Rule 7 or when is an image too large

[Doom9]

In response to a question raised early today.. why is rule7 so vague? Why not abolish it or set a fixed size as maximum?

Images can take a lot of space and I really don't need people posting their desktops to fill up the database. And with desktops we're already at the core of the size question:

My screen has a resolution of 2560x1600. So, if my video of 640x272 pixels has a problem and I post a screenshot of my full screen, this is clearly inappropriate. Not would pretty much anybody have to resize the image or scroll, but the majority of the screenshot would show completely irrelevant information.
Likewise if an application crashes.. if at all, a screenshot of the error message would be enough, plus a description of the steps I took since the start of the program.

Often, just part of an image would also do the trick, so when posting images, ask yourself: what is the minimal amount of image information I need to show to make other people understand and then post just that. Feel free to go overboard with text (there's no such thing as a too detailed description of the problem) but as far as images go, less is more.

Another good example are guides.. look at mine,especially when dealing with a program that has many options. I break down the information in a single screen into multiple screenshots and treat those separately. This makes it much easier to locate the individual options than if you have just one shot showing dozens of options lumped together.

[communist]

For windows users:
Print Screen to make a screenshot of the whole screen.
ALT+ Print Screen - make screenshot of active window only.

In case of error message you can just activate the error message window - hit CTRL+C and paste the text into your post. This works most times and if it does not then you can still make a screenshot.

[blutach]

Or even better, get Imageshack Quickshot (http://reg.imageshack.us/content.php?page=quickshot). A single keystroke combo and you upload to their servers and paste the link into your post. For the most part, PNG is the best format, but for photos, JPG is better.

Regards

[Doom9]

I'd suggest something like mwsnap and make a range snap showing just what you need. Often, the active window is already too much information.
And.. jpeg for movies/photos and gif/png for shots of computer software.

[unskinnyboy]

My suggestion would be to rephrase rule #7 to ask users to post thumbnails if the image resolution is above a certain limit (maybe > 640 pixels?). What Doom9 has explained in the first post is all very good and common sense, but won't reach the correct audience. Those who read this thread already know, and those who need to know would never get around to reading this thread either. MoDs and other users can only point the rule breakers to the actual set of rules at the top (of which, #7 remains vague), and not to a thread. Besides, you can never strike/sanction anyone for rule #7, if it isn't crystal clear on what it means.

[Dr.Khron]

Another good example are guides.. look at mine,especially when dealing with a program that has many options. I break down the information in a single screen into multiple screenshots and treat those separately. This makes it much easier to locate the individual options than if you have just one shot showing dozens of options lumped together.

I could not agree more. Showing a person an entire screenshot (or even just the entire window) tells them almost nothing.

I use to do a bunch of process documentation for ERP systems, and its SUPER important to cut the screen shot down to the smallest possible piece that still makes your point. Otherwise, the important part is lost in the clutter.

You can get a bunch of nice freeware applets that automates this for you, but I prefer the manual approach, becuase it works on any windows PC:

-hit "Print Screen"
-open MSPaint
-paste in the image
-cut out the piece you need
-Paste it somewhere

Putting it through MSPaint allows you to paste as BMP, JPG OR as a "Pict". If you are pasting into Word documents, the Pict format is a HUGE advantage, high quality images at small data sizes (becuase its an MS Office native format).

[stax76]

Or even better, get Imageshack Quickshot. A single keystroke combo and you upload to their servers and paste the link into your post. For the most part, PNG is the best format, but for photos, JPG is better.

Sounds like a very useful tool.

Since I have webspace hosting my open source stuff I'm uploading screenshots to my webspace, screeshots are taken with greenshot (http://greenshot.sourceforge.net/)(a wonderful open source tool), in windows explorer I just have to right-click the image to show a context menu item 'Upload', it will upload the selected images and copy the vBulletin code to the clipboard.

The menu item is provided by a shell extension I wrote, many month later a found out somebody wrote a similar thing called Open++ (http://www.freewebs.com/dengdun/en/openxx.htm), at least I think it's similar, I've never tried it, I never had to, I've also never made my shell extension public even though it was a major effort coding it and it's one of the most useful tools I've ever done.

The uploading is done with a script, with a good tool like .NET it's five lines code, I'm using a VB .NET scripting solution I've coded and released (http://www.planetdvb.net/utilities/staxscript)on my website. Python is very elegant but clearly lacks behind the .NET 3.5 class library and the unrivaled VB .NET code editor (on the fly error issuing using background compilation (which is btw. imposible to implement for C style languages as C style syntax totally ignores parsing theory)).

My suggestion would be to rephrase rule #7 to ask users to post thumbnails if the image resolution is above a certain limit (maybe > 640 pixels?).

Thumbnails would be a nice improvement for my script, resizing can be done with convert.exe from ImageMagick (http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php), another wonderful open source tool.

I find it very annoying forum attachments don't get verified for a long time, recently somebody attached something to show a problem with StaxRip, IIRC it took very long until it was verified and it was very big in filesize, and he didn't notice it hasn't been verified yet which caused confusion. Using a hosting service is so much easier.

[Shinigami-Sama]

/r/ sticky
or this replacing the current rule 7 wording

I also have agree with dr.kron
I almost always go though mspaint for screen shots

and cutting an image is easy

past
click it
click the select tool
select
ctrl+c
ctrl+n
don't save
ctrl+v
save

you havce a nice cropped image

[CWR03]

My suggestion would be to rephrase rule #7 to ask users to post thumbnails if the image resolution is above a certain limit (maybe > 640 pixels?).
This is why I like sites like imageshack.us - it gives me a thumbnail (the size of which I can specify) and the thumbnail is a link to the full-size image. Dial-up users don't have to load a large image just to read the thread, and they have the choice of viewing the full-size if they need to.

[DVFs_DrinkOrDie]

...I prefer the manual approach, becuase it works on any windows PC:

-hit "Print Screen"
-open MSPaint
-paste in the image
-cut out the piece you need
-Paste it somewhere

This is exactly what I do. One difference: after using paint to cut out the important part, I don't just "paste it somewhere". after cutting, I close paint, reopen it, then paste to paint again, then save as JPEG.

[cdanddvdpublisher]

Having a limit on image sizes simply makes sense - and since there are plenty of ways to crop and work it out, doesn't seem like it should be a problem...

[~bT~]

why not hack vBulletin and auto resize images which are deemed too large?

[foxyshadis]

why not hack vBulletin and auto resize images which are deemed too large?

That'd be even worse, imagine reading an error message that's been resized to 1/3 size because a full screen was uploaded.

I find it very annoying forum attachments don't get verified for a long time, recently somebody attached something to show a problem with StaxRip, IIRC it took very long until it was verified and it was very big in filesize, and he didn't notice it hasn't been verified yet which caused confusion. Using a hosting service is so much easier.

I hate to say it, but consider a long unapproved attachment a passive rejection, if multiple mods consider it iffy. I'd rather just reject anything grey like that and save everyone the trouble but I won't do it outside of my own forums. I'd also rather the image upload page had a huge bleeding red blinking neon text telling everyone to use imageshack or photobucket if at all possible, or expect their image to possibly remain unviewable for days or weeks, plus restricting the resolution below the current limits.

Image attachments are probably ~30-40% of the overall forum database size, and likely a fair chunk of bandwidth, though only swede could say for sure.

[stax76]

Endless long logfiles waste also a lot of space, in many cases posting only a part of it like a command line would be sufficient.

[Wombler]

I hate to say it, but consider a long unapproved attachment a passive rejection, if multiple mods consider it iffy. I'd rather just reject anything grey like that and save everyone the trouble but I won't do it outside of my own forums.

Spot on!

To be honest I'm not sure why people are agonising over this so much.

The simple answer is that if anyone is in any doubt at all they should assume it's not acceptable and not post it in the first place.

Some things are just so difficult to tie down that an element of common sense from the users when applying limits is essential and I think that this is one of those instances.

The vagueness of this rule is in my mind a postive attempt to credit users with the intelligence to make their own decisions based on individual circumstances.

This is a compliment to the users in my book.


Wombler

[~bT~]

That'd be even worse, imagine reading an error message that's been resized to 1/3 size because a full screen was uploaded.




Erm, not really. The resized image should be made clickable to see the original image.

[DVFs_DrinkOrDie]

Erm, not really. The resized image should be made clickable to see the original image.

I think you're misunderstanding. If it were clickable to see the original image, then the forum database would still be hosting the huge original image so what good would that do? Most of those clickable thumbnails you see posted in forums point to the original sized image which is hosted by another website, so it's the other website's bandwidth that is being used.

[krosswindz]

I think you're misunderstanding. If it were clickable to see the original image, then the forum database would still be hosting the huge original image so what good would that do? Most of those clickable thumbnails you see posted in forums point to the original sized image which is hosted by another website, so it's the other website's bandwidth that is being used.

The forum database woudlnt host anything, the link would be to the original hosting website. Just that the resized image would be linked to original image.

[Shinigami-Sama]

The forum database woudlnt host anything, the link would be to the original hosting website. Just that the resized image would be linked to original image.

and where is this resized image coming from?
the database?
:rolleyes:

[krosswindz]

and where is this resized image coming from?
the database?
:rolleyes:

Cant we use the IMG tag of html have hack in vb which does if img width > x px


<img src="http://my.imagehost.com/image.jpg" width="y%" height="y%">

[Shinigami-Sama]

Cant we use the IMG tag of html have hack in vb which does if img width > x px


<img src="http://my.imagehost.com/image.jpg" width="y%" height="y%">


that still loads the full image then resizes
and it doesn't always scale the image, it might just put scroll bars on depending how stupid the browser is...

[krosswindz]

that still loads the full image then resizes
and it doesn't always scale the image, it might just put scroll bars on depending how stupid the browser is...

The user can probably switch to a saner browser like firefox... open source rules :p

[DVFs_DrinkOrDie]

The forum database woudlnt host anything, the link would be to the original hosting website. Just that the resized image would be linked to original image.

I thought that was pretty much what I said.