| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5
6 |
willardguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6451
Registered: 9-19-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
I just happened across an old photo from 4 or 5 years ago, my bucket has maybe 150 pix. adios PB
|
|
|
JZ
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9917
Registered: 10-3-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Pic from earlier today.
[Edited on 7-7-2017 by JZ]
[Edited on 7-9-2017 by BajaNomad]
|
|
|
norte
Super Nomad
Posts: 1163
Registered: 10-8-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Super Nomad
Posts: 1163
Registered: 10-8-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
https://www.geek.com/chips/most-popular-screen-resolution-in...
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64705
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6082
Registered: 2-20-2012
Location: Kansas Prairies
Member Is Offline
Mood: Weary
|
|
Good ol DK...Pass the buck after failing to become the xpert...
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7064
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by David K  |
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
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64705
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
So does my Android phone... That's not the issue.
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7064
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5992
Registered: 9-20-2014
Location: Anchorage, AK (no mas!)
Member Is Offline
Mood: Retireded
|
|
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!
If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space!
"Could do better if he tried!" Report card comments from most of my grade school teachers. Sadly, still true!
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7064
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5992
Registered: 9-20-2014
Location: Anchorage, AK (no mas!)
Member Is Offline
Mood: Retireded
|
|
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.
If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space!
"Could do better if he tried!" Report card comments from most of my grade school teachers. Sadly, still true!
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64705
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SFandH | 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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7064
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by David K |
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
Super Nomad
Posts: 1163
Registered: 10-8-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by David K | 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
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64705
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
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
Super Nomad
Posts: 1163
Registered: 10-8-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by David K | 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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6340
Registered: 4-26-2008
Location: Black Hills, SD/Ensenada/San Felipe
Member Is Offline
Mood: TEQUILA!
|
|
Would YOU pay $400 USD per year to post your photos here on Nomad?
| Quote: Originally posted by soulpatch | | Quote: Originally posted by shari | Blanca you really scared me when you mentioned photobucket wasnt working....fortunately mine is fine..maybe your free account is full up? I just start
a new one with another email address when that happens.
I edit in Picassa as it is so fast and easy then upload the photos I want to post here to Photobucket.
Yes it is one of Nomad annoying quirks for sure and lots of people dont post photos as it takes a few minutes to do...in this instant gratification
world we now live in, this peees people off. But it is still a great sandbox i like to play in. |
I find irony in you not paying for the service you would be using when your town makes money off of its fishery and violation of its rules would be an
issue.
Why don't you just pony up and pay for the service you are using?
Hell, I pay for the upgraded services of many apps I use just because I appreciate the hard work that people put into being innovative.
Maybe if more people paid PB for the amount of use they got out of it it would run more effectively.
Not perfectly and I am not trying to be a ****** but just sayin'.
I don't post photos here because I just don't like jumping through the hoops but that is no one's loss.
Peace.
On edit, who knew doosh would get edited out!
[Edited on 7-4-2017 by soulpatch] |
Udo
Youth is wasted on the young!
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64705
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
I pay $34.95 Udo... and Photobucket is still working for me. I am playing with Flickr which may be a free, easy to pick 800-pixel posting, solution?
[Edited on 7-11-2017 by David K]
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7064
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/30/photobucket_chargin...
"Photobucket is cracking down on people embedding on third-party websites images it hosts, until now, for free.
The photo-slinging internet elder now says that anyone who wants to use its service to display photos it hosts on other pages – such as signature
banners in forum posts – will now need to open up their wallets and plop down $399.99 a year for a subscription plan.
The new policy will be particularly annoying to longtime users who have relied on Photobucket's 14-year-old service to host the images they use to
place images on forums or in blog posts.
Cheaper plans, including the free account option, will no longer have an option to allow third-party hosting.
Photobucket notification
The alert netizens now get from Photobucket for inlining images on third-party sites
The change of heart was quietly introduced by Photobucket earlier this week as an update to its terms of service.
On the one hand, it's reasonable for Photobucket to ask for some help in footing its bandwidth bills for serving up images for folks on other
websites; on the other hand, it will break a lot of graphics posted on the 'net and inlined in forums and blogs.
"Photobucket defines 3rd-party hosting as the action of embedding an image or photo onto another website," the updated T&Cs read.
"For example, using the <img> tag to embed or display a JPEG image from your Photobucket account on another website such as a forum, Etsy, eBay
auction listings, a blog, etc, is definitively 3rd-party hosting."
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5
6 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
