For comparison, saving the entirety of page 21 in this thread, as it stands at the moment of typing this, without the gif, in MHTML format, results in a file barely over 2 MB in size. This file format means all other images in it were included, such as avatars, signatures, and that nepeta thing kC posted. To summarize:
kC's gif = 52 megabytes.
Rest of the page = 2 megabytes.
As for what Coro said, I believe the limit being 2 to 5 megabytes is perfectly debatable, but anything over that is already too much. In whichever case, I will abide by Ehks' decision.
(07-06-2015, 05:31 PM)Calabrese Wrote: [ -> ] (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.
People click links sent by their friends out of habit.
This behavior is exploited by malware authors to get people to click on things they would normally ignore.
And my server is actually kinda sluggish. If your pic is so large that it can't load completely by the time my server has finished sending you the site layout and everyone else's stuff, you probably should link it.
Works out to anything over a megabyte or two for modern connectivity.
But bear in mind, there are people in the town I live in that still use dialup as their primary internet access. And many people are restricted to cellphones, which are limited on both speed and total monthly transfer as well as tiny screens that already have a ton of scrolling to do.
Huge images just make it impossible for phone browsers, and people using cell internet or slower will not be able to load pages in a timely manner.
Really all there is to it. Be a bit more tactful in your use of reaction images, and anything with a large filesize or excessively page-stretching should be a link instead.
(07-06-2015, 05:52 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:48 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]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.
It's a slippery slope because you're pruning this or that about the forum because you can, first this is problematic, okay that's moderately reasonable, then that's problematic, okay well I guess, then all of these things are problematic and banned, because they can be, now it's a forum for people who agree that these things are problematic and everyone else can go make their own if it's such a problem. Congratulations you've made either a hugbox or an echo chamber depending on what you chose to ban.
I can live with an upper limit on gif size, I don't like the sudden decision of what's good or bad for everyone without their input. "In my opinion" as I should probably preface this, the appropriate way to handle that would have been "KC that gif is ridiculous. In fact I think we may need a file size limit now that we can implement one" as opposed to "image removed, we now have a file size limit everyone, you're welcome"
(07-06-2015, 05:59 PM)Calabrese Wrote: [ -> ]For comparison, saving the entirety of page 21 in this thread, as it stands at the moment of typing this, without the gif, in MHTML format, results in a file barely over 2 MB in size. This file format means all other images in it were included, such as avatars, signatures, and that nepeta thing kC posted. To summarize:
kC's gif = 52 megabytes.
Rest of the page = 2 megabytes.
As for what Coro said, I believe the limit being 2 to 5 megabytes is perfectly debatable, but anything over that is already too much. In whichever case, I will abide by Ehks' decision.
I just feel that 5 mb for an image should be the highest limit for any image. anything above 30 MB is insane and if any image would be over that size should be reconsidered in being posted. embeded videos should be fine as you need to activate the plug in to start sending you the data of the video.
as for the sizes posted above kinda shows just how much of a point of how insane that gif really was for bandwidth
How did this actually become an argument?
Just cap it at 10 mb, a generoud amount, and be done with it.
(07-06-2015, 06:07 PM)Nepeta Wrote: [ -> ]:0
Cennxx and Demilogic are having a baby!
https://twitter.com/cennxx/status/618089495305580545
Ob my lord, KC posted something that wasn't a homestuck gif!
YAAAAY
(07-06-2015, 06:08 PM)Marxon Wrote: [ -> ]How did this actually become an argument?
Just cap it at 10 mb, a generoud amount, and be done with it.
(07-06-2015, 06:07 PM)Nepeta Wrote: [ -> ]:0
Cennxx and Demilogic are having a baby!
https://twitter.com/cennxx/status/618089495305580545
Ob my lord, KC posted something that wasn't a homestuck gif!
YAAAAY
![[Image: _homestuck_arrrrrrrrrrrr__nepeta_by_lapiny0-d5mor29.gif]](http://orig01.deviantart.net/eeb7/f/2012/334/b/a/_homestuck_arrrrrrrrrrrr__nepeta_by_lapiny0-d5mor29.gif)
Edit: Should I get a cheap 15 dollar controller of Amazon or the Fallout: NV DLC?
(07-06-2015, 06:01 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:52 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ]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.
It's a slippery slope because you're pruning this or that about the forum because you can, first this is problematic, okay that's moderately reasonable, then that's problematic, okay well I guess, then all of these things are problematic and banned, because they can be, now it's a forum for people who agree that these things are problematic and everyone else can go make their own if it's such a problem. Congratulations you've made either a hugbox or an echo chamber depending on what you chose to ban.
I can live with an upper limit on gif size, I don't like the sudden decision of what's good or bad for everyone without their input. "In my opinion" as I should probably preface this, the appropriate way to handle that would have been "KC that gif is ridiculous. In fact I think we may need a file size limit now that we can implement one" as opposed to "image removed, we now have a file size limit everyone, you're welcome"
...
You
You do realize
I have mentioned not linking gigantic gifs in the past? Hell, Odin was going to say something about this before I decided this.
I don't go "yep this is a rule" unless it happens a lot. I don't go "yep this is a rule" unless it's an actual issue. I do have prior experience moderating stuff and helping formulate rules, I know what is and isn't okay to make rules for. I know that dropping rules with no warning (Something I didn't do in this case! I mentioned it often!) isn't completely okay unless other people voice complaints about it.
okay last random image drop of the day
![[Image: 17e.jpg]](http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/987/845/17e.jpg)
I'm off
(07-06-2015, 06:13 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 06:01 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]It's a slippery slope because you're pruning this or that about the forum because you can, first this is problematic, okay that's moderately reasonable, then that's problematic, okay well I guess, then all of these things are problematic and banned, because they can be, now it's a forum for people who agree that these things are problematic and everyone else can go make their own if it's such a problem. Congratulations you've made either a hugbox or an echo chamber depending on what you chose to ban.
I can live with an upper limit on gif size, I don't like the sudden decision of what's good or bad for everyone without their input. "In my opinion" as I should probably preface this, the appropriate way to handle that would have been "KC that gif is ridiculous. In fact I think we may need a file size limit now that we can implement one" as opposed to "image removed, we now have a file size limit everyone, you're welcome"
...
You
You do realize I have mentioned not linking gigantic gifs in the past? Hell, Odin was going to say something about this before I decided this.
I don't go "yep this is a rule" unless it happens a lot. I don't go "yep this is a rule" unless it's an actual issue. I do have prior experience moderating stuff and helping formulate rules, I know what is and isn't okay to make rules for. I know that dropping rules with no warning (Something I didn't do in this case! I mentioned it often!) isn't completely okay unless other people voice complaints about it.
Excepting any prolonged hiatuses on my part during which I have no way of being aware of any complaints, it was mentioned once or twice long ago as it was simply unofficial protocol to AT LEAST spoiler large images. From where I'm sitting this comes in completely out of left field from a period of "police your own embeds" that has worked out decently to suddenly "I'll be policing your embeds from now on"
(07-06-2015, 05:59 PM)OdinYggd Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:31 PM)Calabrese Wrote: [ -> ]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.
People click links sent by their friends out of habit.
This behavior is exploited by malware authors to get people to click on things they would normally ignore.
And my server is actually kinda sluggish. If your pic is so large that it can't load completely by the time my server has finished sending you the site layout and everyone else's stuff, you probably should link it.
Works out to anything over a megabyte or two for modern connectivity.
But bear in mind, there are people in the town I live in that still use dialup as their primary internet access. And many people are restricted to cellphones, which are limited on both speed and total monthly transfer as well as tiny screens that already have a ton of scrolling to do.
Huge images just make it impossible for phone browsers, and people using cell internet or slower will not be able to load pages in a timely manner.
Really all there is to it. Be a bit more tactful in your use of reaction images, and anything with a large filesize or excessively page-stretching should be a link instead.
I did say something about it a few posts ago. 2-3MB max still works for me. There's nothing wrong with posting funny images for people to see, just be considerate of other people browsing who can't load and view things as easily as you might be able to.
I'm even on a decent connection here, and I still get annoyed by large filesize images that take a while to load or page-stretchers that force a lot of scrolling to get past.
(07-06-2015, 06:13 PM)Ehksidian Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 06:01 PM)Surge Wrote: [ -> ]It's a slippery slope because you're pruning this or that about the forum because you can, first this is problematic, okay that's moderately reasonable, then that's problematic, okay well I guess, then all of these things are problematic and banned, because they can be, now it's a forum for people who agree that these things are problematic and everyone else can go make their own if it's such a problem. Congratulations you've made either a hugbox or an echo chamber depending on what you chose to ban.
I can live with an upper limit on gif size, I don't like the sudden decision of what's good or bad for everyone without their input. "In my opinion" as I should probably preface this, the appropriate way to handle that would have been "KC that gif is ridiculous. In fact I think we may need a file size limit now that we can implement one" as opposed to "image removed, we now have a file size limit everyone, you're welcome"
...
You
You do realize I have mentioned not linking gigantic gifs in the past? Hell, Odin was going to say something about this before I decided this.
I don't go "yep this is a rule" unless it happens a lot. I don't go "yep this is a rule" unless it's an actual issue. I do have prior experience moderating stuff and helping formulate rules, I know what is and isn't okay to make rules for. I know that dropping rules with no warning (Something I didn't do in this case! I mentioned it often!) isn't completely okay unless other people voice complaints about it.
I don't recall if I said anything about it on here before this incident, but I did say something about it this time. 52MB for a .gif is insane indeed- the same video as a flash on youtube would be 1/3rd that size easily.
Surge its not about slippery slope oh we'll take this today then that tomorrow and the other thing on friday, its about trying to ensure that everyone who visits is able to browse comfortably within the limitations of what they have. Ehksidian is
doing his job as an administrator by making and enforcing a rule about an issue that has happened repeatedly and even with the rule will continue to happen from time to time as people need to be reminded of it.
There's no way anyone would get banned over it unless they went about spouting off because they were told no or proceeded to break the rules on purpose just because they can.
bleh, I've just seen some very disturbing thing that just make me wanna glass the middle east region, public executions and beheadings is no longer kosher yet these....barbarians just did it anyways, I also should just quit facebook, it's not very good to my health
(07-06-2015, 05:57 PM)Reks Wrote: [ -> ]My influence is spreading
Yeeees, masteeer...
But seriously, I've built like that for forever. Pearlwood looks nice, so I'm going to use that instead of Boreal.
I honestly only use Dynasty because you can buy it in bulk for a relatively low price.
(07-06-2015, 07:02 PM)Umbra Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 05:57 PM)Reks Wrote: [ -> ]My influence is spreading
Yeeees, masteeer...
But seriously, I've built like that for forever. Pearlwood looks nice, so I'm going to use that instead of Boreal.
I honestly only use Dynasty because you can buy it in bulk for a relatively low price.
I kinda like the nordic design the boreal stuff has.
(07-06-2015, 07:19 PM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ] (07-06-2015, 07:02 PM)Umbra Wrote: [ -> ]Yeeees, masteeer...
But seriously, I've built like that for forever. Pearlwood looks nice, so I'm going to use that instead of Boreal.
I honestly only use Dynasty because you can buy it in bulk for a relatively low price.
I kinda like the nordic design the boreal stuff has.
Same here, but I'd like to try out something new.
People that play War Thunder: Is it fun?
And can I just hop on and off again every week or so without penalties or something?