It's not really a cost issue right now. If it does become a cost issue in the future, it won't be too heavily influenced by allowing the limit to be 3.5 MB, as very few images actually go that high in size--rather, it'll happen because too many people view the smaller (i.e., 1 MB and less) images too many times. (But don't worry, we're not even close to that now!) And decreasing the limit below 1 MB would seriously impact the opportunity to upload high-quality images.
Keeping it at 3.5 MB sounds sensible to me for now. This is, after all, an image sharing site, and I feel giving people the ability to upload high quality images is a part of that. The vast majority of images, however, are still around 300 KB I'd say, which is closer to being OK for dial-up, and if it's not, nothing can be done about it. Many of the bigger images still only reach about 1 MB, which should be fine for cable and DSL- if you're on dialup and see an image taking too long, feel free to move to a different one or just keep waiting. On decent cable connections even a 3.5MB image shouldn't take more than 20-30 seconds, probably less.
as I said, it is not THAT important to me, but everytime I'm in a hurry and I want to click on the "forum" button, I go too far with the cursor and click "log out" instead. and then I am logged out and have to log in again ;D it's just a matter of laziness :D
You should hurry less ;D
Would it help to make the color of the log out text a different color?
There is currently a limit, it's 3.5 MB. It's just such a large limit that it barely limits anything.
This thread is to help me decide whether I should lower it to 1 MB or thereabouts.
I say leave it unless it's a cost/bandwidth issue for you. It isn't a problem for most people who know their way around the Internet, I'd imagine. Really, though, the main thing that comes to mind is that you never know whether or not there's someone out there with some Holy Grail of pictures that is exactly what you want to see - and it might be 3.5mb, and they might not know how to fix it. The point is I think you should allow for more possibilities rather than fewer (which I know might seem to contradict my age argument but that had different possible consequences).
On the other hand, if you see the file size eventually becoming a cost/bandwidth issue for you in a few years when this site is wildly successful it might be a good idea to reduce the limit now while you're figuring things out rather than later when you have more users to potentially disappoint with such an announcement.
as I said, it is not THAT important to me, but everytime I'm in a hurry and I want to click on the "forum" button, I go too far with the cursor and click "log out" instead. and then I am logged out and have to log in again ;D it's just a matter of laziness :D
Is it possible to make another step after clicking the "log out" button? some kind of window where you have to confirm to really log out. like "are you sure you want to log out?" or something. it is not that important, just a little idea.
I'm honestly curious why you would want this. It seems really redundant to me.
Is it possible to make another step after clicking the "log out" button? some kind of window where you have to confirm to really log out. like "are you sure you want to log out?" or something. it is not that important, just a little idea.
Incidentally, it's interesting to see how varied different posters' tastes are. I'm a sucker for spectacularly-ridged ab-shots, but every time I give one a high score, others zoom in and seriously mark them down ... or retag them as 'glutes/butt.'
Still, variety = spice of life, etc. I wouldn't want to see any category or style barred or discouraged, other than pre-pubescents, which Chainer already monitors pretty carefully.
Congratulations, Chainer -- you've really got it fine-tuned now. If I can make one final icing-on-the-cake suggestion -- how about a second 'tab' menu for cross-referencing two criteria, like -- for instance -- 'athlete' and 'abs' or 'biceps' and 'lats'?
Thanks -- and done! :)
Nice shot, of course -- when you remove duplicates, do you merge their ratings/tags/comments?
No, I just delete whichever image has a smaller resolution, along with ratings and tags and comments. It's currently not possible to merge ratings/tags/comments.
I think that duplicate-finding-script needs to be pimped a little ^^ Does it consider the pictures' histograms at all?
Yes, the script is far from perfect. :(
The way it works is that for each uploaded image, it gets that image's width, height, and filesize (in bytes). It then goes through the entire database of pictures on the site and compares those three values with the corresponding values of each picture in the database. If all three values match for any particular image, the uploaded picture is identified as a duplicate.
Problems: Obviously, this doesn't work if the image uploaded is a duplicate of a picture on the site, except at a smaller resolution (width and height and filesize are all different). If the uploaded picture happens to have the same width, height, and filesize, by coincidence, as a different picture already on the site, the script falsely identifies it as a duplicate. The chance of this happening is very small, but grows as the number of images on the site increases (especially for popular resolutions such as 800x600px).
I'm not sure whether trying to match the histograms of two images would work for duplicates of different sizes... It would identify exact duplicates, but I would assume that whenever a program resizes an image, the histogram changes depending on which pixels the program decides to keep, and the quality at which the image is then saved. I'm not quite sure that's how it works, though, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Congratulations, Chainer -- you've really got it fine-tuned now. If I can make one final icing-on-the-cake suggestion -- how about a second 'tab' menu for cross-referencing two criteria, like -- for instance -- 'athlete' and 'abs' or 'biceps' and 'lats'?
All I can say is NEVER resize the pics please!! I am sick of people compressing pics way too much to save a few KB. That said, there should probably be a limit on the size you can upload.
Incidentally, if you go to Images and select the Recently Posted/Abs option, you'll find a pic repeated from the bottom row of Page 1 to the top row of Page 2 ...
Can you link to both of them? I'm not finding it.
Chances are the two pictures are different sizes, in which case the duplicate-checking script fails to recognize them as the same.
Edit: I added the new tags, except for "natural" which I think is redundant, as most girls/women on the site probably fit that description.
Yes, it should be possible to keep track of all the images that you haven't yet viewed (though I would most likely do it with a database, not a cookie). I don't really see the point, though-- can't you just start from the first page of the image gallery and browse backwards through the pages until you start recognizing the images?
It shouldn't be hard to implement, however, so I might add it as an option under "Account Settings" if I have time. I'll post here if I do.
I agree, 3.5 MB is quite a large download for an image. I'll consider decreasing it if there's support for it, to maybe 1 MB.
100 KB is too small of a limit, as lots of quality pictures are above that. If you're stuck with dial up, well... it's not good for you, but don't expect everyone else to adjust to you.
By the way, if you have a good browser, you should never have to resize an image with a large resolution. For example, when you view an image by itself, Firefox resizes it automatically to fit the size of your browser window.
Incidentally, if you go to Images and select the Recently Posted/Abs option, you'll find a pic repeated from the bottom row of Page 1 to the top row of Page 2 ...
Log in |
Register
Keeping it at 3.5 MB sounds sensible to me for now. This is, after all, an image sharing site, and I feel giving people the ability to upload high quality images is a part of that. The vast majority of images, however, are still around 300 KB I'd say, which is closer to being OK for dial-up, and if it's not, nothing can be done about it. Many of the bigger images still only reach about 1 MB, which should be fine for cable and DSL- if you're on dialup and see an image taking too long, feel free to move to a different one or just keep waiting. On decent cable connections even a 3.5MB image shouldn't take more than 20-30 seconds, probably less.
yeah,that would be great. thank you.
You should hurry less ;D
Would it help to make the color of the log out text a different color?
On the other hand, if you see the file size eventually becoming a cost/bandwidth issue for you in a few years when this site is wildly successful it might be a good idea to reduce the limit now while you're figuring things out rather than later when you have more users to potentially disappoint with such an announcement.
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=4588
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=1365
and:
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=4586
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=2286
Incidentally, it's interesting to see how varied different posters' tastes are. I'm a sucker for spectacularly-ridged ab-shots, but every time I give one a high score, others zoom in and seriously mark them down ... or retag them as 'glutes/butt.'
Still, variety = spice of life, etc. I wouldn't want to see any category or style barred or discouraged, other than pre-pubescents, which Chainer already monitors pretty carefully.
Thanks -- and done! :)
No, I just delete whichever image has a smaller resolution, along with ratings and tags and comments. It's currently not possible to merge ratings/tags/comments.
Yes, the script is far from perfect. :(
The way it works is that for each uploaded image, it gets that image's width, height, and filesize (in bytes). It then goes through the entire database of pictures on the site and compares those three values with the corresponding values of each picture in the database. If all three values match for any particular image, the uploaded picture is identified as a duplicate.
Problems: Obviously, this doesn't work if the image uploaded is a duplicate of a picture on the site, except at a smaller resolution (width and height and filesize are all different). If the uploaded picture happens to have the same width, height, and filesize, by coincidence, as a different picture already on the site, the script falsely identifies it as a duplicate. The chance of this happening is very small, but grows as the number of images on the site increases (especially for popular resolutions such as 800x600px).
I'm not sure whether trying to match the histograms of two images would work for duplicates of different sizes... It would identify exact duplicates, but I would assume that whenever a program resizes an image, the histogram changes depending on which pixels the program decides to keep, and the quality at which the image is then saved. I'm not quite sure that's how it works, though, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Does it consider the pictures' histograms at all?
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=4295
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=4424
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=2438
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=4417
Nice shot, of course -- when you remove duplicates, do you merge their ratings/tags/comments?
This thread is to help me decide whether I should lower it to 1 MB or thereabouts.
Thanks... again, deleted the smaller one
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=1618
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=3919
Nice shot, too ...
I feel like the other tags ("abs", "overall physique") cover that pretty well... if I added tags for clothing the list would get way too long.
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=3866
http://www.girlswithmuscle.com/images/imgpage.html?imgid=3873
Can you link to both of them? I'm not finding it.
Chances are the two pictures are different sizes, in which case the duplicate-checking script fails to recognize them as the same.
Edit: I added the new tags, except for "natural" which I think is redundant, as most girls/women on the site probably fit that description.
It shouldn't be hard to implement, however, so I might add it as an option under "Account Settings" if I have time. I'll post here if I do.
100 KB is too small of a limit, as lots of quality pictures are above that. If you're stuck with dial up, well... it's not good for you, but don't expect everyone else to adjust to you.
By the way, if you have a good browser, you should never have to resize an image with a large resolution. For example, when you view an image by itself, Firefox resizes it automatically to fit the size of your browser window.