# of images in a post reduced

[RockyMountainHi]

My desk top is aganozingly slow to load, the laptop is zoomie.

I like zoomy!!

so Skip, judging by the positive marks I got on my comment above about blocking images in qoutes, a few tend to agree.

orrrrr maybe, do thumbnails in the qoutes.

It seems I see a butt load of qoutes with jumbo pix and the poster says summtin like "Nice pic"

bitchslapping is so,,,,,, tempting??? hehe

It's nice to compliment others work, I know. Butt,,,,,,

 

[stihgnobevoli]

i am not a webmaster like you skip so here's a salt shaker before i begin.
even if only 5 pics per post, wont a whole page of images (mine are limited to 1024x768) still load just as slow as if there was only one post with that many pictures in it? this would be an end used problem of not enough ram on their computer to hold all those images at once. i suppose it's a nice gesture for all those people using old ass computers with less than a gig of ram. but this is 2012, every computer from the past 5 year to present purchased in a store should have come with 1-2+ gigs of ram which is more than enough for this site and most sites on the internet even facebook which appears to be all flash.

why penalize the rest of us is what im asking i guess?

i never had an issue with the speed of pictures loading, the only issues i ever had which are long since gone were the long load times for individual pages. this is the server issue no? but like i said those problems are a thing of the past, so i guess i don't really see the issue of this. unless you mean all those people posting offsite to places like imageshack with their huge ass 4000x4000px images.
but that would still not be an icmag issue as the offsite loading speed is based on the external site.

also i cannot use thumbnails in chrome. when i drag and drop it just posts links, so i have no choice but to either switch back to firefox when i post here, or only post 5 full sized pictures per post. but then im going to have to make 5 posts everytime i update my grow threads.

also i use fotosizer to resize my pictures, you set the input folder, the output folder, what you want done, rename, even add a custom size, rotation, etc. then click start and it does it all lightning quick then you can upload them here.
www.fotosizer.com/

 

[ganja_hasi]

everything works flawless for me

 

[rives]

Traffic on icmag has increased 35% since I came back.

I guess I should UNDO that, just so you can continue to post up tons of enormous, unedited images. This isn't image shack you know.

"Correlation does not imply causation". Kindly address the question I posed in post #13 above - I'm sure that you must have something in mind.

Thanks.

 

[stihgnobevoli]

"Correlation does not imply causation". Kindly address the question I posed in post #13 above - I'm sure that you must have something in mind.

Thanks.

i count 13 pictures in that post, you would have to make 3 posts obviously. spread it out over 3 posts.

 

[Don Dump]

how about 8 pics? then everybody's happy

I agree about the quoting of pics. some sites have a thing where you have to click "display pictures" to see them when they are quoted

 

[GrowForIt]

By reducing the number of images/post you are only going to increase database size. For example lets say I have 10 pics of 5 different phenos harvested. Normally I could make 1 post and include all 10 images, now I have to make 2 posts of 5 images each to accomplish the same thing. When someone clicks on my post it still loads all 10 images and uses slightly more bandwidth then a single post would. But now it has also used twice as many db entries to display the posts.

Now the issues that I have noticed with icmag are the server error when logging in, when searching, accessing "my ic", and not displaying all images in a post. These are all db related issues, not bandwidth related. By limiting the images/post you are in fact going to make the problem worse. I would suggest looking at the database as the culprit instead of bandwidth.

My two pennies
GFI

 

[Hammerhead]

I must be missing something ??? If I have 15 pics in 1 post or 3 post the same amout of time to load those pics will be the same no????

 

[krunchbubble]

my shit is flossing, except for when i try to access My IC or PM'S, have to wait 20-30 seconds. like someone else said, it looks like its thinking...

 

[Skip]

I must be missing something ??? If I have 15 pics in 1 post or 3 post the same amout of time to load those pics will be the same no????

Look, I'm not gonna do the math for you, but if you're halfway smart you can figure it out yourself. So far everyone's wrong.

OK, I'll do the math for you then I'm closing this thread to further discussion...

Let's say we allow pics up to 2mb.
Let's say we allow 25 pics per post as b4.
Let's say you view 20 posts at a time.

That's 2mb x 25 x 20 = WHAT you brilliant mathematicians?

Now figure it viewing 40 posts at a time...

Now figure your optimum bandwidth and how long it will take for you to load up the fucking pages...

Got it now...? You better cause this thread is now closed.

 

[krunchbubble]

im on smaller forums, with WAY more pics per page and the lag times are much more on here....

 

[rives]

i count 13 pictures in that post, you would have to make 3 posts obviously. spread it out over 3 posts.

That would certainly work, I just think that it could interfere with the readability of the post and the future editing if questions arise about a point that you've overlooked initially. When I put that together, I did it in Word first and figured out which pictures I wanted where to illustrate my points, let it bake for several days, and still wound up making a change after it was posted. It is certainly not insurmountable, but since ICmag is noted for the quality of the information available (after all, it is why I first came here), I thought that there must have been some direction in mind prior to the change.