POLL: Relax the image posting rules?

[Tobiah]

Is it just me or are the image posting rules driving our bst shooters away from the forum- In particular the wedding forum.

This forum has been a valuable resource for me and the more pics i see the better...

In the days of our modern technology where I can browse on my cell phone (i often do) and I can load 20 pics in about 10seconds on my cell (opera browser) why cant we have relaxed posting rules?!

Maybe we could put in the title how many photos are in the thread so people can not click if they have a super slow connection... This is a PHOTO forum! I can post more pics in the Guitar forums I used to frequent!

Anyway if noone is with me then fine but noone I have seen has presented a decent argument about this yet....

TO the pol! VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

[Tobiah]

I dont want to be banned for this post but I think its a very valid issue...

[elysium]

I can actually agree with this. It IS nice posting a link to a flickr afterwards but sometimes I will get lazy and not click.

I would rather the limit is taken from 8 to 12 or something greater since 30 per post would be crazy. Also some topics start with a set of 8 pictures but latter posts may contain another 8 which pretty much nulls the idea of 8 per thread (unless I read that wrong and is 8 per post).

[Lelasmama05]

I agree... I don't think it hurts to bring it up. If not no harm done.

[Tobiah]

I just read the rules again and if you post other images after people reply thats ok.... its just absurd and completely nulls and voids the idea of 8 per thread....

[grego]

8 photos is enough from the host. IF you pick your top 8 well, showing the others in a slideshow or whatever else, then someone will likely click. If they are that lazy, its their loss.

[tommykjensen]

Is it just me or are the image posting rules driving our bst shooters away from the forum- In particular the wedding forum.

This forum has been a valuable resource for me and the more pics i see the better...

In the days of our modern technology where I can browse on my cell phone (i often do) and I can load 20 pics in about 10seconds on my cell (opera browser) why cant we have relaxed posting rules?!


Just because YOU can download photos fast it does not mean every body else can.

Pekka's position who owns the forum is clear on this.

POTN is NOT a gallery. You should only post the best and that is limited to max 8 per thread when hosted elsewhere and max 2 per thread when using POTN serverspace. More than that and you must link them.


I just read the rules again and if you post other images after people reply thats ok.... its just absurd and completely nulls and voids the idea of 8 per thread....

Read again. Its not after just any reply.

Please note that if we see somebody abusing the rule of posting more photos on request (like having a friend ask for more) then that rule will quickly disappear.

[Pete]

Many people browsing the internet on their cell phones have to pay a premuim for the amount they download. Since a full quality JPG at 1024px can be 600-700K in size each, 20 of those will result in 14Mb, which can turn out to be very expensive when a few threads are looked at in a session.

The obvious way around this limit is to display up to 8 of the best from a session and then provide a link to the rest of the shots on your own site.

[condyk]

Most times when people post lots and lots of shots most of 'em suck because they don't seem to have the ability or experience to discriminate quality from snapshots. If shots are good enough I will always click elsewhere. If they ain't and you post 30 I won't even look past your first 3-4. POTN ain't a gallery either and why should people think it is? We should have some concern for people who don'y have fast Internet connections ... and they ain'tt just in india or Africa they are also in hard to reach areas of the US and Aussie. So some fair and reasonable compromise by all seems only fair and reasonable ... not just catering for those who have fast connections, even if they are a majority. And who is leaving because they can't post more than 8 shots? No one I have noticed. And are you really saying these wedding shooters who are leaving don't have a gallery or are they just too lazy to link LMAO! There is no case whatever for extending. In fact, I consider 8 generous. Post the best and don't waste other people's time making them scroll through crud.

[weka2000]

Have "you" thought about the other issues increased images numbers would cause from a server point and data storage angle.

Im sure Pekka would welcome a desposit into his bank ac to cover the upgrades and addition data storage + backups + hot swappable raid units.

I think that the way it is works just fine.

PS we could go back to 800x800 max to save space :lol:

[Mike]

Have "you" thought about the other issues increased images numbers would cause from a server point and data storage angle.

Im sure Pekka would welcome a desposit into his bank ac to cover the upgrades and addition data storage + backups + hot swappable raid units.

I think that the way it is works just fine.

PS we could go back to 800x800 max to save space :lol:

Great idea, as I hate having to scroll round an image!! :rolleyes:

I quite often visit via dial-up connections so images load slow enough as it is. Putting more in a post will make life worse.

[Cadwell]

Enough already. This has been discussed many times with passionate arguments on both sides and we do not need another debate on the subject.

[Pekka]

Some reasons for limiting embedding to 8 per thread:

- it forces you to choose the best shots - always preferable!
- POTN is not and should not be a substitute for personal online gallery.
- many people browse with slow net connection (or even mobile).
- loading of images make the whole thread "jump" when remote image server is slow, with lots of photos that makes browsing really hard.
- it's easier to comment fewer photos so you will get more responses which are more specific.

Post photos that impress and scream for kudos. Quality before quantity.