I personally like option 1. People should be able to police themselves. And I think a limit of 500K total is reasonable enough to not completely eliminate animated gifs, yet give people a way to view threads without slowing up the system.

K.T.Tran wrote:

ok........so my gif i was planning on putting up next is about 909KB if I remember right....if I remove the added 7 frames from tweening, it'll be about 750+ KB, but its under 800KB.....still too big????

yikes...i hope you are joking O_O

~~

and bmwracer...i think you are right about the first option...it wouldn't get rid of all animated gifs, just most of the ones that cause lag and other such problems for many people. i know its probably just my opinion, but if people want to show a huge animated gif...why not just host the original file somewhere and provide a link for people to use if they want?? when people have 300k+ animated gifs and post 3 or more times on a page...thats just overkill...especially when there are several of these people on the same thread.
hopefully common courtesy for fellow thread-mates will keep the super huge still-picture sigs from getting too out of hand...most of the people i have encountered that had super large sigs were nice enough to resize them.

dochira wrote:

I personally like option 1. People should be able to police themselves. And I think a limit of 500K total is reasonable enough to not completely eliminate animated gifs, yet give people a way to view threads without slowing up the system.

Sounds reasonable.

I think the rules should be clear-cut and listed somehow on the profiles page as a reminder, so that users don't forget.

dochira wrote:

I personally like option 1. People should be able to police themselves. And I think a limit of 500K total is reasonable enough to not completely eliminate animated gifs, yet give people a way to view threads without slowing up the system.

Absolutely agree with you on that.

battlegirlai wrote:

yikes...i hope you are joking O_O

Nope.....the size right now is 909KB....I'll remove the last 7 frames and resize the size of the frames. right now its 266x200.....I use irfanview to resize my caps. I'll resize the height to 150. Hopefully it'll be close enough to 500KB
_________________

bmwracer wrote:

My take on the three choices: 1. Size restriction - A nice, across the board fix, but resticting the file size won't prevent someone from having a huge image as long as it's under the 100K/200K/etc. limit. It will cut down, if not eradicate, most animated gifs, though. And this would speed up page loads, I would think. 2. User display option - Also nice for those who don't wanna see or are sick of seing avatars and gifs. I like images, good or bad, so I wouldn't use this option. 3. Pic blocking - If it's not feasible due to overhead, then this choice shouldn't be even considered.

i think a size restriction will limit some people that have gifs/high res. pix, but it will benefit everyone overall, and speed up things, especially those who are on dial up still. but 100k, is that kind of low, what do you guys think of 500k for pix of gif? just a thought...too much still?

qilver wrote:

i think a size restriction will limit some people that have gifs/high res. pix, but it will benefit everyone overall, and speed up things, especially those who are on dial up still. but 100k, is that kind of low, what do you guys think of 500k for pix of gif? just a thought...too much still?

100K for pics, 500K or animated gifs. 500 pixels wide, max.

Only one pic OR one animated gif for a sig, not both.

bmwracer wrote:

100K for pics, 500K or animated gifs. 500 pixels wide, max.

Sounds reasonable

bmwracer wrote:

Only one pic OR one animated gif for a sig, not both.

I actually don't mind having both, as long as the total would be <500k. Of course that might lead to one or both to lose quality.

dochira wrote:

I actually don't mind having both, as long as the total would be <500k. Of course that might lead to one or both to lose quality.

So any two in combination, as long as the total is <=500K?

bmwracer wrote:

So any two in combination, as long as the total is <=500K?

If that's OK with you, then it's cool for me.

dochira wrote:

If that's OK with you, then it's cool for me.

Fine by me.

I've rarely exceeded those limits, so I'm cool with it.

Looks like we're mostly slated towards option 1... just deciding on the finer details.

Other than filesize, we would be restricting the image display size too. Width has been controlled already, but for height, we should put a limit. Looks quite awkward when you're reading posts in a forum, and the signatures take up more than the actual content.

Option 2 will be put on KIV... zzz..
_________________

<500kb for combined ava/sig sounds generous but okay...
and i totally agree regarding the height limit as well, since some of the sigs are quite tall...
eniway, my question is regarding the image filesize and dimension restrictions. Will it only affect ava/sigs or will it also affect images posted within threads themselves... i'm referring to the photo threads we currently have, they would not look good if the pics in the thread also has the height restriction (soe pics doesnt look good now becuase of the width restriction but it would make it look much worse with a height restriction). It wuold be nice if it only affects the sigs/ava and not the images within threads....
so for height, what would it be? 150px? 200px? 250px?
_________________

Nope. It won't affect the images posted -- they will still just be restricted to 500px in width.

However, some users had brought up that the pics posted are getting huge too. Some very large in side, while some are super long in height. We'll come to that after this..

Personally I feel that 500kB is still alot. Imagine 10 users posting on one page, each pushing their sigs to the limit..? Thats 5MB for loading one page... I was looking at 200kB initially. The number doesn't bother me that much though, but if the dialup users are ok with it, I'm fine too.
_________________

nice to hear genma, i wouldnt want the photo threads to get the same height restrictions as the sigs... that would make them really small, hehehe

regarding the filesize limit, as I mentioned 500kb is generous but if it's acceptable to everyone, all is good....
_________________

And that's only 10 people. a page normally has more than 10 people posting. that's a dozen mb's wasted on (useless) sigpics alone. Thank god not everyone is using them. Even though I'm a fast connection myself, IMO it's a waste of bw.

I do understand people want to personalize themselves or even stand out - some look neat but know what's annoying: when you have the same 5 people replying to eachother: it's like a picture gallery but with the same pics: don't you get tired of them yourself? (ok, i know what you're going to say: i'll just renew those pics every week

Generally on other forums there's always a size and dimension restriction on sigpics and avatars. (for example a sig/banner of 300x60 works great) not only for speeding up things, but more importantly keep the forums readable and clean.

just my thoughts

arnel98 wrote:

regarding the filesize limit, as I mentioned 500kb is generous but if it's acceptable to everyone, all is good....

Compared to the current situation, I think it's a reasonable compromise for this round. If it's still a problem later down the line, I'm sure this issue will be revisited.

loris wrote:

It's not that it isn't possible, but it's just not feasible. If the pics aren't served by jdorama, then they could be swapped out for larger pics at any time after some initial filesize check. So do you check them on every page that is served? That would basically mean that jdorama would be acting as a proxy for all those off-site images. Now THAT would really slow the site down.

Not really, just gotta be smart and use a cache the results.
_________________

JDorama DVD Service
http://moderation.dyndns.org:8080/jdorama/

Here's a proposal.

File Size
-------------------
I would just keep it at 200KB per pic.

Sig Governing
-------------------
1) Have it set so that by default, img in sigs are not allowed. In order to enable it, you have to read the rules on what's allowed, and agree to it.

2) For violators, they get issued a warning by mod, which they would have to comply by 1 week. If the sig isn't changed, their pics in signature privilages're permanetly revoked. 3 Warnings also equals privilage revoked.

3) 1 Pic only in the sig.
_________________

Terryb wrote:

And that's only 10 people. a page normally has more than 10 people posting. I do understand people want to personalize themselves or even stand out - some look neat but know what's annoying: when you have the same 5 people replying to eachother: it's like a picture gallery but with the same pics: don't you get tired of them yourself? (ok, i know what you're going to say: i'll just renew those pics every week

my thoughts exactly!

Buruburu wrote:

Here's a proposal. File Size ------------------- I would just keep it at 200KB per pic. Sig Governing ------------------- 1) Have it set so that by default, img in sigs are not allowed. In order to enable it, you have to read the rules on what's allowed, and agree to it. 2) For violators, they get issued a warning by mod, which they would have to comply by 1 week. If the sig isn't changed, their pics in signature privilages're permanetly revoked. 3 Warnings also equals privilage revoked. 3) 1 Pic only in the sig.

i second this idea! i'm sorry, 500k is still too large in my opinion...the page in my sig had 9 animated gifs on it (and it wasn't even a full page yet) 7 of which were 300k or more in size...its not that hard to make smaller gifs....if you love a clip so much and want to keep it in high quality, save it to your harddrive and loop it in a media player. imagine what other people hafta go thru when they read a page......