NEW: Community Issues

Thanks all for your feedback, I have captured the additional comments and have fed this back to the team. I will come back to you next week with a further update. In the meantime, I hope you all have lovely weekends.

thanks for capturing our comments. do you know weather that file identifier issue I said iv had an issue with eber since 2022 -

the one where when Inmake forums but add photos to before thr forum is actualy created that says file identifier and prevents me from adding photos - when adding photos to main post when I press send  for a couple of days sometimes a week or couple of months thet you noted down on the other community upgrade forum  was looked into and solved or is that specific issue I mentioned still being dealt with? 

Hi Zo Clark  - I have raised the problem with file identifier as it appears there are a number of issues relating to it but I have included your specific issue within the request. 

thanks.  does that mean that specific issue is still being looked into and  investigated? 

.

 OfficialRSPB (Kylie - Official RSPB) 

(I know you won't be back till next week but anyway...)

Having finished catching up with the posts in this thread and therefore being on Page 2, I wanted to go back to Bobs_Retired's post on Page 1 to quote some of it, but!

Clicking "1" at the end of the posts got no response.

Clicking the bright blue    on the left at the end of the posts got no response.

Clicking the ️ ️ arrow in Firefox browser activated the Admin panel - over and over, it took a while to get out of that merrygoround.

Holding the ️ arrow down to reveal historical pages and selecting the previous one got no response, nor did any of the drop-down pages until I clicked on the first page of this new thread.  Phew!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bobs_Retired said:

One last issue regarding images. The current default image size is way too small. If there are a number of images at the present default they have no real detail when using a computer with a large screen. Consequently you have to click on the image to open it up to a decent viewable image. However, you then have to click to close that image before viewing the next image - so its two clicks for every image. Many people have started to use the drag and drop feature and then pull the grab handles on each image to mage it a decent size before posting, but that is really a painful process. Personally I amend the source code so that the images appear on screen at a decent resolution (usually 960 x720 pixels. Its certainly not as tedious as dragging the image boxes and produces a much neater posting.

I would like to offer two options for better customer satisfaction.

Either - increase the default image display size to 960 x 720 pixels.

Or - introduce a Facebook type slideshow of images within one post - ie once one image has been clicked on and enlarged, there should be a left and right arrow to allow the user to cycle through all of the images in that post.

Of the two options, I think the easiest to implement would be to increase the standard display size to 960 x 720 pixels and would be my preferred solution.

I heartily endorse Bob's first para, except:

I only work with pictures from live stream videos, which are always 16:9 aspect ratio, therefore the same optimum size would be 960x540.

I resize pics in IrfanView according to the 'nature' of the snap, my maximum usually being 800 wide.

However, the pic will still be reduced by the system when dragged 'n dropped, so I have to do the "painful process" of dragging the corner to create a viewable pic.

I don't know how to "amend the source code", have googled it and it seems to need time to figure out what would work here.

I've always felt that, apart from security, the main reason for these changes to the Community is to save resources=money.  That's why the default pic size is so tiny.

scylla    PS I sent you a Friend Request to start the ball rolling

Bobs_Retired said:

scylla said:

I only work with pictures from live stream videos, which are always 16:9 aspect ratio, therefore the same optimum size would be 960x540.

Unfortunately16:9 is not the native for still photographs. That said, I believe that the default image size just means that the image will be no wider than  eg 960 and no higher than eg 720- it will not distort a 540 pixel high image to 720 unless the software is really bad. I will send you a PM later and let you know how to edit the source code if you would like - its a doddle really, (unnecessary but a doddle)

Bob does have a point.

16:9 is the default for Monitors, laptops and most TV screens.

Even modern smart devices, nolonger adopt the 16:9 ratio, some are wider. My S10 is 19:9 and I think the S20 is even wider. The iphone 14 is different yet again at 19.5:9!

For many DSLR & Mirrorless the default is 3:2, though other ratios are available by choice. For editing photos, some users will opt to crop to gain the best background vs subject aspect which opens up unlimited ratio aspects and which makes for a mandatory default too strict.

The option to select as Bob proposes is probably the most user friendly, unless the uploader can auto detect the aspect ratio and the user puts in the first pixel size and then the uploader auto selects the corresponding size, which was the original working That for me, worked well no matter what aspect ratio the photo was.

Bobs_Retired said:

scylla    PS I sent you a Friend Request to start the ball rolling

Much appreciated, I've accepted, Bob..

Also appreciated is the lesson on modern aspect ratios, Mike!

Quote you: the user puts in the first pixel size and then the uploader auto selects the corresponding size, which was the original working That for me, worked well no matter what aspect ratio the photo was.

That's now IrfanView works when I resize - I only have to choose the width and it is set to keep the original aspect ratio.

My rudimentary video editor will only save in "official" aspect ratios - and as the originals are all 16:9, that's what screenshots are unless they're cropped.

.

 OfficialRSPB (Kylie - Official RSPB) 

My post above to Bob and Mike had to be edited to remove the "@Mike" part, because...

I got this at the bottom: