Pictures as attachments

[SteveColes]

I am giving some strong consideration to either banning most pictures as attachments or finding some other way to discourage their use. In fact I'm thinking of banning almost all attachments.

Thoughts, pros & cons, discussion?

 

[clowman]

One argument against attachments, and I'll admit it's a selfish one, I can't see any attachments here at work. (dang firewall) Personally, I much prefer to insert the BBLink code inside the post from the gallery. But, I am assuming that all pictures here are from our gallery, which I know full well, they are not.

 

[NCPete]

What causes this train of thought to gather steam?

 

[ChrisMathes]

Can you explain in more detail what you are referring to? Does this mean hotlinking a picture from another site, inserting a hotlink from a picture in the gallery, or is there another option?

I am interested in what you are thinking. One thing that I've always been suprised about is that you don't seem to care how big of a picture that I upload. :eusa_whis I would expect that some of us are abusing the gallery a bit with some big pix...you must not be concerned about disk space?

cheers,
Chris

 

[MikeH]

I think what Steve is getting at is that attachments are going to take up a lot more space than the gallery, but I'm not certain about that.

There may be some compression algorithm that the Gallery has that a regular thread does not. Am I close?

Steve can you elaborate?

 

[sapwood]

A clip from the FAQs:

If you want to include a picture in your post, you have two basic methods to do this: Attachment method and Insert Image method

Attachment method - use this method when you have a picture on your local computer (ie, not published on the net somewhere). You just "attach" an image to your post, just like you would attach a file or image to an e-mail message. This method has the advantage of simplicity, speed, and familiarity (if you're used to forums that use this method, like Saw Mill Creek). The main disadvantage is that the picture shows up in a box down at the bottom of the page -- you have no control over where the picture is placed within your post. Well, actually you do have some control, but you have to take an extra step to do this (see below). Most importantly, the picture does not go into your gallery, so it doesn't count towards your total post count, and you can lose track of where it's located if you need to refer to it later.


Insert Image method - use this method when you want to show a picture that is hosted on a web site somewhere on the net (like your own web site, or your photo gallery here on this web site). This is a bit more involved, but more versatile. This is the preferred method if you want to include more than one picture in your post, or if you want your picture to show up somewhere in the middle of the post instead of down at the bottom. This method is really simple once you get used to it, and it's definitely worth learning.​

The next post will address the Attachments method, then I will followup with a post on the Insert Image method, along with some more "advanced" tips & tricks... stay tuned.

I think most folks see the attachment method first and find it easier. However, as Monty notes in the FAQ: "inserting is more involved, but more versatile." Banning attachments would create a bit of grumbling, but eventually members would learn how to insert . . . I think. :eusa_thin

I lack the geek to speak regarding compression alogrithm of text. However, I see many pros for inserting and linking: reuse, resizing, rapid access, and removing. Gallery photos are easy to access and delete (something I need to do :BangHead, whereas no one is likely to return to an old thread and remove an attachment.

If banning attachments will improve the site, go for it. I would do my best to assist those who need help adjusting to the change.

Roger

 

[Ray Martin]

An overall ban sounds draconian... but I do see the technical benefit. Maybe we should move toward putting things in the gallery... it certainly is easier to find pics there (as opposed to trying to locate the email that contained a pic).

Does anyone know whether the average pic / photo / graphic is meant to be kept on the site long term? If it is, the gallery is the place for it. If not... is there a way to do auto delete from the gallery afer a period of time? I know we could ask members to post pics to the gallery and do some housekeeping on a regular basis... but the housekeeping just won't get done.

... just my two denarius worth...

Ray

 

[SteveColes]

I think what Steve is getting at is that attachments are going to take up a lot more space than the gallery, but I'm not certain about that.

There may be some compression algorithm that the Gallery has that a regular thread does not. Am I close?

Steve can you elaborate?

Not a space issue at all. The Gallery has 6 GB space and the attachmnets only .5GB.

When the site was started, there were no picture attachments. I finally relented and allowed them against Monty's advice.

I'll try and post more about this tomorrow. I wrote a long post twice explaining the issues as I see them, but lost it twice and just don't have the heart to rewrite it again tonight.:BangHead: Though I will try and find the original threads that discussed this.

 

[SteveColes]

Here are some of the threads from the first 3 or 4 months

http://www.ncwoodworker.net/forums/showthread.php?t=251&highlight=attachments
http://www.ncwoodworker.net/forums/showthread.php?t=255&highlight=attachments
http://www.ncwoodworker.net/forums/showthread.php?t=307&highlight=attachments

FYI, I was totally wrong about the storage and bandwidth issues and also the postioning of attachments within a post

 

[Monty]

Hehehe - I forgot about all that... pretty funny now. I think attachments probably do have a place from time to time, but that's the exception rather than the rule. For example, when posting tutorials I always used attachments for the screenshots because I had no reason to keep those pics around in my album.

I'm also curious why this is an issue now...

 

[SteveColes]

Hehehe - I forgot about all that... pretty funny now. I think attachments probably do have a place from time to time, but that's the exception rather than the rule. For example, when posting tutorials I always used attachments for the screenshots because I had no reason to keep those pics around in my album.

I'm also curious why this is an issue now...

It is sort of hard for me to explain. Part of it is just pure frustration on my part and part of it is looking at the future.

First, the frustration parts are the following:

• Misuse of the intent of attachments ( not really important by itself, just frustrating)
• Excellent pictures of excellent work are in the threads and not in the galleries, where they would enhance the value and the interest in the site.
• Good photos will be lost when I start to age prune the threads, which will soon have to start.
• No way to find the attachments photos without a lot of work.

The future:

This site is growing and now contains a lot of very good information. But information is useless, if you can't find it.:eyeslam: We need ways to organize and preserve some of this information. I am planning some more enhancements to help us do that. But the one place that we have the software already(though not properly structured yet), the Galleries, is not being used as fully as it should be, and the newer members are using attachments to post pictures more and more often.:BangHead: Or in other words a trend is starting, that I really don't like.

 

[DaveO]

It just dawned on me that this thread wasn't in the public realm. It should be. Maybe if more folks knew more about attachments and the advantages to placing their pictures in the gallery, they might use the attachment feature less. I was just replying to a thread, and went to look back at the posted picture to make sure I did say something stupid, and it was an attachment and not viewable while replying, like an embedded image :BangHead: :BangHead: .
I think attachments have their place and do serve a good function, but they are kinda like a Rotozip, mostly worthless except for cutting a hole in drywall :-D

Dave

 

[Monty]

I think this discussion is appropriate here - we can make the call and provide a reasoned explanation of the issues in Webmaster announcements. The problem with opening the discussion to the whole forum is -- many people seem to only know how to post pics as attachments and they'll want to keep that option available. I totally agree with Steve's reasons for wanting to do away with attachments. If we didn't have the gallery, it would be different...

 

[SteveColes]

I guess I really would like to come up with a carrot and stick approach. Some changes that makes it easier to post from the galleries and less easy to use the attachments

Any ideas?

 

[cskipper]

I still find it extremely frustrating to post more than one picture from the gallery in a post. You have to have two windows open - one to the gallery to copy the link, and the window in which you are posting. Otherwise you lose all of your post when you go to get the second picture.

It took me a ridiculously long time to learn to copy the first image to the clipboard before I started my post. That may be why some folks shy away from using the gallery. Another is that I still find it difficult to upload pictures to the gallery. It might be MSN because we have the fast broadband connectivity. This morning it took me 10-15 tries to upload two pictures - which I eventually loaded separately. Every now and then I can load a bunch and they go right away. That's why I figure it's probably a MSN issue.

Another problem I have with the current format of the galleries. When I open someone else's albums I can see their most recent photos, their most popular photos and random photos. I cannot see a listing of their albums. That's very frustrating and makes the option of viewing the galleries pretty useless IMHO. I would say that I must have a setting set incorrectly, but John has the same problem.

 

[SteveColes]

. When I open someone else's albums I can see their most recent photos, their most popular photos and random photos. I cannot see a listing of their albums. That's very frustrating and makes the option of viewing the galleries pretty useless IMHO. I would say that I must have a setting set incorrectly, but John has the same problem.

Cathy, I can not reproduce that. When I go to your gallery, for instance, I see an area that shows all your albums and below that are your pictures. I see no random or recent headings at all.

Can you take me through the steps you are taking to get to a member's gallery.

 

[cskipper]

When I click on the Photo Galleries - either on the top bar or the side menu, I get the screens in the attached file. John and I get the same screens - we can't see anyone else's albums.

 

[DaveO]

Cathy, I get the same thing when I click on the members name within the listing of the Members Gallery. But if you click on the picture you'll go to their albums. I always thought it had to do with our privledges. I wonder if all members are having the same results :icon_scra :icon_scra :eusa_thin


Dave

 

[cskipper]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! i had talked to McRabbet about this but forgot the answer. Visitors will not know this, so if we want to build up the gallery for their viewing, we need to either fix the other links or make it painfully obvious to visitors )and those of us with no memories) how to find member's albums.

 

[Monty]

yea we had fixed that once before... I'll dig up the code and make the change