Site viewing, often in articles, is unnecessarily slow and frustrating.

[BrindleFinch]

Another thing to consider in a computer so old to be using XP is just lack of memory/processing power.

That, and viruses.

People are very quick to blame the internet but sometimes even the worse internet or best internet can be adversely affected by a machine that's weighed down with simply too much stuff.

A big offender is usually failed downloads; that data doesn't just vanish! And over years it can really pile up.

It may only help a little but I always recommend scanning for viruses and doing a little file spring cleaning when someone complains about slow internet - especially if your computer itself seems to be lagging, too.

 

[TwoCrows]

That's about it for me for the day.
I've got two hens to patch up; they've been fighting and their combs are a bit bloody.
Honestly, one of them is nine years old. One would have thought she would have mellowed a bit in her old age.
Good night.

Good night!

 

[Nifty-Chicken]

Hey all, thanks for the discussion!

I'm trying to wrap my head around everything discussed... but a few comments:

1. It's tricky to find the perfect balance between having support for a ton of beautiful and big pictures in an article vs. high page-load and bandwidth.
   
2. We resize all images upon upload to a size that is (in our opinion) the best compromise between resolution / clarity and file size.
3. We suggest heavy-image articles use thumbnails vs. all full-sized images
4. We also try to balance making the site compatible with all browsers and versions while also supporting newer browser technology.

All that said, we're definitely always open to feedback and suggestions on how to make BYC better for the most peeps possible

 

[Shadrach]

Hey all, thanks for the discussion!

I'm trying to wrap my head around everything discussed... but a few comments:

1. It's tricky to find the perfect balance between having support for a ton of beautiful and big pictures in an article vs. high page-load and bandwidth.
   
2. We resize all images upon upload to a size that is (in our opinion) the best compromise between resolution / clarity and file size.
3. We suggest heavy-image articles use thumbnails vs. all full-sized images
4. We also try to balance making the site compatible with all browsers and versions while also supporting newer browser technology.

All that said, we're definitely always open to feedback and suggestions on how to make BYC better for the most peeps possible

All the comments about out of date operating systems and bad internet connections are valid.
It just isn’t practicable for some to do much about these things.

What I was suggesting before the thread wandered was maybe even a note in the uploading pictures ‘how to’ or somewhere where if might be noticed, about the problems with large picture files and the benefits of format changing. While it probably isn’t a problem for the site as such, some formats take up a lot of storage space and when people come to upload and others go to view these files it takes longer to load the images.

For example. This is an image transferred directly from a camera to a hard drive.
It’s dimensions are 5184 x 3456 and it’s file size is 6.51MB

This is the same image but converted to 1024 x 683 a suitable pixel depth for a 21 inch monitor.
The file size of this converted picture is 125KB!

That is quite some difference! I can’t see much loss of image quality on my laptop screen.
It takes me two mouse clicks to make the conversion with a windows add on called image resizer.
It uploads quickly and requires much less bandwidth to view.
Most OS have such a tool for resizing pictures. There are some formats that use more Bytes than others. PNG for example is resource hungry while JPEG isn’t.
As you say, you have a file size limit. I’m not suggesting that the site bans any file type or file size, but a recommendation may help those who are experiencing difficulties.

There are some posters, particularly in the articles section who post a lot of high definition pictures and for me and some others I expect, these articles become unreadable because they just won’t load.
Even for those with better internet connections and more powerful machines these articles take longer to load and longer to scroll through.

It was just a thought in a moment of extreme irritation.

 

[TwoCrows]

All the comments about out of date operating systems and bad internet connections are valid.
It just isn’t practicable for some to do much about these things.

What I was suggesting before the thread wandered was maybe even a note in the uploading pictures ‘how to’ or somewhere where if might be noticed, about the problems with large picture files and the benefits of format changing. While it probably isn’t a problem for the site as such, some formats take up a lot of storage space and when people come to upload and others go to view these files it takes longer to load the images.

For example. This is an image transferred directly from a camera to a hard drive.
It’s dimensions are 5184 x 3456 and it’s file size is 6.51MB
View attachment 1552048

This is the same image but converted to 1024 x 683 a suitable pixel depth for a 21 inch monitor.
The file size of this converted picture is 125KB!
View attachment 1552048

That is quite some difference! I can’t see much loss of image quality on my laptop screen.
It takes me two mouse clicks to make the conversion with a windows add on called image resizer.
It uploads quickly and requires much less bandwidth to view.
Most OS have such a tool for resizing pictures. There are some formats that use more Bytes than others. PNG for example is resource hungry while JPEG isn’t.
As you say, you have a file size limit. I’m not suggesting that the site bans any file type or file size, but a recommendation may help those who are experiencing difficulties.

There are some posters, particularly in the articles section who post a lot of high definition pictures and for me and some others I expect, these articles become unreadable because they just won’t load.
Even for those with better internet connections and more powerful machines these articles take longer to load and longer to scroll through.

It was just a thought in a moment of extreme irritation.

You gotta trim those spurs.


Seriously though, many ideas are formed in times of great need.

 

[TwoCrows]

Oh and Rob, @Nifty-Chicken we are just blowing off steam about our horrible internet connections, old equipment and the anxiety resulting from it!

 

[Shadrach]

You gotta trim those spurs.


Seriously though, many ideas are formed in times of great need.

Nooooo, he liked his spurs.
Unfortunately he's dead now. His name was Major and he was the first rooster to eat out of my hand and the first to try and flog me.
We got ourselves straightened out eventually. I still miss him.

 

[TwoCrows]

Nooooo, he liked his spurs.
Unfortunately he's dead now. His name was Major and he was the first rooster to eat out of my hand and the first to try and flog me.
We got ourselves straightened out eventually. I still miss him.

Oh no, I am SO sorry!! He was such a handsome boy!!

 

[Shadrach]

Oh no, I am SO sorry!! He was such a handsome boy!!

He was indeed.
I like the roosters here. I've got eight atm spread over four tribes.
BTW, I've posted some more lamp pictures....

 

[Nifty-Chicken]

What I was suggesting before the thread wandered was maybe even a note in the uploading pictures ‘how to’ or somewhere where if might be noticed, about the problems with large picture files and the benefits of format changing.

That could be helpful, but we have a hard time getting peeps to read even the most basic instructions, rules, etc.

For example. This is an image transferred directly from a camera to a hard drive.
It’s dimensions are 5184 x 3456 and it’s file size is 6.51MB

Our system auto resized that to 509.82 KB. Still "big"... but much smaller at 90% the original size!

There are some posters, particularly in the articles section who post a lot of high definition pictures and for me and some others I expect, these articles become unreadable because they just won’t load.

Can you link to a few examples for us to take a look? They might be from an old system and we could maybe make some tweaks.

Again, ideally they'd use thumbnails for super large pics in articles with a lot of pictures.