(07-06-2015, 05:21 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:21 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]You heard him folks embedding is a ded feature.
yes i have always said "don't directly embed fuckhuge images" because some people have really slow internet and it slows everything down tremendously.
Because people click links.
(07-06-2015, 05:22 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:21 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ]yes i have always said "don't directly embed fuckhuge images" because some people have really slow internet and it slows everything down tremendously.
Because people click links.
because everyone has internet that can actually load images that big every time the page reloads.
(07-06-2015, 05:15 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:12 PM)SCN-3_NULL Wrote: [ -> ]apperently you can use the bug net to catch.....a duck.......
and birds.
and rabbits.
and squirrels.
and goldfish.
then why is it called a bug net, it can catch nearly anything!
(07-06-2015, 05:24 PM)SCN-3_NULL Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:15 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ]and birds.
and rabbits.
and squirrels.
and goldfish.
then why is it called a bug net, it can catch nearly anything!
and with that nearly everything.. you can sell the creatures..
or you can put them in a display.
(07-06-2015, 05:23 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:22 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Because people click links.
because everyone has internet that can actually load images that big every time the page reloads.
Long gifs I can understand. High resolution images so ridiculous they fuck with page formatting too, but smaller gifs and still images in general should not be considered an undue drain on any internet connection faster than AOL.
I've been fishing up nothing but bass....what am I doing wrong?
Edit, finally caught something different, the quest fish
(07-06-2015, 05:27 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:23 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ]because everyone has internet that can actually load images that big every time the page reloads.
Long gifs I can understand. High resolution images so ridiculous they fuck with page formatting too, but smaller gifs and still images in general should not be considered an undue drain on any internet connection faster than AOL.
(07-06-2015, 05:17 PM)Nepeta Wrote: [ -> ]Please link large images insted of embedding them, especially big GIFs like this. -Ehks
Quote: large images
It's not "forbidden" as you want to make it out to be in your head.
(07-06-2015, 05:27 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:23 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ]because everyone has internet that can actually load images that big every time the page reloads.
Long gifs I can understand. High resolution images so ridiculous they fuck with page formatting too, but smaller gifs and still images in general should not be considered an undue drain on any internet connection faster than AOL.
did you
literally not read what i said
"Don't embed fuckhuge images"
that is word for word what i said
not "don't embed images ever".
(07-06-2015, 05:22 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Because people click links.
Indeed they do. The Internet would be infinitely more complicated to use, not to mention unwieldy, without links. Imagine if instead of having links to the relevant articles, every linked article in a Wikipedia page was included in its entirety.
(07-06-2015, 05:30 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:27 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Long gifs I can understand. High resolution images so ridiculous they fuck with page formatting too, but smaller gifs and still images in general should not be considered an undue drain on any internet connection faster than AOL.
did you literally not read what i said
"Don't embed fuckhuge images"
that is word for word what i said
not "don't embed images ever".
Then where is the line? Do images have to be bite sized thumbnails to not be "fuckhuge" or do they have to stretch the message they're embedded in excessively before they are banned.
I don't like the idea of "X content, although SFW, is now banned because Y and I say so"
(07-06-2015, 05:33 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:30 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ]did you literally not read what i said
"Don't embed fuckhuge images"
that is word for word what i said
not "don't embed images ever".
Then where is the line? Do images have to be bite sized thumbnails to not be "fuckhuge" or do they have to stretch the message they're embedded in excessively before they are banned.
I don't like the idea of "X content, although SFW, is now banned because Y and I say so"
okay
do me a favor, click that link, and tell me the file size of that gif. then, with a straight face, tell me that is perfectly okay to embed because that is a small gif size. You want a hard limit? Okay.
Nothing over 2 MB in size is allowed to be embedded. You happy?
(07-06-2015, 05:39 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:33 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Then where is the line? Do images have to be bite sized thumbnails to not be "fuckhuge" or do they have to stretch the message they're embedded in excessively before they are banned.
I don't like the idea of "X content, although SFW, is now banned because Y and I say so"
okay
do me a favor, click that link, and tell me the file size of that gif. then, with a straight face, tell me that is perfectly okay to embed because that is a small gif size. You want a hard limit? Okay.
Nothing over 2 MB in size is allowed to be embedded. You happy?
Mark my words it's a slippery and dangerous slope.
And aside from the giant.gfycat link I didn't find any indication of it being An excessively large gif. On my phone, with shitty reception. It wasn't even an interesting gif either.
(07-06-2015, 05:41 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:39 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ]okay
do me a favor, click that link, and tell me the file size of that gif. then, with a straight face, tell me that is perfectly okay to embed because that is a small gif size. You want a hard limit? Okay.
Nothing over 2 MB in size is allowed to be embedded. You happy?
Mark my words it's a slippery and dangerous slope.
You're acting like image filesize limits are uncommon.
they are not.
they are not
at all.
you're acting like i'm outlawing it because of the content.
i loved the gif, it was great, because abe lincoln in KSP is hilarious, but it was way too damn big. 54 MB is way beyond ANY sane limit for embedding an image on a forum.
(07-06-2015, 05:33 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:30 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ]did you literally not read what i said
"Don't embed fuckhuge images"
that is word for word what i said
not "don't embed images ever".
Then where is the line? Do images have to be bite sized thumbnails to not be "fuckhuge" or do they have to stretch the message they're embedded in excessively before they are banned.
I don't like the idea of "X content, although SFW, is now banned because Y and I say so"
"X content is now undesirable, because Y and I enforce it" would be more appropriate, no?
Where Y is [Legitimate reason of people having restricted bandwidth, and not providing more content than if linked to, or presented in a smaller file or other format]
(07-06-2015, 05:41 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:39 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ]okay
do me a favor, click that link, and tell me the file size of that gif. then, with a straight face, tell me that is perfectly okay to embed because that is a small gif size. You want a hard limit? Okay.
Nothing over 2 MB in size is allowed to be embedded. You happy?
Mark my words it's a slippery and dangerous slope.
And aside from the giant.gfycat link I didn't find any indication of it being An excessively large gif. On my phone, with shitty reception. It wasn't even an interesting gif either.
The image Nepeta put up was about 52.3 MB in size... that is rather ridiculous for a forum post! in my oppinion 2mb is low yes... i would have gone with around 5 MB but... 30+ is far far too large... especially for people with slow networks!
(07-06-2015, 05:43 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:41 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]Mark my words it's a slippery and dangerous slope.
You're acting like image filesize limits are uncommon.
they are not.
they are not at all.
you're acting like i'm outlawing it because of the content.
i loved the gif, it was great, because abe lincoln in KSP is hilarious, but it was way too damn big. 54 MB is way beyond ANY sane limit for embedding an image on a forum.
Slippery and dangerous slope.
(07-06-2015, 05:48 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:43 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ]You're acting like image filesize limits are uncommon.
they are not.
they are not at all.
you're acting like i'm outlawing it because of the content.
i loved the gif, it was great, because abe lincoln in KSP is hilarious, but it was way too damn big. 54 MB is way beyond ANY sane limit for embedding an image on a forum.
Slippery and dangerous slope.
My question is how.
How, exactly, is limiting file size a slippery slope? It's a common practice on many forums for christs's sake! I'm not outlawing images containing specific content, I'm saying "Link big images."
That's not a slippery slope. That's common sense and saying it's a slippery slope is absolutely incorrect. If I then said "No more images about KSP or Nepeta ever" thn yes, you would have a valid complaint.
Guess what? I have done neither. I told KC to stop spamming images in general,
no matter what the content. Posting a ton of images and videos is spam no matter what, and isn't okay to do.