerated the slow loads. It was my problem, and it never even occurred to me to blame members with large signature photos.

Still, in the interest of good neighborliness, limiting the size of the signature photo is a considerate thing to do (mine is about 29k right now).

[DSchmitt]

Telling Members to turn off the view pictures and view avatars is blaming the victim. Its like telling a person bothered by an inconsiderate neighbors loud stereo at 2:00 AM that it's their problem and earplugs are the solution.

I want to see the pictures.