Some forum photos take WAY too long to load.

Comments

• Wuerfel_21 Posts: 4,491

  2021-04-15 20:50

  Yeah, it should probably do that. But if it did, it'd probably do it wrong Like how it used to remove all the frames from GIFs.

  But if it takes on the order of minutes to load that image, your internet connection must be really terrible. For me it takes barely five seconds from hard reload (CTRL+F5) to fully loaded image. And my connection isn't even that good (200Mbit cable, bottlenecked by old 100M Ethernet equipment)
• Cluso99 Posts: 18,069

  2021-04-15 22:22

  We don’t all have fast internet, nor unlimited data!!!
• Clock Loop Posts: 2,069

  2021-04-15 22:25

  @Wuerfel_21 said:
  Like how it used to remove all the frames from GIFs.

  Wait, gifs work again?
• Wuerfel_21 Posts: 4,491

  2021-04-15 22:38

  @"Clock Loop" said:

  @Wuerfel_21 said:
  Like how it used to remove all the frames from GIFs.

  Wait, gifs work again?

  
• Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514

  2021-04-15 22:51 edited 2021-04-15 22:54

  But if it takes on the order of minutes to load that image, your internet connection must be really terrible.

  It's not. It's quite good, in fact. This forum is the only site that has this problem.

  Given that it can't be fixed -- which I don't believe -- that puts the onus on posters to resample their images before posting them. I mean, who needs 16 megapixels to illustrate a cable connection or some other configuration? I typically down-sample images to 800 x 600 pixels or less before posting.

  -Phil
• Cluso99 Posts: 18,069

  2021-04-16 00:10

  @"Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)" said:

  But if it takes on the order of minutes to load that image, your internet connection must be really terrible.

  It's not. It's quite good, in fact. This forum is the only site that has this problem.

  Given that it can't be fixed -- which I don't believe -- that puts the onus on posters to resample their images before posting them. I mean, who needs 16 megapixels to illustrate a cable connection or some other configuration? I typically down-sample images to 800 x 600 pixels or less before posting.

  -Phil

  Yes, IMHO it’s common courtesy to downsize pics to a suitable resolution before posting.

  The alternative is to limit pic size which prevents the special case where a high resolution is required to convey details.
• Wuerfel_21 Posts: 4,491

  2021-04-16 00:30 edited 2021-04-16 00:33

  The reason I usually post full res is because it's lazier, haha.

  I think I'll resize them to the lowest reasonable size in the future, unless it's posted for its aesthetic merit.
• Cluso99 Posts: 18,069

  2021-04-16 01:04

  I don’t have a landline. I have 4g and while I mostly get >10Mbps, and usually >20Mbps, sometimes it’s only 5Mbps or even less.
  Add to this, I used to have a limit of 100GB per month and $10 per extra 1GB. A windows update about 2 years ago cost me $90 because I went over my limit. At least I now have 500GB, and it throttles if I go over.

  Many have less than I have here, so please consider when posting big pics.
• Buck Rogers Posts: 2,161

  2021-04-16 12:58

  @Cluso99 said:
  I don’t have a landline. I have 4g and while I mostly get >10Mbps, and usually >20Mbps, sometimes it’s only 5Mbps or even less.
  Add to this, I used to have a limit of 100GB per month and $10 per extra 1GB. A windows update about 2 years ago cost me $90 because I went over my limit. At least I now have 500GB, and it throttles if I go over.

  Many have less than I have here, so please consider when posting big pics.

  Hello!
  I don't either. I switched several years ago from DSL to cable, originally TWC, it became Spectrum. And yes I saw some lag as that oversized photo loaded. No offense to you, @Wuerfel_21 but couldn't that photo be shrunk in size somewhat before posting it?.

  Mascot away.

  No robots.
• erco Posts: 20,253

  2021-04-17 01:15

  Agreed, this is wasteful of both data storage and download. Other forums just limit the photo size on upload. There's gotta be a simple setting for that.