Question for the IT Team.

  • Bumped on the basis that it's now Friday. If it has been seen is it too much to ask for a response that it has been noted - no need for an instant fix but sometimes it would be reassuring if we had evidence we were being taken notice of.

    ----------

    Cheers,

    Bob

    My Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobs_retired_now/

  • I've been thinking... :o :o :o

    Given that we have 2 different types of pictures being uploaded, ie bona fide photographs (necessarily of high resolution) and screenshots (almost never high resolution)...

    Couldn't we do away with 320x240 size restriction altogether and just implement the "weight" restriction, so many megabytes per image?

    Then set a new max size default in the Insert box @ 600px (which would be ideal).

    NB - Reminder that this suggestion is from one who is posting pictures and editing videos while trying to keep up with ongoing activities on nests.

    Tiger's Osprey Info & World Bird Cams

  • In reply to scylla:

    scylla said:

    I've been thinking... :o :o :o

    Given that we have 2 different types of pictures being uploaded, ie bona fide photographs (necessarily of high resolution) and screenshots (almost never high resolution)...

    Couldn't we do away with 320x240 size restriction altogether and just implement the "weight" restriction, so many megabytes per image?

    Then set a new max size default in the Insert box @ 600px (which would be ideal).

    NB - Reminder that this suggestion is from one who is posting pictures and editing videos while trying to keep up with ongoing activities on nests.

    This has all been suggested before but they are pretty intransigent on the issue, sadly. They claim that it is slowing the website down but there is no anecdotal evidence for that as most posters are altering the default display size by one means or another. If there any proof that larger display size was slowing the website down then they ought to be preventing us from increasing the display size. Given the length of time the developers take to resolve any problems/issues one begins to wonder if the developers have ever done this kind of software before. I suspect a non tech person bought it based on looks rather than performance and flexibility

    ----------

    Cheers,

    Bob

    My Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobs_retired_now/

  • Quote BOB = I suspect a non tech person bought it based on looks rather than performance and flexibility

    I don't think that even a non-tech person could have thought that the original new forum format as introduced last year would be suitable for the RSPB Community forums.  I believe that it was bought sight-unseen, the choice dictated purely by budget.  Also, maybe someone thought "Facebook is ever so popular, it's made billions, we can't go wrong using their format".

    Tiger's Osprey Info & World Bird Cams