I am missing ebots for posts after:

PJF

Joined: 20 Feb 1999
Posts: 2676
Last Post: 21 Jun 06

[profile]

Posted Wed, Jun 21, 2006 2:55 am

through:

FlyByNight

Joined: 07 Jun 2000
Posts: 806
Last Post: 21 Jun 06

[profile]

Posted Wed, Jun 21, 2006 11:34 am

Any reason for this?    Yes, I am subscribed.  &  Yes, this is an ongoing issue for me across a subscritions on all threads.

Thanks in advance for checking on this.

Viking Lady

I posted this elsewhere, you may want to have a look!

Since the change over my E-bots have been finding their way into my spam folder, I have no "re-educated" my spam filter to let them through again!

Check it out, it may be that!

PJF,

Thanks for posting the code again. Keep the money. No refund required. grin

Janet

As far as I can tell, the new gallery features work fine with my altered CSS. The resized images display properly (resized); the full-sized images display properly (full). Plus the artist notes are still in the middle instead of off to the side. Yay. I'll leave it in there and report any problems.

I've attached a screenshot of what I've been seeing with multiple images, unlike with PJF's script changes, the rest of the page doesn't resize to fit the larger image.

Yep.... I'm getting what modus0 is getting.

Using Firefox and took out the CSS code PJF gave for resizing just before the change to the gallery.

Heh, I'm not getting that with the altered CSS. I feel kind of smug. Ironbear should be proud of me. :-D

It's Firefox causing it, I believe. I opened IE and it didn't do that.

Unicornst, I'll be fixing this soon. N

Ah, it is related to Firefox, and it does happen in Firefox with my altered CSS.

Now I feel like a complete prat :-D. (see - it's still the real me, Ironbear)

(That reminds me, I must uninstall Firefox and start again with it. I made some 'speed-up' alterations to it suggested on a thread here somewhere and it's never worked properly since. That's why I've reverted to IE)

Aww, Nic.....Thank you!!!

I wasn't bothered a great deal by it because it does show the image behind it. And I could switch to IE, but my computer hates it for some reason. The few minutes it took me to check it in IE, my browser froze on me. LOL So it's really nice to know that it's getting fixed for Firefox. I love my Firefox! grin

Thank you again!!! 

Janet

I am I am. very proud. And I still think you're a pod person. Just a pod person that's a complete prat. ;]p~

Abuse! Ban him, somebody!

pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod
pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod
pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod
pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod
pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod-pod

Sorry PJF you are on your own here.

Just a situation update - It is still doing it in FF regardless of removing those parts of PJFs CSS code.

PODS UNITE!

Not absolutely sure but I think the fix is on your end.

Sounds like some good options..and should please (almost) everyone...and my other issues have been resolved too,so thank you very much...

Funny....I use Firefox and Im not seeing that....maybe its because Im not viewing in the same window..I have mine set to open a new window.

I am openning into a new tab, will try the new window flag and see if it makes a diff.

Nope, no difference on the test image. New window opens fine.
BTW, my screen size is 1600x1200.

I just looked at about 12 diffrerent images in bryce/cinema/vue galleries - it varies whether the image is full left or offset. The ones with offset seem to hyave the off set frame centered on the page as though it was going to be a 700px wide resample image displayed.

Well thats just weird....I wonder if it has anything to do with the artists preferences or something?....I'll point someone to this thread ;)

Edit: Just curious..does this happen to your own images as well?

Fixed. N

Hands Nic his favorite take-out and drinks.

Looks like you are pulling another all-nighter.

V

Nope just got home from visiting Mom. I'm off to bed as soon as I feed the cats. G'night! N

Woohoo Nic!  Sharp as a tack..must be dat new toy {so...how many bugs ya picked outta your teeth? ~hehe~}

Looks good so far - Thanks!

Just meant to post my big "THANK YOU!" for the options provided!

I was following this issue and believed "options" would be the best solution, as many have asked for in the threads. So I'm really happy You did listen and completely kept up to our hopes and trust!

Excellent work!!!!!

Regards,

Stefano

Actually, the one anoying thing in the past was people uploading these 500kB images that could  easily have been compressed to about 100MB, without sacrificing pixel size and pixel quality.  There is no reason why a typical 600 x 800 pixel image should be more than 120kB, and still look good and sharp.

Quote - Actually, the one anoying thing in the past was people uploading these 500kB images that could  easily have been compressed to about 100MB, without sacrificing pixel size and pixel quality.  There is no reason why a typical 600 x 800 pixel image should be more than 120kB, and still look good and sharp.

It's a broadband thing. There's a tendency not to bother to be aware of dial-up delays anymore. An update to Parkinson's Law for the IT age could be, "Filesize expands to fill the bandwidth available for its download" (Bloater's Law?)

So although it's faster, it just as slow in the long run ;o)

**"Bloater's Law"...**I love it...will credit you when I steal it, heh heh heh....but you are quite right...I have a small computer and even with DSL it sometimes get's very cranky with huge images. 

I'd like to know why, when we go to the galleries, there is a What's New page and then to get to a page for page numbering, you have to click Recent Uploads that is EXACTLY the same as What's New. Seems a little redundant to me. Why not just have the Recent Uploads page?

Well this page was originally the page that had the "Todays most viewed, Todays most commented, etc on it and when there was so many thumbnails with lots of nudity, we hide those other sections and left just the Whats New. We are fixing this where you can click page two from that page and then keep going:)

Kinda says something about the gallery audience, methinks. ;-)

Quote - Well this page was originally the page that had the "Todays most viewed, Todays most commented, etc on it and when there was so many thumbnails with lots of nudity, we hide those other sections and left just the Whats New. We are fixing this where you can click page two from that page and then keep going:)

Stacey,

Not sure what your meaning by "fix" but instead of wasting all that time to "fix" something, just delete the What's New page and let the Recent Uploads page be the opening page for the gallery.

Typically I can get a good quality for a 1280x1024 image under 275 kb. never could figure why some small files were so big sized. I like that bloater's law!

Until BROADBAND is affordably available to everyone, noone should assume everyone has it.

As for NUDITY... those who think nudity is more dangerous than violence, death and gore should just be able to block all nude images from displaying in their browser with a simple button.

Quote - Until BROADBAND is affordably available to everyone, noone should assume everyone has it.

In many U.S. markets, dial-up is actually priced higher than DSL.  Perhaps you meant to say "readily" available.  According to Nielsen/NetRatings, nearly 75% of U.S. households now use some form of high-speed broadband, which is up from 57% just one year ago, likely due to introductory pricing.  The remaining holdouts are those who are so remote as to not have broadband (and Satellite Internet install and the monthly fee is rather high) and people on AOL dial-up who have never even heard of broadband, but don't really require it because all they do is e-mail their kids twice a month.  Not to say AOL users are idiots, I use them as the example as they do have the largest share of dial-up users.  Of course, there are those on the low end of the tier where all they can afford is butchered 56k Internet at $9.95 a month.  But honestly, I can't see these discount ISPs having much life left.

With 28% and dropping of users at only 56k, it is rather difficult to remember those at such speeds and this is why you see image sizes growing much larger.  One tends to become spoiled rather quickly.  A 512k image is nothing to a DSL, cable or FiOS user.

Regards,

Steve

I would be ashamed to post a 512kb jpg image even for my 1600x1200 originals. Sloppy. (personal opinion)

Quote - I would be ashamed to post a 512kb jpg image even for my 1600x1200 originals. Sloppy. (personal opinion)

I would agree, but at the same time, I would be concerend about how many users' cards and/or screens can support  1600x1200.

That's why I upload at 1280x1024.  (typically run from 150 to 270Kb) - btw I am on dial-up. No bandwidth limit, 24/7 and one flat fee local access from all of North America. Works a treat when I travel for work.

Has it been addressed in this some of these pages how when I choose to look at the gallery images at their original large size - the words written by the artist under the picture jump to the left in a very narrow column.

I have always had my links column for renderosity in general on the right hand side of the screen.  Does this have anything to do with how the words under the gallery images are appearing?

I am really pleased to find a way to view the pictures without having to click and resize and click to close.  This is a great relief.  Thank you very much! Now just to find a way to deal with how the words appear. 

I do have my script set to show larger font sizes in the forum and gallery area because otherwise I cannot read it.  That may be the other reason that the artist's words get scrunched up?

Oh and thank you also for having an option to turn off the silly balloon pop ups over the thumbnails.  :-)

If you are willing and able to edit your gallery CSS then it is possible to have the artist's notes centred (almost) in relation to the image. Details are in the "Gallery alternative CSS Schemes" thread (currently sticky).

Stacey, William, other Rosity folks,

A belated thanks for your elegant compromise on the resizing/thumbnail issue. I think your solution is quite good. Thanks for taking our concerns into account.

Best,

LinkDink

I know this is a bit late in the discussion but it seems to me that if someone comes to an art site, they should see the art the way the artist creating the art created it. Not resized or otherwise altered. 

Just my two cents......................

P.S. I still hate just about everything with the new changeovers, so forgive me if I sound cynical, jaded, or miffed.