Testing attachments
- Thread starter Test
- Start date
CrAlt
New Member
Attachments
Mike
Well-Known Member
Alright, gather around.
I think I've finally come to the bottom of the attachment issue. I've had to set up some limits as to the total sizes of the attachments each member can upload and some of you are already hitting the limits.
We've discussed this in the past, but maybe it's time to pull it all together in one place to make it easier to understand.
All Web sites exist on large computers, designed to serve files to users. The computers are large, but everything has limitations. So when someone decides to open a Web site, he needs to determine how large his site will be and guesstimate how much traffic he will be getting and purchase a hosting package that will give him those resources and a bit extra to allow for growth.
This site runs on a rather large hosting package and there are soft limits on how much memory we have to run the server, how much disk space the site can occupy and how much data can be transferred to and from the site. If we exceed the soft limits, the host will allow us a bit more, but the additional resources come a a very dear price. They will add 5% more disk space for a little over 10% of the current monthly expense. 5% more bandwidth would cost 40% of the current expense.
If someone displays an image on this site using the IMG tags to access the image on a remote site, it uses up a bit of transfer. If someone wants to attach an image to a post, the image gets uploaded to this server, so it takes up disk space and uses transfer too. If someone attaches very large images, I have a script running on the server that will try to resize the images, but that will also require processor and memory resources to run that script.
I still have moments when I am in awe of how much our monthly server expenses cost. My very first Web site was on a tiny package provided by my ISP. I had something like 10 megabytes of storage space, but I still managed to squeeze a static site into that space. Then I progressed to a hosting package that cost me $5 or $6 each month. Then it was $9.95/month. And it just kept growing from there. When I contracted for the server we run on now, I just knew we had enough resources to take over the world and that we would never reach the bottom of the well.
I was wrong. Back then, we had 439 members and 8,771 posts. Those numbers today are 2,240 members and 73,469 posts. The database the site runs on is almost 40 times larger than it was then. And all of that is using up resources.
I've set up a 10 MB limit on each member's total upload space. If every member uploaded their maximum, we would run out of space on the server to store the gallery images, to store the forum software files and to store the database.
Here are some facts about some of the attachments. The five largest attachments on the site amount to 1.84 MB, 1.84 MB, 1.79 MB, 1.78 MB and 1.69 MB. Those five files all belong to one user. That amounts to 8.94 MB, in just five files. That particular member has 1.06 MB of attachment space left, so he will not be able to store any more images of those sizes. But get this - one of those 1.84 MB images is sized at 2304 pixels by 1708 pixels! :wow: I downloaded that image to my desktop and used a free piece of image editing software to edit the image down to 640 pixels X 480 pixels. All of the details are still clear in the image and the image was reduced to 77.3 Kilobytes. The image is 4.1% the size it originally was. From 1884 KB down to 77.3 KB.
So we have some options available to us, and make no mistake about it, we are going to have to pick one of them or the choice will be made for us.
1. We are going to have to be careful with attaching images, first of all. You can upload 5 images that are 2 MB in size, or you can upload 128 images that are 80 MB in size. I'll leave the decision up to you, but when you can download free image editing software and resize your images in seconds, you give yourself a lot more room to play with. As it now stands, you already have enough upload space to crash the site, if every member starts attaching more and more images.
2. We can start dumping off forum features, to make room for everyone to upload more attachment images. We can ditch the Photo Gallery, the Tech Library, the Members Map, the Bug Tracker and the Portal so as to gain some space back. The Tech Library software amounts to 8.2 MB, for instance. The Gallery software is another 2.4 MB. Look at that, two of the larger functions on this site barely occupy more space than each one of you have for uploading attachments. So what are we really saving by eliminating them? The Gallery images eat up another 81.65 MB. So we wouldn't even save the attachment space of 10 members. Do we want to ditch those functions, just to give everyone another 44 kilobytes of upload space?
3. We (and please note I am not saying "I") can purchase a larger server to run the site on, which is going to cost another $70 - $80 per month. Which means the 4.73% of our membership that are willing to support the site with their dollars are going to have to dig even deeper? The way I see it, it would make more sense for me to give the donors more attachment storage by taking it away from the members that do not support the site.
4. I can make the site available on a paid membership basis only and leave things as they are. If you want to join the site, it costs you $24/annually to maintain your membership. When we run out of space, your annual membership fee will increase as a result. And I'm sure that would make exactly no one happy, so that's not a realistic option.
What is your pleasure?
I think I've finally come to the bottom of the attachment issue. I've had to set up some limits as to the total sizes of the attachments each member can upload and some of you are already hitting the limits.
We've discussed this in the past, but maybe it's time to pull it all together in one place to make it easier to understand.
All Web sites exist on large computers, designed to serve files to users. The computers are large, but everything has limitations. So when someone decides to open a Web site, he needs to determine how large his site will be and guesstimate how much traffic he will be getting and purchase a hosting package that will give him those resources and a bit extra to allow for growth.
This site runs on a rather large hosting package and there are soft limits on how much memory we have to run the server, how much disk space the site can occupy and how much data can be transferred to and from the site. If we exceed the soft limits, the host will allow us a bit more, but the additional resources come a a very dear price. They will add 5% more disk space for a little over 10% of the current monthly expense. 5% more bandwidth would cost 40% of the current expense.
If someone displays an image on this site using the IMG tags to access the image on a remote site, it uses up a bit of transfer. If someone wants to attach an image to a post, the image gets uploaded to this server, so it takes up disk space and uses transfer too. If someone attaches very large images, I have a script running on the server that will try to resize the images, but that will also require processor and memory resources to run that script.
I still have moments when I am in awe of how much our monthly server expenses cost. My very first Web site was on a tiny package provided by my ISP. I had something like 10 megabytes of storage space, but I still managed to squeeze a static site into that space. Then I progressed to a hosting package that cost me $5 or $6 each month. Then it was $9.95/month. And it just kept growing from there. When I contracted for the server we run on now, I just knew we had enough resources to take over the world and that we would never reach the bottom of the well.
I was wrong. Back then, we had 439 members and 8,771 posts. Those numbers today are 2,240 members and 73,469 posts. The database the site runs on is almost 40 times larger than it was then. And all of that is using up resources.
I've set up a 10 MB limit on each member's total upload space. If every member uploaded their maximum, we would run out of space on the server to store the gallery images, to store the forum software files and to store the database.
Here are some facts about some of the attachments. The five largest attachments on the site amount to 1.84 MB, 1.84 MB, 1.79 MB, 1.78 MB and 1.69 MB. Those five files all belong to one user. That amounts to 8.94 MB, in just five files. That particular member has 1.06 MB of attachment space left, so he will not be able to store any more images of those sizes. But get this - one of those 1.84 MB images is sized at 2304 pixels by 1708 pixels! :wow: I downloaded that image to my desktop and used a free piece of image editing software to edit the image down to 640 pixels X 480 pixels. All of the details are still clear in the image and the image was reduced to 77.3 Kilobytes. The image is 4.1% the size it originally was. From 1884 KB down to 77.3 KB.
So we have some options available to us, and make no mistake about it, we are going to have to pick one of them or the choice will be made for us.
1. We are going to have to be careful with attaching images, first of all. You can upload 5 images that are 2 MB in size, or you can upload 128 images that are 80 MB in size. I'll leave the decision up to you, but when you can download free image editing software and resize your images in seconds, you give yourself a lot more room to play with. As it now stands, you already have enough upload space to crash the site, if every member starts attaching more and more images.
2. We can start dumping off forum features, to make room for everyone to upload more attachment images. We can ditch the Photo Gallery, the Tech Library, the Members Map, the Bug Tracker and the Portal so as to gain some space back. The Tech Library software amounts to 8.2 MB, for instance. The Gallery software is another 2.4 MB. Look at that, two of the larger functions on this site barely occupy more space than each one of you have for uploading attachments. So what are we really saving by eliminating them? The Gallery images eat up another 81.65 MB. So we wouldn't even save the attachment space of 10 members. Do we want to ditch those functions, just to give everyone another 44 kilobytes of upload space?
3. We (and please note I am not saying "I") can purchase a larger server to run the site on, which is going to cost another $70 - $80 per month. Which means the 4.73% of our membership that are willing to support the site with their dollars are going to have to dig even deeper? The way I see it, it would make more sense for me to give the donors more attachment storage by taking it away from the members that do not support the site.
4. I can make the site available on a paid membership basis only and leave things as they are. If you want to join the site, it costs you $24/annually to maintain your membership. When we run out of space, your annual membership fee will increase as a result. And I'm sure that would make exactly no one happy, so that's not a realistic option.
What is your pleasure?
deckofficer
Banned
I went to my gallery that I created before I knew of the forum's limited resources, and have deleted all images from all the albums. I did start an account at Photobucket, but have now been made aware that using a photo from there has a tranfer rate issue, so I will stop posting pictures altogether. I offered to write a check for $120.00 but you told me "no personal checks". I live rurally, do all my banking and bill paying on line, so it is just too much trouble to get a bank check, or money order. I just figured if you thought my check was no good you would allow it to sit in your account for a week so you know it cleared before drawing funds on it.
Bob
Bob
Gerry
Well-Known Member
Mike
If any of the large images are mine please delete them now. I can always reload them in photobucket at a much smaller size.
Just a by the way I noticed on the new tech pages that the bit I did on 8 pipe headers was only available if you did a search for it. It was not on the engines section anywhere. If this is intentional then thats fine.
Gerry
If any of the large images are mine please delete them now. I can always reload them in photobucket at a much smaller size.
Just a by the way I noticed on the new tech pages that the bit I did on 8 pipe headers was only available if you did a search for it. It was not on the engines section anywhere. If this is intentional then thats fine.
Gerry
Corley
New Member
Mike,
I don't presume to know how to run this site, or to know anything much about it, but some thoughts/ideas have crossed my mind. First, have you considerred a "scrubber" program to scan through the image files on the server and downsize them to 640X480 or whatever you feel is the 'right' size. (Don't ask me for the name of a scrubber, it's just a conept for me, not an implimentation.) Next, have you considerred the concept of having your own server hardware and high speed line? I belong to a couple of other forums that have decided to go that route, once it is set up, the only expense is the high speed lines monthly fees. It's a big job to set up and maintain, but at least you have a lot more flexibility in space / bandwidth etc. Or, if you didn't want to do a complete server, is there some possibility of archiving some of the big items that are seldom accessed to a local archive server? (PC in your basement sort of thing with lower speed line.) It's not unusual for large data bases to be archived and spread among multiple storage facilities these days, and again this would cut the cost of the 2nd party online server data space.
With regard to maintaining the current status, but putting some controls on it, can you simply reject the upload of files that are larger than say 100k? Put some of the burden back on the users to size them appropriately... (Along with the reject message, you could suggest a free program they could download to resize them.) Also, I don't see anything wrong with not allowing non-contributors to post any pix at all. Seems like if you want to use the expensive, limited facilities of the site, then you also have some obligation to pay for those facilities. (And frankly, without a reminder like this, you often don't even think about the costs involved.) If someone just wants to browse things (lurk), and not post, then maybe they shouldn't have the same payment burdon. I agree no one will be happy if you have to pay and log in to just look around, and you won't get any more new users at all with that method.
Mike, I'm not trying to be critical in any way, and probably none of my ideas would actually fly or are worth consideration. You've been doing a great job! I'm simply trying to open up some descussion points to see if we can't all help you come up with some alternatives and an acceptable direction, for both you and us. Obviously, the expenses are going to be far too great if we keep on expanding in this current uncontrolled direction. And, deleting all photos isn't the answer! If everyone does that, then this thing will soon be dead.
My old fart brain is not all that functional, but I'm sure others may have some really good ideas to kick around... You are the expert, but it never hurts to kick ideas around... We all learn from the descusions, and you never know what might come of it...
Corley
I don't presume to know how to run this site, or to know anything much about it, but some thoughts/ideas have crossed my mind. First, have you considerred a "scrubber" program to scan through the image files on the server and downsize them to 640X480 or whatever you feel is the 'right' size. (Don't ask me for the name of a scrubber, it's just a conept for me, not an implimentation.) Next, have you considerred the concept of having your own server hardware and high speed line? I belong to a couple of other forums that have decided to go that route, once it is set up, the only expense is the high speed lines monthly fees. It's a big job to set up and maintain, but at least you have a lot more flexibility in space / bandwidth etc. Or, if you didn't want to do a complete server, is there some possibility of archiving some of the big items that are seldom accessed to a local archive server? (PC in your basement sort of thing with lower speed line.) It's not unusual for large data bases to be archived and spread among multiple storage facilities these days, and again this would cut the cost of the 2nd party online server data space.
With regard to maintaining the current status, but putting some controls on it, can you simply reject the upload of files that are larger than say 100k? Put some of the burden back on the users to size them appropriately... (Along with the reject message, you could suggest a free program they could download to resize them.) Also, I don't see anything wrong with not allowing non-contributors to post any pix at all. Seems like if you want to use the expensive, limited facilities of the site, then you also have some obligation to pay for those facilities. (And frankly, without a reminder like this, you often don't even think about the costs involved.) If someone just wants to browse things (lurk), and not post, then maybe they shouldn't have the same payment burdon. I agree no one will be happy if you have to pay and log in to just look around, and you won't get any more new users at all with that method.
Mike, I'm not trying to be critical in any way, and probably none of my ideas would actually fly or are worth consideration. You've been doing a great job! I'm simply trying to open up some descussion points to see if we can't all help you come up with some alternatives and an acceptable direction, for both you and us. Obviously, the expenses are going to be far too great if we keep on expanding in this current uncontrolled direction. And, deleting all photos isn't the answer! If everyone does that, then this thing will soon be dead.
My old fart brain is not all that functional, but I'm sure others may have some really good ideas to kick around... You are the expert, but it never hurts to kick ideas around... We all learn from the descusions, and you never know what might come of it...
Corley
Lee_in_KC
Active Member
I like the idea of limiting the upload size. That's the way it's done on a couple of other forums I'm on. Also, rather than requiring paid membership of everyone, how about a "regular" membership and a "premium" membership? Regular would be free (just require registration as is now done). Premium would require a membership fee, but would make "premium" content and features available. Not sure what those would be, but I'm sure we could come up with something.
CrAlt
New Member
The IMG tags on every forum software ive seen just links it to the remote site.. so it ofloads the image traffic OFF your server since its pointing the clients browser to a remote site.
is loading off my server from http://cralt.com/1/net/440a.jpg
Every forum Ive seen that does attachments has limits on image size. 640x480 is a good size that will display on everyones computer and smart phones.
If the attachments are a burden I'ed ax them. There are free hosting sites out there and most ISP's give you disk space with your account. Others won't let you attach ANYTHING if you don't have at least X posts or are a $premium$ member.
The message area and people are whats important to a good site. Some of of the biggest forums im a member of don't have any of the features you have here.
GAB
Member
MIke,
A couple of questions from a complete computer ignoramus.
I keep all of the images that I post on Photobucket and use the image link. Is this an acceptable way of posting here? I use Irfanview and have to convert .bmp's to .jpg's as that is the only way that I can save the CAD drawings for posting. I resize them to close to 640 in height or width. Is that too big? If this is not acceptable, what should I be doing?
Sometimes someone will post several pics in a thread and then someone will use the quote feature and it shows the whole post the the first person made. Then they add a comment like "looks good Mike". I certainly don't know but it seems to me like that is using a bunch of space (bandwidth?) Is that the case? I don't even know how to use the Quote feature, so I just start my reply post with the persons name that I want to direct the comment to. Seems to me like that is maybe a better way to be a good citizen on this forum. But what do I know?
I am like Deck Officer on the donation question. I don't use Paypal as this would be the only place that I would need to use it. From what I understand about Paypal on other forums, it is a very good idea to have it linked to a separate bank account. If there is any dispute, they can lock up the account that it is connected to. That could be a disaster for a household or business account. Plus the additional charges on a separate account that are coming due to our friends in Washington's changes to the banking laws. Looks like free checking is a thing of the past.
The easiest way for me to donate would be to drop a check in the mail but I need to know where to send it.
I tried making the donation for an auction and when that was completed, a $100.00 was collected. The idea of doing any further auctions was squelched...until recently. I guess that I will still just be a free loader until something changes.
Sorry for the questions and waste of space on these thoughts.
A couple of questions from a complete computer ignoramus.
I keep all of the images that I post on Photobucket and use the image link. Is this an acceptable way of posting here? I use Irfanview and have to convert .bmp's to .jpg's as that is the only way that I can save the CAD drawings for posting. I resize them to close to 640 in height or width. Is that too big? If this is not acceptable, what should I be doing?
Sometimes someone will post several pics in a thread and then someone will use the quote feature and it shows the whole post the the first person made. Then they add a comment like "looks good Mike". I certainly don't know but it seems to me like that is using a bunch of space (bandwidth?) Is that the case? I don't even know how to use the Quote feature, so I just start my reply post with the persons name that I want to direct the comment to. Seems to me like that is maybe a better way to be a good citizen on this forum. But what do I know?
I am like Deck Officer on the donation question. I don't use Paypal as this would be the only place that I would need to use it. From what I understand about Paypal on other forums, it is a very good idea to have it linked to a separate bank account. If there is any dispute, they can lock up the account that it is connected to. That could be a disaster for a household or business account. Plus the additional charges on a separate account that are coming due to our friends in Washington's changes to the banking laws. Looks like free checking is a thing of the past.
The easiest way for me to donate would be to drop a check in the mail but I need to know where to send it.
I tried making the donation for an auction and when that was completed, a $100.00 was collected. The idea of doing any further auctions was squelched...until recently. I guess that I will still just be a free loader until something changes.
Sorry for the questions and waste of space on these thoughts.
Corley
New Member
One more stupid idea that I forgot to include in my previous message.
Perhaps there is a company that would be willing to host the site on thier computers. Someone big, who has an order entry system or something like that, so already has a large computer complex. I'm thinking of someone like Speedway, Jegs, Summit, etc. They probably have a high speed line and might just be willing to give up some space / band width to further the cause, and to get their name at the top of the forum, in the eyes of more customers. It would take a good sales pitch, but I'll bet there is a good salesman on this forum that would be willing to help put together a presentation for them, showing the benefits vs cost. It wouldn't cost a cent to ask...
One last thought on donations. Perhaps one of the current sponsers, like RPM, Spirit, Wintec or Chester, would be willing to accept donations of checks or credit cards on your behalf, and pass the donation on through to you. Personally, I've never had a problem with Paypal, so I'm fine with that, but there are those with concerns about it, and this could be a way around that issue if anyone was willing.
Corley
Perhaps there is a company that would be willing to host the site on thier computers. Someone big, who has an order entry system or something like that, so already has a large computer complex. I'm thinking of someone like Speedway, Jegs, Summit, etc. They probably have a high speed line and might just be willing to give up some space / band width to further the cause, and to get their name at the top of the forum, in the eyes of more customers. It would take a good sales pitch, but I'll bet there is a good salesman on this forum that would be willing to help put together a presentation for them, showing the benefits vs cost. It wouldn't cost a cent to ask...
One last thought on donations. Perhaps one of the current sponsers, like RPM, Spirit, Wintec or Chester, would be willing to accept donations of checks or credit cards on your behalf, and pass the donation on through to you. Personally, I've never had a problem with Paypal, so I'm fine with that, but there are those with concerns about it, and this could be a way around that issue if anyone was willing.
Corley
Mr T Bucket
Member
Since I'm not sending any money towards any other T bucket sites, and since I'm on here more frequently as of late, I should put some funds in the jar. So I did.
George, if there isn't a way to snail mail your monies in, I was thinking that you and I could barter the work coming up that we discussed the other day. I could pay this website and you could save a stamp.
Like has already been mentioned, most of the sites I'm on have size limits on their picture uploads. Some don't offer the option though, because it does cost more money and storage to provide that feature. So you have to use photobucket, tinypic, etc.
George, if there isn't a way to snail mail your monies in, I was thinking that you and I could barter the work coming up that we discussed the other day. I could pay this website and you could save a stamp.
Like has already been mentioned, most of the sites I'm on have size limits on their picture uploads. Some don't offer the option though, because it does cost more money and storage to provide that feature. So you have to use photobucket, tinypic, etc.
CrAlt
New Member
I just did too with the paypal link and it seems like it went.. but i don't see my name or yours? Hmm.. maybe we broke it.
Mike
Well-Known Member
I am trying to reply to several posts with this one, so bear with me.
I have, however, been burned by enough bad checks from so-called 'donators supporting the site' that I am not running any more risks with it.
If Mr. XYZ sends me a personal check for $10, then I have a trip to the bank I need to make to deposit the check. Since it was a donation outside the Donation Tracker, I have to manually add that payment to the tracker. If the check bounces, my bank charges me $10 to redeposit the check. If the check clears on the second pass, I'm still right where I was before the check arrived, because the bank fees offset the donation. Then I also have to go back into the Tracker script and delete the payment, so it doesn't appear.
So that leaves me doing a lot of extra work for nothing? Where's the benefit in that? Read on for more explanation on the matter.
It looks like there is still something acting funny in the Tech Library. :wall: I'll see if I can sort what's happening.
IrfanView is perfect for resizing, it is free and it is deadly simple to use. I always recommend it to Windows users, for those very reasons. I am always amazed at all you can actually do with IrfanView and I bet most users never really stretch its capabilities.
640 X 480 or 800 X 600 are great sizes to use, particularly in forums. Some forum styles can be "broken" with larger images. I find 640 X 480 still shows plenty of detail, without being too large a file, so that is what I generally use.
As an example of what different image formats are like in terms of file size, I grabbed a .jpg on my desktop, exported it as a .png file and as a .bmp file.
.jpg - 86.2 KB
.png - 458 KB
.bmp - 900 KB
For quick and lightweight image work, the .jpg format is the way to go. However it uses lossy encoding methods and repeated editing on a .jpg image will produce a loss in quality. If I'm working with an image I know will be undergoing a lot of editing, I prefer to use a .png format, which utilizes lossless encoding. Once I get the image edited as I like, I can then convert it to a .jpg file without any noticeable loss in image quality. When it comes to .bmp files, what were they thinking?!?
The practice is reminiscent of this scenario - John posts, asking if anyone knows what size metric adjustable wrench is required to change the connuter valve on a frammus filter. And along comes Sam, who quotes John's post in order to post a one-word reply - "No." :suicide:
If the images are stored elsewhere (Photobucket, etc.), then the cost here is negligible, but it does require the third-party server to transfer those images again, when it is entirely unnecessary. And if Photobucket is getting hit with unusually large amounts of traffic at the time, then that just slows down the topic load time even more.
But there is an alternative to opening a PayPal account.
The above is a screenshot of the PayPal payment page you are directed to if you decide to make a donation. The most prominent option on the page is to make a payment with a credit/debit card. There is absolutely no need to ever open a PayPal account to make PayPal payments.
I'm sorry if it seems I am being intolerant, but I am going to stick to my guns about not taking personal checks. I've enough bad checks in the file right now and I am not going to add more work and more grief for myself, by changing policy now. If someone wants to make a donation with an e-check from their banking institution's online bill payment system, I will accept those checks. Your bank will not allow creation of an e-check if there are insufficient funds, so the e-checks are safe. I do all of my banking online as well, but it presents no hardship to drive to the bank.
No, you didn't break anything, but there was a breakdown. And it took me about 90 minutes to figure out where the problem was and how to fix it. After another half-hour, I gave up trying to sort what caused it in the first place. There were three other payments that were not appearing on the Tracker, but I sorted them all out and got everything working as it should.
Bob, I am not suggesting anyone's check is no good.
I have, however, been burned by enough bad checks from so-called 'donators supporting the site' that I am not running any more risks with it.
If Mr. XYZ sends me a personal check for $10, then I have a trip to the bank I need to make to deposit the check. Since it was a donation outside the Donation Tracker, I have to manually add that payment to the tracker. If the check bounces, my bank charges me $10 to redeposit the check. If the check clears on the second pass, I'm still right where I was before the check arrived, because the bank fees offset the donation. Then I also have to go back into the Tracker script and delete the payment, so it doesn't appear.
So that leaves me doing a lot of extra work for nothing? Where's the benefit in that? Read on for more explanation on the matter.
Gerry, those images were not yours.
It looks like there is still something acting funny in the Tech Library. :wall: I'll see if I can sort what's happening.
If i can get a few minutes, I'll look into what perks I might be able to add for those of you who are donating. Maybe some more Private Message storage and some additional Gallery Albums, to start?
From one ignoramus to another, eh? :winkn:
IrfanView is perfect for resizing, it is free and it is deadly simple to use. I always recommend it to Windows users, for those very reasons. I am always amazed at all you can actually do with IrfanView and I bet most users never really stretch its capabilities.
640 X 480 or 800 X 600 are great sizes to use, particularly in forums. Some forum styles can be "broken" with larger images. I find 640 X 480 still shows plenty of detail, without being too large a file, so that is what I generally use.
As an example of what different image formats are like in terms of file size, I grabbed a .jpg on my desktop, exported it as a .png file and as a .bmp file.
.jpg - 86.2 KB
.png - 458 KB
.bmp - 900 KB
For quick and lightweight image work, the .jpg format is the way to go. However it uses lossy encoding methods and repeated editing on a .jpg image will produce a loss in quality. If I'm working with an image I know will be undergoing a lot of editing, I prefer to use a .png format, which utilizes lossless encoding. Once I get the image edited as I like, I can then convert it to a .jpg file without any noticeable loss in image quality. When it comes to .bmp files, what were they thinking?!?
Ahhh, you've touched on one of my pet peeves. Let's quote all of Mr. XYZ's 10 images, just to say, "Nice pics!" :devil:
The practice is reminiscent of this scenario - John posts, asking if anyone knows what size metric adjustable wrench is required to change the connuter valve on a frammus filter. And along comes Sam, who quotes John's post in order to post a one-word reply - "No." :suicide:
If the images are stored elsewhere (Photobucket, etc.), then the cost here is negligible, but it does require the third-party server to transfer those images again, when it is entirely unnecessary. And if Photobucket is getting hit with unusually large amounts of traffic at the time, then that just slows down the topic load time even more.
You are correct, the days of free banking are over. And yes, it is generally wise to associate PayPal with an account that never has large balances (which seems to identify all of my bank accounts, actually). If a dispute arises and PayPal freezes an account with $5 in it, then most of us can keep the boat afloat.
But there is an alternative to opening a PayPal account.
The above is a screenshot of the PayPal payment page you are directed to if you decide to make a donation. The most prominent option on the page is to make a payment with a credit/debit card. There is absolutely no need to ever open a PayPal account to make PayPal payments.
I'm sorry if it seems I am being intolerant, but I am going to stick to my guns about not taking personal checks. I've enough bad checks in the file right now and I am not going to add more work and more grief for myself, by changing policy now. If someone wants to make a donation with an e-check from their banking institution's online bill payment system, I will accept those checks. Your bank will not allow creation of an e-check if there are insufficient funds, so the e-checks are safe. I do all of my banking online as well, but it presents no hardship to drive to the bank.
AHA! So it was youse two guy what broke da system? :winkn:
No, you didn't break anything, but there was a breakdown. And it took me about 90 minutes to figure out where the problem was and how to fix it. After another half-hour, I gave up trying to sort what caused it in the first place. There were three other payments that were not appearing on the Tracker, but I sorted them all out and got everything working as it should.
Mike
Well-Known Member
:rr:
I told you I would get to the bottom of this and I finally managed to sort it out!
:hooray:
The reason your header articles were not appearing as they should have was actually quite simple. Are you ready for it? When I straightened out the Library, I had to move all the Library articles back into the forums as posts. Once I got the Library squared away, I then had to turn around and promote all those posts back to articles. Which was a tremendous PITA, because every article I promoted would then appear in the Library with me as the author. So I would then have to edit the article from within the Admin Control Panel to get the proper author credited for the article. When I moved your header articles, I did not place them in a sub-category, where they belonged. I placed them in the main Technical Articles category, which prevented them from appearing as they should have. In other words, I goofed.:woops:
It took me forever to sort what was happening. I've looked high and low to find a setting that would show more articles, thinking I had a limit set too low. I've scoured the IPS customer help forums from top to bottom, looking for someone having the same problem. I've read listing after listing in the IPS bug tracker, trying to see if this was a bug in the software. Finally, I decided I was going to get it right today and I wasn't going to quit working on it until it was right. I logged into the Admin CP, opened up the application for the Library and my mistake immediately reached out and punched me in the face. :beat: I guess I just couldn't see the forest for all the trees. It took all of 15 seconds to see the problem and to get it corrected. I've been dancing the happy dance, ever since.
Now, if I could only find someone else to blame for all my own mistakes...
fordsbyjay
Active Member
Mike you may be a hard butt sometimes but one of the best thing about your site is that you take the time to explain why things are the way they are. I find it is always easier to help out or understand why you are asking for something when there is an explanation. You take a tremendous amount of time to explain issues which I think is great and appreciate immensely.
I think one of the biggest issues stems back to new technology and old people.
Most people just grab their camera and snap some shots not really understanding file size or what they are actually doing. If you buy a 14 Mb camera the default setting is usually 14Mb files which equates to images 5-6' (yes feet) in size. I love ifranview and recommend it all the time but one step easier is to go in your digital camera options and set it to take smaller size pics to begin with. That way when you download your camera pics are already a usable size. They are also a decent size to email and post on facebook etc. It is win win all around and saves time.
BTW, I don't blame you one bit for not taking checks. In Canada people haven't used checks for at least 15 years. It is just too expensive and too much hassle because there is so many people that bounce checks. I personally wouldn't take a check from anyone. LOL.
Is there some way you could have it so when people quote a post with pictures that the pictures wouldn't be posted automatically? I am sure I have seen that on other forums but I don't know how, why or what on that one.
I think one of the biggest issues stems back to new technology and old people.
Most people just grab their camera and snap some shots not really understanding file size or what they are actually doing. If you buy a 14 Mb camera the default setting is usually 14Mb files which equates to images 5-6' (yes feet) in size. I love ifranview and recommend it all the time but one step easier is to go in your digital camera options and set it to take smaller size pics to begin with. That way when you download your camera pics are already a usable size. They are also a decent size to email and post on facebook etc. It is win win all around and saves time. BTW, I don't blame you one bit for not taking checks. In Canada people haven't used checks for at least 15 years. It is just too expensive and too much hassle because there is so many people that bounce checks. I personally wouldn't take a check from anyone. LOL.
Is there some way you could have it so when people quote a post with pictures that the pictures wouldn't be posted automatically? I am sure I have seen that on other forums but I don't know how, why or what on that one.
