An experience I had yesterday and today made me realize that TalkBoard should revise its decision to allow photos to be embedded and include a maximum size for each.

I had started this thread on trip reports and at one point, I was asked by one poster to include some photos.

I did, but the photo was much too large. In order to see the entire photo you would have had to scroll both up and down and also left to right.

This not only impacted the one post on which the photo appeared but made loading the entire page difficult for anyone wanting to read it.

I went to Technical Issues to ask how I (or FT) could fix the problem and was informed by FlyinHawaiian that the moderators have been concerned with this problem but were told that the only plug-in which would automatically reduce the size of pictures would degrade the site's performance.

I don't doubt what he said, but KVS came up with a solution which was so simple that even the most technically-challenged person (which is undoubtedly me) can implement it.

The main difference between what KVS suggested and what FlyinHawaiian was talking about is that KVS's method puts the burden on the poster, not on FlyerTalk -- and hence there is no degradation of the site.

To this end, I would like to suggest that TB amend its original decision to limit photos to a size in which they can be seen entirely without any scrolling.

This limit might be able to be enforced technologically (with the software automatically rejecting any picture which exceeds the limits) or by the moderators (who could remove the pictures and send a PM to the poster giving the advice which KVS gave to me).

There are a couple problems with this that make it very difficult to deal with from an administrative perspective, not the least of which is what is the correct maximum size? There are lots of different screen sizes out there. And the plugin that would resize the images on the server side is much more likely to break the site than help it.

The solution that KVS provided is what we've been having people do to deal with the problem. If there are images that are unduly large (and they are RBP'd) moderators will remove them to protect the layout/loading of FlyerTalk.

Here's the question...why change the policy rather than just resize your images when you're posting them? Having images in the fora adds great value to the site, IMO. Revoking that would be a bad thing.

I may have made myself unclear. I am not suggesting that TB revoke the right to have pictures.

I believe, however, that many users -- like myself until this problem came up -- have no idea of how to reduce an overly-large picture. Indeed, they may not even know that it is possible.

I think the evidence of this is the reply that I got from FlyinHawaiian -- that the moderators are aware of the problem.

So what I am suggesting is that TB establish the maximum size permitted (and I don't believe that depends on the screen size -- it would simply have to appear in the space which FTer sees a post without scrolling). Then, if someone tries posting something which is too large he would either (if technically possible) have it rejected or else the mods would remove it and send him a PM with KVS's suggestion.

So far, this hasn't been a prevalent on-going challenge. If it continues to be amongst many users in many forums, then it may be worth revisiting.

If the mods have spoken to the tech people about it, and the tech people have spent time and effort trying to find a solution, I have to assume that it is an on-going problem.

Speaking for myself, it's a "problem" but not a pressing one. I'd catagorize it as something that would be nice to have and not something that requires immediate and priority attention. I think a working search engine would be something I'd want the techies to work on before addressing image size.

I haven't found image size to be a serious issue in any of the forums I help moderate but I am glad this was investigated as a proactive step to help posters such as yourself who, though no fault of their own, inadvertantly post a large image. In my perfect world, users should could post acceptable images without the need for any aditional steps on their part to resize it. As you can see from my other response, as much as I enjoy helping other members, I can't resize an image for a member, so the onus is on the poster.

Precisely -- and absent a plug in from FT (which is apparently unworkable), the onus should be on the poster.

That being said, FT will be helped if the poster doesn't make the mistake that I made. A FT with pages which load badly, or are difficult to see (as oversized pictures make them) is not in anyone's interest.

As things stand right now, somebody can put up an oversized photo and not be in violation of FT's rules.

I believe TB should make it a hard and fast rule that this is not acceptable. Ideally, the best way to enforce that rule would be for the software to reject the picture, with a notice saying, "Your picture was too large to fit on our pages. Please see this explanation of how to solve the problem."

If, for technical reasons, that is impossible, than moderators, who are responsible for enforcing the rules, should simply take the pictures down and send the poster a PM giving that exact explanation.

IMHO, if a poster makes that mistake once, and receives such instructions, he will know for the future and not need to be told again.

Well, as a moderator, one can certainly resize the image by editing the post and following the same steps, outlined at http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/11973208-post3.html on behalf of the member.

In terms of the maximum image size, 640x480 is a safe bet for most users. The link to the original image should also be added, which would preserve the integrity of the post and also allow those readers, who are interested in accessing the original full-size image to do so, simply by clicking the resized image in the [edited] post.

Lastly, members can be provided with tips as to how to resize their images before posting them -- perhaps by way of a help link or a notice, which would appear when one tries to insert an image...

So KVS, do you think that moderators should maintain an account on image sharing sites simply to edit other people's images? And that we should effectively start hosting these images in our accounts for the members who wish to share these images?

Sorry, no, that to me is somewhat beyond my remit. I'm happy to pass on the advice about how to resize images to members who are having difficulty. I'm also happy to remove images from a thread which are causing problems until such time as the member has been able to resize them themselves. I think asking me to host pictures on my account for other members simply because it's my duty as a mod opens up a can of legal, ethical and personal worms.

I run a fairly large industry Bulletin Board and probably half the 500,000 posts contain images, and I enabled images from day #1 as in some threads it really adds to the dept of the info offered.

Like FT they are all hosted by 3rd party sites.

99% of members there use the free www.photobucket.com server to do that.

If FT decides on 800 x 600 pixels max dimension it is a dead simple key-stoke on the Admin software to ensure that NOTHING larger than that size can be posted. The post gives users an error message the image exceeds the allowed size.

We originally did try a hack where the software "choked" everything down to 800 x 600 max that was larger to start with.

That worked until we updated to the new software update, and that gave Mods about 500 hours of unpaid work to go and manually alter all image codes.

800 x 600 is a standard photobucket settings option for folks to choose, that their images then never exceed.

Max size of images allowed to be posted is a standard Admin option to amend and will take 30 seconds for HOM to key-in on control panel.

Solution to the issue raised by Dovster.

I used to allow photos with a max of 1024 pixels but changed it at Xmas to be 800 pixels as some found that too wide - 800 is this size:

Photobucket gives you the HTML code in place all ready to paste here.

Not at all -- the 'instant' image sharing services (such as http://www.ImageShack.us/) do not require an account of any kind. All one needs to provide is the location (URL) of the original image and the desired size.

Not sure how is it different, in principle, from editing the textual portion of someone's post, which was posted in an excessive font size.

Member education should certainly be the preferred method, but when there is an issue with a particular post, resizing the image for the member may well take less time than editing the post and sending an explanation to that member.

So, going back to FlyinHawaiian's point, it would really be a matter of moderators, who 'do not wish to', rather than "can't" resize...

I disagree.

If a mod resizes a photo instead of telling a member how to do it, the member will not learn and the mod will be stuck resizing his subsequent photos as well.

I think the problem is with photos that are so wide that my version of Firefox, at least, can't deal with it properly. The photo that Ozstamps posted above, for example, extends this page out with a slider at the bottom of the screen, it makes reading the page a pain. Very long URL's can do the same.

Edited to add: hey, now it doesn't anymore, at least on this page? What changed?

And there is no incentive for the member to learn to do it, as the mod will always sort out his mess...

I agree with Dovster