BajaNomad - who's ditched photobucket for imgur?

Quote: Originally posted by Stickers

I haven't posted a photo recently but would just resize it to 50k and it would post directly to Nomad without any dificulty of uploading to Photobucket.

Doug upped the Nomad hosting size to 250k.
See below in the attachment line on the posting page: Upload size limit is 250kB.

That's great for picture quality. So easy to just resize and post directly.

.

David K - 7-4-2017 at 09:56 AM

Quote: Originally posted by John M

I need a similar tutorial for adding more than one photo at a time. Can that be done? I have been going through the whole procedure you've outlined for each image.

John

Each one photo has one link.

You can only copy and paste one at a time unless you pre-paste the links on a Word page and then mass post them here. Still the same or more work than one at a time.

Many Nomads are in Dial-Up and cannot enjoy the postings of multiple photos. So maybe limit how many photos and just multi-postings?

(Did you see the map I sent you of Valle Chico roads?)

shari - 7-4-2017 at 10:32 AM

I didnt realize it was only $20 a year so I could do that but I only use it for Nomad postings....i thought it was much more expensive.

most dont realize it but we live frugally here...the little tourism there is really doesnt provide a living....good thing Juan has a day job....so it does help to be thrifty where possible. We drive old vehicles, grow some food, do our own work on alot of stuff etc.

Having said that, I went to Imgur and WOW!!!! I love it....it's a million times easier, better and faster than Photobucket which takes forever to load and organize pics etc. If it works as well as it seems I will bid adios to PB. Here is a test of a pic from my Canada visit in may.

willardguy - 7-4-2017 at 10:48 AM

actually its not cheap, from their website the only plan that allows image linking or 3rd party image hosting is their $400 plan! folks on other sites are seeing their photo's randomly disappearing and losing they're minds...and switching mostly to Imgur

willardguy - 7-4-2017 at 10:54 AM

LOL...
So I join Imgur... see the upload size setting (for 800 pixels). Made an album for my 2017 pics... and nada... I tried to upload, tried to start over, just froze me there. So, I deleted.
Not impressed yet! :biggrin:

hmmm....maybe like some other sites

you're just not welcome?

SFandH - 7-4-2017 at 11:01 AM

I haven't uploaded an image lately so I thought I'd share one of my favorite baja images. This is the bridge over the highway just south of the entrance to Mulege. Beware if you're thinking of buying along the river.

Now let's see, I choose the file (from my hard drive) and click Post. As long as the file is 250K or less, I can't imagine it being easier.

I'm going to check out imgur. I used to use Picasa but Google has really changed things, for the worse IMHO.

mulege-flood.jpg - 65kB

[Edited on 7-4-2017 by SFandH]

BajaBill74 - 7-4-2017 at 11:26 AM

Since I've never posted a picture, I thought I'd try this simple method.

This is how I spend my time at Coco's beach. Hope this works.

Coco.jpg - 117kB

DavidT - 7-4-2017 at 11:48 AM

Amazon and eBay images broken by Photobucket's 'ransom demand'

Several items have lost their product images on Amazon
Thousands of images promoting goods sold on Amazon and other shopping sites have been removed after a photo-sharing service changed its terms.

Ebay and Etsy have also been affected, in addition to many forums and blogs.

The problem has been caused by Photobucket introducing a charge for allowing images hosted on its platform to be embedded into third-party sites.

The company caught many of its members unaware with the change, prompting some to accuse it of holding them to ransom.

Denver-based Photobucket is now seeking a $399 (£309) annual fee from those who wish to continue using it for "third-party hosting" and is facing a social media backlash as a consequence.

The BBC received an automated response when it tried to contact the company and is still seeking comment.

Photobucket has been online since 2003 and says it has more than 100 million customers and more than 15 billion images on its servers.

Part of its attraction with small retailers was the fact that its ad-supported "free" accounts could be used to upload images of goods to a single destination from where they could be pushed to multiple outlets.

Photobucket is facing complaints from its users on Twitter and Facebook
On 26 June, however, the company published a brief note advising users to "take a moment to review our updated terms and policies".

About 500 words into the linked document was a declaration that free accounts would no longer permit image-linking to third-party sites.

Many users realised the change only when their embedded images were replaced by graphics saying their Photobucket accounts needed to be updated.

Devon-based seller vintage store Retro 2 Go, which sells its goods on eBay, was one of those affected.

"I have quite a bit of editing to do," the store's owner, Gigha Klinkenborg, told the BBC.

"A bit of notice would not have been unreasonable to expect. I have deleted my accounts and would not use [Photobucket] again."

'Held to ransom'

Some sellers unwilling to pay the fee have handled the change by uploading their product photos to a rival service.

But the new policy has also affected historical social media posts, blogs and forums that were reliant on Photobucket.

One of those affected is Stampboards, a forum with more than 17,000 members who discuss postage stamps and share images of them.

Many of its pages are now filled with Photobucket's upgrade demands instead of the photos of stamps it once showed.

"They are holding you to ransom," the site's administrator, Glen Stephens, told members, advising them not to pay the fee.

"You have no guarantee they will be in business... in a month the way this disaster is rolling out."

One British digital marketing company said it was understandable that Photobucket had wanted to become less reliant on ads, but criticised the service for both the sums it was seeking and the way it had gone about the move.

"It came out of the blue," blogged Runcorn's Aqueous Digital.

"There were no announcements, no emails warning people that it was about to happen and more importantly, no explanation.

"Bulletin boards across the globe are being crippled as previously vibrant threads with detailed images are disappearing.

"People who have used Photobucket for hosting these images successfully for over 10 years are finding that they will have to literally start again with what for some, amounts to a lifetime's work."

But one expert said the public needed to be aware of the risks of relying on any free image service.

"There's a lot of websites out there looking for advertising, and there's a finite amount of advertising spending to go round," said Nigel Atherton, editor of Amateur Photographer magazine.

"And any photo gallery and storage site like this that relies on ads to offer a free service can only continue to do so if they have enough money coming in.

"So, if you put all your photos into any site or app like this where it's not clear how they are going to continue financing their business, then it could come back and bite you at some point in the future."

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40492668

SFandH - 7-4-2017 at 11:54 AM

And how did you reduce the file size to under 250, of the many methods out there?

A real simple, free image resizer plugin to my Chrome browser. Click, click, done.

BajaBill74 - 7-4-2017 at 12:01 PM

And how did you reduce the file size to under 250, of the many methods out there?

A real simple, free image resizer plugin to my Chrome browser. Click, click, done.

I used Photoshop.

TMW - 7-4-2017 at 12:28 PM

I paid $29.99 for Photobucket on my renewal last week. It is better than the free version, less hassle from popups etc. I still have problems sometimes but I think it has more to do with AOL than Photobucket since I get a oops from AOL when it looses the connection with PB.

willardguy - 7-4-2017 at 12:28 PM

here's a google chrome extension work around

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/photobucket-embed-...

ehall - 7-4-2017 at 01:10 PM

Quote: Originally posted by willardguy

actually its not cheap, from their website the only plan that allows image linking or 3rd party image hosting is their $400 plan! folks on other sites are seeing their photo's randomly disappearing and losing they're minds...and switching mostly to Imgur

Heard about this last week. Killing alot of threads.

BajaBlanca - 7-4-2017 at 02:54 PM

well, I must admit I feel a wee bit better that I am not the only one on the planet.

Shari- like David, I tried all the possible links in imgur and not one of the links worked.

I love the idea of having the photo at the right size right on my laptop. That would save so much time. I will try that. Thanks for mentioning photoshop and the automatic chrome add on.

norte - 7-4-2017 at 03:10 PM

Most professional sites no longer require hosting and resizing. Too bad that is not the case here....BAHA NOMADS would probably get a lot more traffic. As it is there are only a few who go through the gyrations to post photos.

BajaBlanca - 7-4-2017 at 06:01 PM

Shari - to post your Canada photo:

did you use imgur, then post directly to nomad

or did u use imgur, then photobucket, then nomad?

if you used imgur directly, which link did u use??

shari - 7-4-2017 at 06:15 PM

Yes...I have been learning to navigate the Imgur site most of the day and I like it...easier than PHotobucket once you get the hang of it and loads waaaay faster and is easier to organize the photos in the album.
after you upload some images & click on the image and on the right are link options and use the BBCode. It was easy to make albums and comments etc. and in your settings you can choose what size to upload...I chose the forum size and it works fine.

[Edited on 7-5-2017 by shari]

[Edited on 7-5-2017 by shari]

SFandH - 7-4-2017 at 06:21 PM

Nice photo but it's wide, I have a left-right scroll bar.

What the hell is it a photo of?

AKgringo - 7-4-2017 at 06:29 PM

That is a real column stretcher!

I have a small screen, and weak eyes, so I view this forum at 125% zoom factor. Since Shari posted that fantastic photo, I have to either strain to read the text, or scroll side to side to view the whole photo.

shari - 7-4-2017 at 06:37 PM

this is a photo of a mask that was displayed in the Vancouver Airport
hmmm....wonder why this one is so big...maybe as it isnt in an album yet....lets see how this one works of my favorite wolf dog in Tofino.

I figured it out...on your images page on the right there is a thingy that says autoresize...awesome!

I just tried making a GIF for the first time...look out elinvestigator!

[Edited on 7-5-2017 by shari]

shari - 7-4-2017 at 06:40 PM

did that work? oh geeze how do you turn that blowhole off?

SFandH - 7-4-2017 at 06:48 PM

put a cork in it?

shari - 7-4-2017 at 06:53 PM

messin around with these gifs...you can resize them to smaller too.., or so I thought but guess not

http://i.imgur.com/mTkVdrZ.gifv

[Edited on 7-5-2017 by shari]

Shari, are you up for a challange?

AKgringo - 7-4-2017 at 07:56 PM

Page one of this thread is at normal BN size.

Page 2 was stretched way out by your mask photo.

Page three is back to normal, could you try to re-post the mask at a smaller size?

All this stuff is like black magic to me, but if I am to learn how to post pictures, I only want to learn once, and by the simplest method!

BajaBlanca - 7-4-2017 at 10:36 PM

What you are suggesting AK, I think is pretty easy to do. One would remove that photo and replace with another that has been resized smaller.

shari - 7-5-2017 at 07:19 AM

Quote: Originally posted by AKgringo

Page one of this thread is at normal BN size.

Page 2 was stretched way out by your mask photo.

Page three is back to normal, could you try to re-post the mask at a smaller size?

All this stuff is like black magic to me, but if I am to learn how to post pictures, I only want to learn once, and by the simplest method!

Ha! I"m way ahead of you sir...I immediately tried to do that and thought by changing the size would work and I edited the link to the new one and it STILL went big...that rascal. But today is a new day so maybe it will work today...maybe it just took it's sweet time to shrink...it's all greek to me too but clicking around a new site and trying things out is how we learn. David K got exasperated with the new toy..but once you figure things out it really is a better toy than PHotobucket except you cant display the album in a slide show format. I wrote the dudes and said that I would stay with Imgur if this could be done...we'll see.

OK...trying to reduce that mask now....if it doesnt work I will delete it and hopefully the thread will go back to it's normal size.

shari - 7-5-2017 at 08:00 AM

nope...didnt want to resize...maybe if you load it at that size it stays that size or that mask is just soooo powerful it doesnt do small!

last try to small this mask

[Edited on 7-5-2017 by shari]

SFandH - 7-5-2017 at 08:04 AM

Here you go Shari. Try a free image resizer:

https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=image+resizer

[Edited on 7-5-2017 by SFandH]

shari - 7-5-2017 at 08:14 AM

thanks....the face of the mask looks like mine trying to figure out new sites..hahaha

DawnPatrol - 7-5-2017 at 10:52 AM

Quote: Originally posted by DawnPatrol

Thanks, I got it....

shari - 7-5-2017 at 11:10 AM

weird...mine work fine....are you choosing the option for forums? one is for message boards and another for message boards and forums.

shari - 7-5-2017 at 11:41 AM

[img]http://i.imgur.com/Al17Smt.jpg?1[/img]

David K - 7-5-2017 at 11:45 AM

See, it doesn't work for you either??? weird?

willardguy - 7-5-2017 at 11:50 AM

Yes...I have been learning to navigate the Imgur site most of the day and I like it...easier than PHotobucket once you get the hang of it and loads waaaay faster and is easier to organize the photos in the album.
after you upload some images & click on the image and on the right are link options and use the BBCode. It was easy to make albums and comments etc. and in your settings you can choose what size to upload...I chose the forum size and it works fine.

[Edited on 7-5-2017 by shari]

[Edited on 7-5-2017 by shari]

thanks Shari, BBCode is the key :yes:

....likin imgur!

SFandH - 7-5-2017 at 12:06 PM

[img]http://i.imgur.com/Al17Smt.jpg?1[/img]

the ?1 after the jpg file extension is probably the problem

It's perfectly valid HTML and should work by the code automatically stripping out unnecessary characters after the file extension, but this website is finicky.

[Edited on 7-5-2017 by SFandH]

SFandH - 7-5-2017 at 12:07 PM

let's give it a go without the ?1

shari - 7-5-2017 at 12:12 PM

yeah but weird that my new album of the wedding only posts those big buggers...havent identified why.... yet. If you post the message board link one would think it would be reduced ....but it isnt....hmmmm.....I cant find where to upload in smaller size on the album....unless you can only do it at the git go. I will make another album and see whatzzzzup with that...lucky i have a mountain of patience for trial and error.

shari - 7-5-2017 at 12:14 PM

crap....is Izaak's cannonball too big for the screens?

SFandH - 7-5-2017 at 12:22 PM

not for me, fits perfectly at the screen resolution and zoom level I use.

[Edited on 7-5-2017 by SFandH]

shari - 7-5-2017 at 12:40 PM

OK I think I figured it out....when you are loading images for the first time on the right side you click on what says image resize and it gives you the options...whew

David K - 7-5-2017 at 01:42 PM

SFandH: I did that already, saw it was the non-resized image, and deleted the post. Putting it up (as well as Shari's great photo of Izaak) is too HUGE and stretches the page wider than 800 pixels.

Being that it is still unedited, in order to help maintain this site's 'viewability,' I have deleted it on Imgur until they can provide consistent size setting ability. It may remain only as long as Nomad cookies remember it.

[Edited on 7-5-2017 by David K]

SFandH - 7-5-2017 at 02:02 PM

800 pixels? Is that a limit somewhere?

I guess folks with older computers may have issues. I'm using a 3 year old, 250 dollar Samsung Chromebook. Little, cheap computer.

Its display is 1366 x 768 and this thread displays fine.

Limiting width to 800 pixels would ensure a good display for all though, even MrBillM who I think still uses a CRT display. :lol:

David K - 7-5-2017 at 02:09 PM

YES... per BajaNomad (Doug), Nomad is an 800 pixel wide web page. When someone doesn't bother to set Photobucket or whatever hosting site to 800 pixels or less, it stretches the page off the screen (standard monitor). Doug then has to take time and fix it and if you see posts by the 2-3 Nomads who have not done that, you will see 'Edited by BajaNomad' under those photos that Doug has had to reduce.

You need only add 'img=800x600' into the opening tag for the large photo to fix it on edit, by-the-way. Like this, space added to display link.

[img=800x600 ]http://i.imgur.com/Al17Smt.jpg[/img]

Remove the space, and ................................

David K - 7-5-2017 at 02:35 PM

Quote:

800 pixels? Is that a limit somewhere?

Some of the many places Doug has mentioned the 800 pixel limit.

CaptK asked me last night to post a pic of his dog, which I took in March in SanQ, cuz he hasn't figured out how to do so.

Quote:

So, I am working on it,
hope I figure it out before the dog dies of old age....

Here's the "easy out"....

1) Go to: http://tinypic.com
2) Choose photo to upload from local computer.
3) If the image is greater than 800 pixels in width, choose to resize for 15" screen (800 x 600).
4) Use "Direct Link for Layouts" URL and use this icon to insert image in posting:

Resizing images is noted in the FAQ:

http://forums.bajanomad.com/faq.php?page=misc#1

After the "img" add an equals sign "=", and then the dimensions to display the image in (example: 800x600), thus...

img=800x600 [in brackets, of course]

Talking videos, but still the same width limit:

Currently, to embed Flash videos from Youtube, you need to click on the "Share" button, then "Embed".

From there you need to select the "Use old embed code" checkbox, and then select a size for the video that's probably and preferably no more than 640 pixels in width - absolutely no more than 800 pixels in width. After that, then copy the embed code, which looks something like this:

Here Doug replied to a Nomad who asked what Doug did:

Made the picture widths 800 pixels wide instead of the 1024 you had.

-
Doug

SFandH - 7-5-2017 at 02:46 PM

yes but times change, resolutions become larger

800 x 600 is an old standard resolution

like I said my 3 year old cheapo computer does fine with the larger photos in this thread, its out of the box resolution is 1366 x 768

This website's layout dynamically expands to handle wide photos, it's not restricted to 800 pixels.

if you go back far enough you may find limitations of 640 x 480 from the mid 1990s

[Edited on 7-5-2017 by SFandH]

David K - 7-5-2017 at 02:54 PM

Yes, and Doug knows it is not the top notch stuff... but we get to 'play' here for free and hopefully click on the banner ads so Doug gets some pennies to pays costs.

In the meantime, by sizing the images to 800 or less, we are helping. Now, if only you and Shari add '=800x600' after the 'img' in those oversize photo links, all is well.

SFandH - 7-5-2017 at 03:05 PM

Yes, and Doug knows it is not the top notch stuff...

The website works fine at larger resolutions. There's no problem there.

David K - 7-5-2017 at 03:39 PM

It works fine, but if you are not going to participate with the request to keep images at 800 pixels or less, then it makes more work for viewers to read threads were over-sized images have pushed the text off the screen, requiring sideways scrolling (or reducing screen size so small it is difficult to read), and more work for Doug to add the modifier =800x600 to your photo [img ] links.

David K - 7-5-2017 at 03:45 PM

crap....is Izaak's cannonball too big for the screens?

Yep...
So, I thought you had it answered between our exchanges on Facebook... but as we can see the next time the photo goes up, it is too big for Nomad's size limit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not ready to give up, I contacted Imgur site support:

ME:
How do I resize images uploaded to my Album? I want them to all upload at 800 pixels or less and remain that size for forum posting. On Photobucket, you click on 'Upload Options' and select an uploading size. Is there any such feature here? Thank you.

IMGUR:
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us. We currently do not have a feature like that. At Imgur, everything is an iteration, and we hope to continue to make tweaks and changes that improve the experience.

Imgur's intended use is not as a content delivery network or host, but rather as a platform to upload, share and browse entertaining images.

Please let me know if you have any other questions; I'd be happy to help.

Best,

Sara
Support Specialist, Imgur
============================================================

So, sadly for the Photobucket users who want an option, Imgur can't help us.

SFandH - 7-5-2017 at 03:59 PM

It works fine, but.... more work for Doug to add the modifier =800x600 to your photo [img ] links.

Well we are talking computers here. Ask your friend Doug to add some code that goes like this. I'll use English that he can implement in PHP.
------------------------------
when a post is made

if post contains image and image width is greater than 800 pixels

set image width to 800 pixels while maintaining original aspect ratio
-----------------------------

In other words automatically add the image size parameters to the [IMG] tag if needed.

Everybody's image size posting problems are solved automagically.

Of course that might get tricky if the image is being served up by another server, like photobucket, but that makes life interesting.

[Edited on 7-5-2017 by SFandH]

willardguy - 7-5-2017 at 04:00 PM

stretched out images? here's what I do.......on the bottom of your keyboard you'll find four arrows, the right arrow moves the page right to see the stretched photo, the down arrow is there to skip over davids boolchit

SFandH - 7-5-2017 at 04:13 PM

nice image, thanks for keeping it under 800 pixels

David K - 7-5-2017 at 04:20 PM

It works fine, but.... more work for Doug to add the modifier =800x600 to your photo [img ] links.

That would be nice... we shall see.

Willard, excuse my "BS", as it is all about helping others have a more enjoyable experience here. If I didn't get a lot of messages thanking me for this stuff, I wouldn't bother taking the time to improve the site experience. I actually do have other things to do.

shari - 7-5-2017 at 04:24 PM

David, i solved my issue as you can see in the fish picture...if you click on the resize box and choose an option it uploads it in that size...so that's pretty easy if you can remember to click that when uploading images...if you upload them in the bigger format you cant change it but have to delete it an load it again remembering to click the auto resize button on the right.

David K - 7-5-2017 at 04:38 PM

David, i solved my issue as you can see in the fish picture...if you click on the resize box and choose an option it uploads it in that size...so that's pretty easy if you can remember to click that when uploading images...if you upload them in the bigger format you cant change it but have to delete it an load it again remembering to click the auto resize button on the right.

Thanks Shari... But, that means every photo (when uploading) requires individual editing for size. Not a big deal for most. However, that would remove the ability to upload a full trip folder containing 300 photos (as mine do) without hitting that button 300 times. Photobucket automatically sizes them all for Nomad. Remember, it was YOU who got me to use Photobucket, 9 years ago! LOL :light:

shari - 7-5-2017 at 05:10 PM

I'm not sure about that...i think it is for session...I uploaded a bunch and after choosing the message board size, they all loaded like that...I think.

Yeah Photobucket was OK when I had faster internet but now with all those annoying ads popping up and slow loading I am looking for an alternative.

David K - 7-5-2017 at 05:44 PM

I don't blame you, but I have no ads popping up... I guess because I pay twenty-some bucks a year for the amount of stuff I got there now?

mjs - 7-5-2017 at 07:46 PM

You should seriously consider Smugmug. Yes, you pay for it but no ads, unlimited storage, easy to post to websites / forums and multiple upload options.

Here's a link for a discount on your subscription https://secure.smugmug.com/signup?Coupon=xLW4owBcteOYV

JZ - 7-6-2017 at 01:34 AM

DK has had a 9" monitor for the last 15 years. If he got a nickel for every time he tried to be the image size police he'd be able to afford a bigger one by now.

chuckie - 7-6-2017 at 02:19 AM

OH DK! Thanks so much for your help and for tipping me off to Photobucket (not) What a saint!

chuckie - 7-6-2017 at 04:26 AM

<a href="http://imgur.com/wp3fPsr"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/wp3fPsr.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>

Test

chuckie - 7-6-2017 at 04:30 AM

shari - 7-6-2017 at 08:07 AM

You should seriously consider Smugmug. Yes, you pay for it but no ads, unlimited storage, easy to post to websites / forums and multiple upload options.

Here's a link for a discount on your subscription https://secure.smugmug.com/signup?Coupon=xLW4owBcteOYV

thanks for the suggestion...can you tell me if the albums can be viewed and posted in a slide show format?

David K - 7-6-2017 at 08:46 AM

Thanks for another option.
The link says 20% off. 20% off of what, ie. what are the subscription prices?

Franco - 7-7-2017 at 06:56 AM

Quote: Originally posted by chuckie

OH DK! Thanks so much for your help and for tipping me off to Photobucket (not) What a saint!

Relevance to the conversation?

Trying to be noticed?

As sand in the eye. :lol:

Irritating.

mjs - 7-7-2017 at 12:36 PM

Thanks for another option.
The link says 20% off. 20% off of what, ie. what are the subscription prices?

Plans start at $50/year (what I use) and go up depending on what you need/want. The service is aimed at pro photographers so the upper plans are more for selling pictures and business users.

mjs - 7-7-2017 at 12:47 PM

thanks for the suggestion...can you tell me if the albums can be viewed and posted in a slide show format?

Yes, you can share your galleries as a slide show. Either a direct link or embedded.

shari - 7-7-2017 at 01:28 PM

thanks for that..worth a look then

willardguy - 7-7-2017 at 02:18 PM

I just happened across an old photo from 4 or 5 years ago, my bucket has maybe 150 pix. adios PB

JZ - 7-7-2017 at 02:37 PM

Pic from earlier today.

[Edited on 7-7-2017 by JZ]

[Edited on 7-9-2017 by BajaNomad]

norte - 7-7-2017 at 02:56 PM

82 posts. Mostly David. I am wondering if this is all a big toodoo about nothing.

How many people have screens set at 800 pixels wide?

Mine is currently 1366×768 and don't have a problem viewing any of the pictures.

How many here still have a monitor that is only 800 pixels wide? and could it be set to 1024 or 1366?

norte - 7-7-2017 at 03:00 PM

https://www.geek.com/chips/most-popular-screen-resolution-in...

David K - 7-7-2017 at 03:23 PM

Well, you can take it up with Doug, as it is his site.
Most forums automatically resize photos that are over 800 pixels (a standard for forums it would seem).
Many web surfers now have 'TV screen' size monitors that enable abusive photos to not cause side scrolling to read the text, which is also blown off the standard 15" monitors most have.

Clicking on the upload options button on Photobucket or adding to the IMG tab: '=800x600' is so simple, why can't JZ or other who have yet to comply with the request by Doug done so instead of laboring Doug to do it after they post the giant photos?

chuckie - 7-7-2017 at 03:27 PM

Good ol DK...Pass the buck after failing to become the xpert...

SFandH - 7-7-2017 at 04:16 PM

Many web surfers now have 'TV screen' size monitors that enable abusive photos to not cause side scrolling to read the text, which is also blown off the standard 15" monitors most have.

My $250 notebook computer has a 10" wide screen and is capable of displaying 1366 pixels in width.

[Edited on 7-7-2017 by SFandH]

David K - 7-7-2017 at 04:18 PM

So does my Android phone... That's not the issue.

SFandH - 7-7-2017 at 04:23 PM

Then what is the issue? You said:

"Many web surfers now have 'TV screen' size monitors that enable abusive photos to not cause side scrolling to read the text, which is also blown off the standard 15" monitors most have."

and to refute your statement I said I have a small screen, 2/3 the size you consider standard, and I have no problems with "abusive" photos much wider than 800 pixels. No side to side scrolling.

And my computer is 3 years old and about the cheapest you could buy at the time. Certainly nothing special.

And you Android phone does not display 1366 pixels.

[Edited on 7-8-2017 by SFandH]

AKgringo - 7-7-2017 at 04:46 PM

I did state this earlier, but will repeat it since it seemed to be overlooked.

The laptop I travel with measures 11 1/2 inches corner to corner. At standard presentation, my failing eyes have trouble reading the text. At 125% zoom, I can read all right, but large uploads bust the viewing screen forcing me to downsize, or scroll side to side to see the whole picture.

While I am on a whine, quoting someone who posted a string of photos, really brings thing to a crawl or shut down when I have a weak WIFI. Nobody needs to see the same photos twice!

SFandH - 7-7-2017 at 05:29 PM

Quote: Originally posted by AKgringo

At standard presentation, my failing eyes have trouble reading the text.

Another problem with websites where most of the readers remember watching Nixon and Kennedy perform the first televised debates, zooming in to read the text.

You're lucky if you only have trouble reading what I suspect is a 10" monitor without reading glasses. I'm up to 2.5 magnification or whatever the number on reading glasses measures.

I've seen three to a package for a few bucks at Walmart.

You will get side to side scroll bars on many websites if you zoom in using the browser to enlarge the font.

AKgringo - 7-7-2017 at 05:49 PM

Yeah, ole Tricky Dick never stood a chance! I can't read the size on my reading glasses, but they are probably about the same as yours. Without them, this laptop is useless to me!

Strangely enough, I can drive just fine with them, better than without them.

David K - 7-7-2017 at 05:55 PM

Then what is the issue? You said:

"Many web surfers now have 'TV screen' size monitors that enable abusive photos to not cause side scrolling to read the text, which is also blown off the standard 15" monitors most have."

and to refute your statement I said I have a small screen, 2/3 the size you consider standard, and I have no problems with "abusive" photos much wider than 800 pixels. No side to side scrolling.

And my computer is 3 years old and about the cheapest you could buy at the time. Certainly nothing special.

And you Android phone does not display 1366 pixels.

[Edited on 7-8-2017 by SFandH]

The issue is honoring Doug's request, and not being difficult to all those who have normal desktop monitors who enjoy the photos.

Can it be any more clear than the fact that Nomad is an 800-pixel wide web page and 800 pixels FILLS the Nomad page. A 640-pixel wide photo is big on the Nomad page, but leaves a wide border around it. We used to use 640 for photos and only 800 for maps.

If you post photos bigger than 800, the whole page stretches wide. That you have a big monitor or a self-sizing mobile device, does not help everyone else. My Android phone is not bothered by 1024 pixel photos, I see them fine and no scrolling.

Yes, I wish when Doug updated the site he was going to give us one like most others that auto-reduce over-sized photos so reading (on a desktop monitor) was not made difficult by either shrinking to tiny text or sideways scrolling.

I am only trying to help.

SFandH - 7-7-2017 at 06:05 PM

That you have a big monitor or a self-sizing mobile device, does not help everyone else.

I am only trying to help.

And I'm trying to explain to you that I do not have a big monitor, it's 10 inches, and I do not have a "self-sizing mobile device". I have a regular, 3 year old, $250 laptop computer that runs at 1366 pixels and photos wider than 800 pixels work just fine.

This thread is displaying on my cheapo 10" display computer without needing to pan.

How old is your computer and what resolution is the display set to?

[Edited on 7-8-2017 by SFandH]

norte - 7-7-2017 at 06:27 PM

Well, you can take it up with Doug, as it is his site.
Most forums automatically resize photos that are over 800 pixels (a standard for forums it would seem).
Many web surfers now have 'TV screen' size monitors that enable ab arguement usive photos to not cause side scrolling to read the text, which is also blown off the standard 15" monitors most have.

Clicking on the upload options button on Photobucket or adding to the IMG tab: '=800x600' is so simple, why can't JZ or other who have yet to comply with the request by Doug done so instead of laboring Doug to do it after they post the giant photos?

You take ownership over this whole issue and then when someone offers a rational to change you blow it off on someone else.

I guess you missed the part on what a standard monitor is now. (by the way its not measured in inches but measured in pixels or resolution).

Why is it when I make a suggestion to improve this site, you go ballistic...Its impossible to do anything here without you creating an issue.
You want everyone to shut up and focus on you.

David K - 7-7-2017 at 07:37 PM

Guys, it is Doug's site... he is busy with providing for his family and I am only offering to help do the simplest of things he has asked in my non-tech way. Set the upload size on photo hosting sites to 800 pixels or less. Bigger does not make the photo better it simply pushes the Nomad frame off the screen for all using standard monitors.

The monitor screen is measured in inches norte. At least on my planet.

You can try and get along with this old software or you can be one of the few who doesn't care about other's enjoyment and comfort here.

I am done repeating to those who can't comply with the host's request or don't want to play. If anyone else needs help with how to set Photobucket to 800 pixels and have tried to follow my how-to on page 1 of this thread, u2u or email me, I will help you.

norte - 7-7-2017 at 07:54 PM

Guys, it is Doug's site... he is busy with providing for his family and I am only offering to help do the simplest of things he has asked in my non-tech way. Set the upload size on photo hosting sites to 800 pixels or less. Bigger does not make the photo better it simply pushes the Nomad frame off the screen for all using standard monitors.

The monitor screen is measured in inches norte. At least on my planet.

You can try and get along with this old software or you can be one of the few who doesn't care about other's enjoyment and comfort here.

I am done repeating to those who can't comply with the host's request or don't want to play. If anyone else needs help with how to set Photobucket to 800 pixels and have tried to follow my how-to on page 1 of this thread, u2u or email me, I will help you.

Good lord. Don't you ever take the time to learn anything. Monitors come in various inches. There is no standard. Its all preference. Each monitor can have a variety of resolutions defined by pixel size.. And that resolution can be a standard or not. The higher the resolution the more pixels. As posted before most monitors now have a width of at least 1366 pixels. I'll give you the site again. read it...you might learn something.

https://www.geek.com/chips/most-popular-screen-resolution-in...

Udo - 7-11-2017 at 10:09 AM

Would YOU pay $400 USD per year to post your photos here on Nomad?

Quote: Originally posted by soulpatch