Can we talk about the default image insertion behavior?

[BenFenner]

Or would this fall under the rule disallowing discussion of forum policy?

[lokijibber]

Maybe I'm slow today, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Scarceas]

I didn't know we weren't allowed to discuss the forum rules/policies. This subforum in particular is excellent, the users are among the best I've interacted with in a forum, and I've posted far more here on this site than any other in my life.

It's reasonable, though, that the site would not be perfect, and I don't see why rational and mature discussion of potential improvements would be a problem. When the redesign was taking place, I think there were some mass complaints happening and there was a push back from admins, basically saying "hang on a minute, we're still working on this", which was reasonable, but I'd be surprised if that was intended as some dictatorial edict that we are not allowed to speak of any suggestions for improvement.

To Ben's point about the image handling, I think it is an overall improvement over the previous forum design, because now you can store your image in the forum and that means years later when you look at a post, it won't be filled with broken links to images that are long gone. What I don't like about it is that the default display size of those stored images is so small. However, I recently discovered I can double click the image while still editing the post, and then I get the option to change the size. I wish that menu was available from the same screen I use to insert the image, but overall I find it to be usable.

What I can't figure out is how to search the subforum anymore. I swear someone posted it here before, but guess what, I can't narrow my search to find the post about how to narrow my search.

[Terry F.]

Ben, what's your question?

Park, the key to success is to search using Google's Advanced Search where you can limit the search to bimmerfourms.com. Using decent keywords I have good results. I know it's a pain but if you really want results it's the way to go.

Terry

[Vintage42]

I have seen that Google does the best Search, but have not used its Advanced Search. After looking now, I don't see how to do it.

[Terry F.]

If you go to the Google main page you should see Settings in the lower, right corner of the page. It's hidden in there.

Terry

[BenFenner]

Ben, what's your question?

It's not so much a question, as a suggestion with reasoning.

There are three different types of behavior in the Z3 subform right now from the image insertion button.

1) From Computer - Upload an image file from your computer to the forum server. I assume it adds the image as an attachment for the post. (Honestly, I've never used this method so I don't know the details.)
2) From URL Enhanced (retrieve file locally) - This takes an image URL and causes it to be loaded to the forum server and then adds the image as an attachment for the post.
3) From URL Basic - Post the image in-line from where it originally resides. No uploading of the image to the forum servers. No attachment. (This is the traditional behavior forum users have been used to for 15+ years of BBC.)

Keep in mind, this is for the Z3 subsection of the forum. Other sections (Off Topic) for example, work with only one option (#3 from above). Which IMO is one of a few good solutions. If we could go to the way Off Topic does things, I think that would be a huge improvement.


Personally, I haven't checked to see if the defaults can be changed on a user account basis. I will do that shortly. If the default can be saved, I will be a bit surprised and marginally relieved.
Edit: I've checked and there is no way to personalize my account to change the default behavior.

However, since this behavior went into effect I've seen a large increase in the number of images attached to posts. IMO this is a terrible, horrible thing. This is likely due to people accepting the default behavior without knowing any better, nor knowing the downsides.
While I admit that in the medium term the attachments might mean that more images are available in the future because they will likely avoid the common occurrence where an image if removed from it's original URL I don't feel that benefit outweighs the downsides.
The downside for me are six-fold. Firstly, because the default tends to be chosen by those who don't know any better, the image never gets put in-line where it belongs, in full size. The image is put as an attachment which is a tiny thumbnail and not in-line, which makes for poor story-telling with images.
Secondly, the thumbnails and lack of in-line images makes for more work for the reader.
Thirdly, if the images are in-lined by an astute poster the thumbnails are now redundant.
Fourthly, and I haven't scouted this enough, but I'm pretty sure when not logged in, a visitor can not see forum attachments. This ruins the forum experience for guests. Maybe this was part of the goal? I feel it is a terrible idea if so.
Fifthly, the insert image box takes much longer to load now that is is so complicated. It should load in milliseconds and let us do our thing. If it doesn't load quickly, it serves almost no purpose as typing out the BBC is faster.
And lastly, and probably most importantly (this pushed me over the edge to create this thread) the images hosted on the forum server have been loading very slowly for the past couple of weeks. The load placed on the forum servers by needing to become a de-facto image host doesn't seemed to have gone well. The images load terribly slowly, and the forum itself is slower because of this need to serve up images. This will only get worse as time goes on and more images need to be served from the local forum.


As a web developer and UI specialist I find the default behavior of the image insertion button to be quite bad. There was nothing wrong with the old behavior. If the new behavior is to be an option, it should be as a secondary option, not by default.


I welcome any input on the matter. I have to say, I'm pretty tired of waiting 20+ seconds for small forum attachments to load.

[rf900rkw]

Ben, you are just barely touching on the problems. Try using the forum editor with something other than the target Win7 / IE9.x / Microsoft Bastard-Java. There is a reason my technical postings have dropped dramaticly since the great upgrade.

[lokijibber]

Thanks for that informative post Ben. I've always hosted my images on Photobucket (Option 3). I like the ability to post inline and "tell the story" as you mentioned. I only use the PB account for this forum, so I really have no intention of ever deleting images.

The vast majority of my forum usage now is done through the mobile app where photo viewing just plain sucks. I haven't created a thread in quite a while, but I'd still use my PC for that so I can post pics the way I'm used to.

[BenFenner]

Ben, you are just barely touching on the problems. Try using the forum editor with something other than the target Win7 / IE9.x / Microsoft Bastard-Java. There is a reason my technical postings have dropped dramaticly since the great upgrade.

Randy, which of these are you using (trying to use)?

• Enhanced Interface - Full WYSIWYG Editing
• Standard Editor - Extra formatting controls
• Basic Editor - A simple text box

[rf900rkw]

I don't have an choice. Whatever it spits at me.

[Terry F.]

It's not so much a question, as a suggestion with reasoning.

There are three different types of behavior in the Z3 subform right now from the image insertion button.

1) From Computer - Upload an image file from your computer to the forum server. I assume it adds the image as an attachment for the post. (Honestly, I've never used this method so I don't know the details.)
2) From URL Enhanced (retrieve file locally) - This takes an image URL and causes it to be loaded to the forum server and then adds the image as an attachment for the post.
3) From URL Basic - Post the image in-line from where it originally resides. No uploading of the image to the forum servers. No attachment. (This is the traditional behavior forum users have been used to for 15+ years of BBC.)

Keep in mind, this is for the Z3 subsection of the forum. Other sections (Off Topic) for example, work with only one option (#3 from above). Which IMO is one of a few good solutions. If we could go to the way Off Topic does things, I think that would be a huge improvement.


Personally, I haven't checked to see if the defaults can be changed on a user account basis. I will do that shortly. If the default can be saved, I will be a bit surprised and marginally relieved.
Edit: I've checked and there is no way to personalize my account to change the default behavior.

However, since this behavior went into effect I've seen a large increase in the number of images attached to posts. IMO this is a terrible, horrible thing. This is likely due to people accepting the default behavior without knowing any better, nor knowing the downsides.
While I admit that in the medium term the attachments might mean that more images are available in the future because they will likely avoid the common occurrence where an image if removed from it's original URL I don't feel that benefit outweighs the downsides.
The downside for me are six-fold. Firstly, because the default tends to be chosen by those who don't know any better, the image never gets put in-line where it belongs, in full size. The image is put as an attachment which is a tiny thumbnail and not in-line, which makes for poor story-telling with images.
Secondly, the thumbnails and lack of in-line images makes for more work for the reader.
Thirdly, if the images are in-lined by an astute poster the thumbnails are now redundant.
Fourthly, and I haven't scouted this enough, but I'm pretty sure when not logged in, a visitor can not see forum attachments. This ruins the forum experience for guests. Maybe this was part of the goal? I feel it is a terrible idea if so.
Fifthly, the insert image box takes much longer to load now that is is so complicated. It should load in milliseconds and let us do our thing. If it doesn't load quickly, it serves almost no purpose as typing out the BBC is faster.
And lastly, and probably most importantly (this pushed me over the edge to create this thread) the images hosted on the forum server have been loading very slowly for the past couple of weeks. The load placed on the forum servers by needing to become a de-facto image host doesn't seemed to have gone well. The images load terribly slowly, and the forum itself is slower because of this need to serve up images. This will only get worse as time goes on and more images need to be served from the local forum.


As a web developer and UI specialist I find the default behavior of the image insertion button to be quite bad. There was nothing wrong with the old behavior. If the new behavior is to be an option, it should be as a secondary option, not by default.


I welcome any input on the matter. I have to say, I'm pretty tired of waiting 20+ seconds for small forum attachments to load.

I would imagine OT policy is based on refusal to host R+ rated images, nothing else.

I do not like any image insertion except type three. But not everyone wants to have a photo hosting account so removing choice one and two will result in less photos so that choice is out.

Everyone, please consider hosting your own photos and post the using [ img ] commands. If you don't quite know how to do that, please let us know in this thread.

Thanks,
Terry

[BMWBergy]

Ben, I'd imagine that the tendency toward image attachments may be because many folks don't have online image hosting... plain and simple. While there are a number of decent options, including flickr and Photobucket (among others), many folks don't deal with/share their own images online enough to bother signing up. Since they don't have a link to paste into the URL window, the only option they have is attaching the images. This is a suspicion, equivalent to an opinion.

As for me, I actually have my own logic about how/when to use each option. If there's an image I WANT hosted on flickr (which as you know notifies people who are subscribed), I'll post it there, and link from there. However, there are photos which don't meet my own threshold for quality/interest, and so I don't post them to flickr, and the only way I can get them up here is to attach them.

- - - Updated - - -

But not everyone wants to have a photo hosting account so removing choice one and two will result in less photos so that choice is out.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

[BenFenner]

Terry, the OT policy makes sense. You're probably right about that one.

As for those who don't want to have a photo hosting account, I don't blame them. I hate that too. I am absolutely not trying to cause any trouble for these people. However, people need to be aware of www.imgur.com. (It sounds like news to many here). It is extremely simple, no nonsense, no sign-up, etc.
It takes literally 2-3 seconds to have an image URL in-hand to use where ever you'd like. Again, and I can't stress this enough, there is no signup, no accounts, nothing.
99% of people should be happy enough to use that image hosting site (when www.imgur.com went up, the Internet rejoiced).

The only caveat with www.imgur.com (and it isn't as major as it sounds in practice). If your image doesn't get accessed from their serves in a 60-day period it will be removed. This ends up being mostly a non-issue for most people. I've personally used it to host images for the past 4 years and haven't seen an image drop off yet. If there is ANY traffic to your images at all, they tend to stay up.


I'm glad to see you encouraging others to host their own images. I don't mean to remove the option entirely (although I did suggest that as one option). If we want to keep the options, I would do two things. I would make the "From URL" option the default (loads way faster than the other option anyway) AND I would have the checkbox for "Retrieve remote file and reference locally" be UNCHECKED by default.

This would go miles toward making posting much easier around here.

[lokijibber]

Ben, based on that 60-day inactivity clause, I'd urge people to NOT use that site.

The main reason I haven't posted a new thread in ages is that there is so much valuable information archived here. I don't seem to have issues searching as many others do, and I frequently find myself viewing threads that are 10+ years old. I'd have to guess that over those 10 years there has been a 2 month period when those threads were not viewed.

[Terry F.]

Ben,

I don't know how much customization the admin wants to undertake. I wish I didn't have to go Advanced to use the "mountain" icon for QUICKIMG.

Community, does anyone have questions about file hosting services?

Terry

[BenFenner]

I wish I didn't have to go Advanced to use the "mountain" icon for QUICKIMG.

I would throw that into the ring as well as a good suggestion for modification.

While we're on the topic, what exactly makes QUICKIMG different from IMG? I'd never even seen it until a few days ago.




As for thinking the forum image hosting will be reliable and dependable, I'll let you know I've seen VB forums taken care of 10x better than this one that inevitably have issues with attachments that end up losing some or all as the years go by. I wouldn't trust the images here to last in the long term. I don't see it happening.

[Terry F.]

I would throw that into the ring as well as a good suggestion for modification.

While we're on the topic, what exactly makes QUICKIMG different from IMG? I'd never even seen it until a few days ago.




As for thinking the forum image hosting will be reliable and dependable, I'll let you know I've seen VB forums taken care of 10x better than this one that inevitably have issues with attachments that end up losing some or all as the years go by. I wouldn't trust the images here to last in the long term. I don't see it happening.

QUICKIMG works just like IMG but with QUICK in front. IDK, I don't see a difference either.

For long term link reliability I think on-site would be more reliable than ad hoc, link 'em anywhere. But, that said, I've had my pay-subscription to Fototime since 1997 so my links still work over 15 years later. But that depends on the discipline of the poster, which will vary, of course.

T

[rf900rkw]

QUICKIMG works just like IMG but with QUICK in front. IDK, I don't see a difference either.

T

Unfortunately, this is not quite true. "QUICKIMG" does not work at all on the mobile app. The images do not automaticly load, and the URL is deformed so you can not just click on them. But then, 90% of the time the attachments won't load either, so I guess it doesn't matter that much.

[Terry F.]

Unfortunately, this is not quite true. "QUICKIMG" does not work at all on the mobile app. The images do not automaticly load, and the URL is deformed so you can not just click on them. But then, 90% of the time the attachments won't load either, so I guess it doesn't matter that much.

Correct, QUICKIMG does not work on Taptalk on Android, at least.

[rf900rkw]

I'm talking the BF.c app on Android. If I sound a bit down on it it's because I've been layed up in bed for the last few days with access only to the tablet. But anyway, googling the diffference between IMG and QUICKIMG nets very little. As a matter of fact, the only relevent hit on the first page was from Kevlar. "Just use the IMG tag instead". So I don't know the difference is, other than the order of usage.

[Mr Bingley]

I'm sure I'm being too simplistic here, due to my total lack of knowledge about web hosting, HTML, and the technical side of the use of images on-line, but what I have found to work best is simply to copy an image and paste it into my post--if I want to copy my own image, I upload it to my Picasa account, right click on it, hit "copy" and then right click in my post and hit "paste." If I am accessing an image from some other site--say Google images, I just do the same thing. Am I missing something here, or is this not the simplest and easiest way to post images? I used to use the "insert image" button before the Great Update, but that does not return satisfactory results any more, and copy/paste works better.

[BenFenner]

Mr. Bingley it sounds like you use the forum's WYSIWYG post editor. Others, (like me) use a simpler editor so we can work with the code and thus have an easier time doing complex tasks.

[Kyle Anderson]

And lastly, and probably most importantly (this pushed me over the edge to create this thread) the images hosted on the forum server have been loading very slowly for the past couple of weeks. The load placed on the forum servers by needing to become a de-facto image host doesn't seemed to have gone well. The images load terribly slowly, and the forum itself is slower because of this need to serve up images. This will only get worse as time goes on and more images need to be served from the local forum.

...I have to say, I'm pretty tired of waiting 20+ seconds for small forum attachments to load.

Thanks for posting this, Ben.

It's to the point where I'll close a thread without viewing the images and replying because of the wait. I suspect others are doing the same, which is cutting down on the number of helpful responses.

[achtung98m]

I'm sure I'm being too simplistic here, due to my total lack of knowledge about web hosting, HTML, and the technical side of the use of images on-line, but what I have found to work best is simply to copy an image and paste it into my post--if I want to copy my own image, I upload it to my Picasa account, right click on it, hit "copy" and then right click in my post and hit "paste." If I am accessing an image from some other site--say Google images, I just do the same thing. Am I missing something here, or is this not the simplest and easiest way to post images? I used to use the "insert image" button before the Great Update, but that does not return satisfactory results any more, and copy/paste works better.

I'm on the same boat, also due to my total lack of knowledge about web hosting, so is this the reason why most pics are no longer available on older posts?