Members Studebaker Pictures ( Column)

[BShaw]

My rationale behind not allowing comments on the Members' Studebakers section included:

1. Primarily I was concerned that the page load as quickly as possible for our many, many dial-up members. The more data the page has the longer it takes (which is why I'd also asked that members post just a couple of pics then include a link to their larger photo album).

2. Related to #1, some members like to use the "Reply With Quote" feature as a norm when replying without editing non-essential stuff in the original post, which then causes the photos in the original post to have to reload again, and again, and again, depending on how many Replies with Quotes are made. again, more data = longer loading time.

3. I was concerned that people would make it into another discussion forum and we already have that. I felt it might be confusing.

The Members Studebakers section was created as a forum because the photo album mod for this forum really was lame and unnecessarily complicated for users.

Of late it has become apparent to me that people don't read "Read Me First" posts and constantly monitoring/deleting replies was/is not a good use of my time.

So, I've come to the conclusion (only took me 4 years) that the "no comments" rule is pushing on a string and I gave up on it. Thought it was/is a good idea but simply not workable.

It's all good and certainly nothing important enough to argue over. I'll modify the Read Me post soon.

BShaw,Webmaster

60 Hawk. 49 2R5, 39 Champion
Woodbury, Minnesota

[DEEPNHOCK]

I try to rotate pictures occasionally
Totally on a whim just to keep it fresh.
Competition never really entered my mind,
but I have observed exactly what you are describing...
(about editing to bump to the top).
Jeff[8D]

quote:Originally posted by Guido

I suspect that it may create an issue (and competition) for those people who constantly "edit" their pictures to keep them at the top.

[barnlark]

Bob Shaw, you are doing an awesome job keeping up on all of this. I doubt anyone is consciously violating the rules, but many of us just forget and comment on something in the wrong forum when it comes up. Thanks for clarifying. Is there a limit to pictures on one post that you would like to keep it down to?

[Roscomacaw]

I wanna echo Dave's comments. Kudos to Bob Shaw. I propose a toast to Mr. Shaw. That's TOO him, not OF him.[}][^]

Miscreant Studebaker nut in California's central valley.

1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President two door

[BShaw]

PLEASE, do NOT thank me at any time for any reason for attempting to do my job.[:I]

BShaw,Webmaster

60 Hawk. 49 2R5, 39 Champion
Woodbury, Minnesota

[DilloCrafter]

I agree. Bob, you are doing an awesome job, especially to put up with all of us. I doubt you can make more than a few of us happy at any one time, so I hope you realize that and aren't losing any sleep over it.

As a web developer myself, let me mention some things about file sizes as they affect download times for dialup modems.

1) Text is quick to download. It would take approx. 500 lines of text to add up to 50kb. So, no problem there.

2) It's possible to "optimize" the file size of your photos without compromising much on quality or the size as it appears on the screen. Most of these vehicle photos could be optimized to a file size around 50kb, and still appear as large as a 4x6 print when seen on the computer screen. For example, this one of Dan Miller's Road Race Lark, from Matthew's Photobucket site, is only 23kb:



To contrast that efficiency, I saw many similar looking photos on the Member Photos forum that were over 100kb, but didn't need to be in order to still look good. For example, Jeff H posted a pic of his beautiful 1953 Starliner in a wheatfield. It is a rather large file, at 207kb. (Note: I'm choosing this one because it's a great photo of a beautiful car, not to pick on Jeff). I saved a copy of it to my pc, then uploaded it to the free website, http://www.resizr.com . They give you lots of options. I chose to leave the pixel (screen view) size as it was, and picked the best quality output, which they call ultra. Their page resized the photo for me, then I right-clicked the result to download and compare to the original. They look almost identical in quality and screen viewing size, but the new one's file size is a very tight 69kb. That's 1/3 the filesize from before!

Here is before, at 207kb. Very sharp and clear:


And here is the one that I sent through the resizr.com process. It's now only 69kb, but still sharp and clear enough to enjoy:


So, I heartily recommend running your photos thru http://www.resizr.com to get them down to a small filesize while still looking good. I tried 4 other free photo resizing sites, but most of them wouldn't accept the image, yet didn't say why.

[img=left]http://simps.us/studebaker/misc/images/Avacar-hcsdc.gif[/img=left]
Paul Simpson
"DilloCrafter"

1955 1/2 Ton Pickup
The Red-Headed Amazon
Deep in the heart of Texas

[Dick Steinkamp]

Along with what Paul said...

I wonder if there is some software that will automatically "downsize" a picture that is being posted on the forum to one of optimum size. Try as we might to set picture posting size rules, many do not have the technical skills to actually do it.

[Jeff_H]

I don't recall exactly what I did with that wheat field picture, but I am sure it was shrunken some from the original file. Guess I should have worked on it some more. I think the original was likely 1.5-2MB. I know that other pictures I have posted, what I will typically do is use MS Office picture manager and go to the "edit pictures" and "resize". Then there are several options on what to do. Usually, I pick out something that nets a file <75kB. Depends on the picture. It can take some trial and error since the darn program won't tell you the new file size, just the x-y in pixels.

What always amazes me at work is someone pastes in some bitmap of graphics or text out of a document into a email and then unwaringly sends it out to half the company mailing list. I've have 10MB emails come in and after they ~finally~ open find there is some stupid little picture or graph in there (usually useless). I always do a test on these if I send stuff like that out to make sure I am not reponsible for crashing the email server! Just changing from rich text format to html can make a huge difference.

Jeff in ND

'53 Champion Hardtop

[JRoberts]

I really do not want to cause a problem here, but I think the no comment rule might also help in reducing negative comments. It seems there are more and more negative comments on the General Discussion and the non-Studebaker Discussion Forums. Although I am sure unintentional sometimes these comments really seem to be hurtful. This seems to be especially true concerning newcomers to our group. I know this does not happen often, but I seem to see it more than it used to be. If there is a no comment rule, then people can post pictures of their vehicles without fear of being torn apart by folks who don't care for this or that or the other thing.

Of course I understand what Jeff says about updating the pictures of your vehicle. I mean if I have a new paint job, wheels, etc. I would want those changes to be shown on the forum.

Joe Roberts
'61 R1 Champ
'65 Cruiser
Editor of "The Down Easterner"
Eastern North Carolina Chapter

[DilloCrafter]

quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp
I wonder if there is some software that will automatically "downsize" a picture that is being posted on the forum to one of optimum size. Try as we might to set picture posting size rules, many do not have the technical skills to actually do it.

Dick, unfortunately, the only thing that is hosted at the SDC forum site is a text link to the photo. Since the photo is hosted somewhere else, it never even comes through the SDC forum site. I'm afraid it's all up to the members who post their photos wherever they keep them, to put them through resizr.com or some similar filesize reducing process.

[img=left]http://simps.us/studebaker/misc/images/Avacar-hcsdc.gif[/img=left]
Paul Simpson
"DilloCrafter"

1955 1/2 Ton Pickup
The Red-Headed Amazon
Deep in the heart of Texas