I am so discouraged

The laboriousness in posting viewable snaps has nearly finished me off.

I now find that drag-n-dropped snaps are being resized down so that detail cannot be discerned without clicking to enlarge.  When covering a long and/or active period, and wishing to substantiate one's reports with snaps, it is now necessary to resize (say to 550 or 600px) and upload snaps individually, blanking out the default size each time.

Covering a long period can take (me) hours, without the extra time now involved in blasted clicking and highlighting and backspacing and oh! sod it all !!!

Can we really not be governed by a restriction on "weight" rather than size?

  • I had a reply about the problems on the RSPB Forums on the main RSPB Facebook website and the reply I received wasn’t very encouraging. The reply I received was that because of cost, staff couldn’t reply on a regular basis about these problems and that the forum before this upgrade, in so many words was well past it’s sell by day. In my opinion this recent upgrade is already well past it's sell by day.

  • Agreed, THOMO :( .

    Tech Team, please explain what's happening HERE - note the remark "In the RF box, before posting, the above snaps are alternately smallish and HUGE!  Despite all being the same size."

    It turned out that the alternate huge/small preview sizes were the same when posted, despite the snaps all being the same size and uploaded in the same manner.

  • scylla said:
    Can we really not be governed by a restriction on "weight" rather than size?

    I'm not sure what you mean by this, Scylla.

  • TeeJay - by WEIGHT - I mean what "they" call the size in Windows Explorer, as opposed to the dimensions in pixels:

    .

    EDIT - well there you go - the above can hardly be read although I resized it and set the Insert box to 450px wide with no depth restriction.

    Drag-n-drop effort:

    .

    EDIT 2 - That's no different.  Here's an oversized verion dragged 'n dropped (and from where I'm sitting it doesn't look as tho it's going to be any different):

    .

    EDIT 3 - I shall now try dragging 'n dropping a short fat snap ;)

    .

    EDIT 4 - Now uploading with Insert box set to 600 x 000

    .

    BOB - I don't understand about source codes and changing the sizes :-/  I think I'm about as techy as I'll ever get, tho I notice that I'm still learning bits and pieces according to ongoing experiences.

  • I've just done a "this is what happened step-by-step" post with half a dozen snaps, I resized each snap @ 600x338 and changed the sizes in the Insert box to match exactly, changed Web to File Upload and uploaded... all 6 times over, and the snaps came out OK, but what a performance.

    The "heaviest" snap was 41KB, but, it being on the cusp of day to nightcam, the colours were muted or mono. An example of a bright daycam snap was just under 62KB.
    .
    (Completely different topic, but I do feel that the font is not as clear as the improved one they gave us for a while - at least, not in the RF box while I was typing just now, but then it came out clearer in the post and now while I'm editing it's denser but smaller than when doing the original post.  Weird !!! )

  • I did try your multi-D&D method when you kindly explained it before, Bob - but am so clumsy I keep accidentally deleting snaps when trying to space them out :'(   Besides which, they don't appear in the right order so I C&P them into position, then I've got to put a comment ahead of each...  I'm only whinging on pathetically to let you know that you certainly were not ignored all that time ago ;)

    As for getting resonses (not) - we've been hung out to dry, haven't we :(

  • Ive been trying to upload a small video mp4. 50mb on here for an hour. Absolutely no joy. I am pretty savi with technology but it simply doesnt provide a video option. No wonder you are frustrafed.
  • There's a 4Mb limit on photos and other files which is usually more than adequate. Videos take up far too much room so you need to upload them to YouTube and link them from there using the Web URL in the dialog box.
  • 4mb is miniscule Thinking thats like 1/2 a second of recording
  • BIRDIE68 said:
    4mb is miniscule thats like 1/2 a second of recording

    I'm no defender of this Forum which is riddled with flaws and can be very frustrating but I don't think their restriction on file size is unreasonable. Scylla, for example, is regularly posting videos of Ospreys which are several minutes long and therefore are many 100's of megabytes in size. This would soon clog up the servers and the RSPB unlike Facebook and YouTube do not have unlimited resources. Most of us are only posting photos and 4Mb is fine for that. In fact I usually restrict mine to 1.5 Mb.

    It's really not a big issue to upload videos to YouTube and link them here. This is how it will appear.