At Deemarie's suggestion I'm also posting this here:

Friends,

Brian (TallPockets) and I have batted ideas about graphics at the top of our Writing Gallery submissions.  I think an image/graphic/sketch can help pre-conditon the reader as to what's contained in the main post.  Or shamelessly mislead.  Currently we are limited to 200 x 200 pixels in the thumbnail, and 300 x300 in the text portion – not much room to show detail.

I've noticed that a text headed by a graphic gets more readers than "(no thumbnail)."  There may be other subtle currents at work on the viewer, but an image engages his attention longer than "(no thumbnail)".

To get more from our limited graphic capability, I'm experimenting with the thumbnail  slightly different than larger picture, but closely allied.  Ideally I'd like an image every 200 to 300 words.  My bare bones descriptions need help. 

In the "Photography" and "Story/Sequential" sections (my post today of 750 pxl wide chapter pics in a long vertical montage) Brian's reply mentioned that with the June improvements, surely we could have images larger than 300 x 300.   Even 450 x 450 would be appreciated.

Can we?  Would it be possible?   David, could you ask the Grand High Council?

Please?

 Dick

I will pass this on to the programmers, not sure if its possible but they will be able to evaluate and let us know.

Thanks for the suggestion

Thank you Stacey.

Dick

"Brian's reply mentioned that with the June improvements, surely we could have images larger than 300 x 300." --

DRACE68 - TallPocket's/brian's reply 'suggested' that with the new and improved gallery switch over it 'seemed' to him that the writer's gallery might have more space and speed with the 'upgrades' made to allow larger images in the writer's gallery.

"Could" being the accurate word.  LOL.

I just wondered why one could use up to 512 kb file sizes in the 'gallery' but not in the 'writers' gallery? That shows to me that a 'picture' in the gallery is deemed more worthy than a written work and subsequent accompanying uploaded picture?

I also am puzzled as to why this site, unlike many other similar artistic sites, are size limited to just 512 kb and other uploaded formats such as PNG, etc.? Especially, with the new and improved gallery, server, etc.? Just wondering out loud.

Is the new gallery and server faster? Does it allow for more file sizes? In real terms that are measurable, how much faster IS this new and improved site? I find it not to be any faster or slower on my Directv broadband/1MB dish system than before? Just my own experiences, thus far.

TallPockets, Lost In Cyberspace. WINK.

STACEYG: Thanks, in advance also, for considering drace68's thread post. MUCH appreciated. My best, TallPockets.

Okay now changed to 450 x 450

And the size limit has always been 512kb for the Writers gallery as well as the others and it still is:)

So please let me know how this works for you in the Writers gallery.

Thank you, Stacey!!!

Dick

Many thanks! MUCH appreciated!! T.P.

You are very welcome!!! 

''Okay now changed to 450 x 450

And the size limit has always been 512kb for the Writers gallery as well as the others and it still is:)"

StaceyG: My bad. My apologies. You are 'technically' accurate. The size limit has been and is 512 kb for the writers gallery. I suppose I did not word my thoughts accurately (as many at this most wonderful site who put up with my attempts at writings have, often, told me).

In the past two years, I have uploaded over 200 works. Mostly written types.

I just reviewed my file folder of all those works for referencing.

Here is what I found:

My written work/piece called LABELS was 25kb in file size in Microsoft Works Word is
one, if not, the largest file size written work I have posted.

The maximum TNG upload allowed by rule here is 15kb in file size.

I reviewed most of my larger UPLOAD pics for the writers gallery and found that ones where I used my Kodak 4MP camera are, by far, my largest file size(s).

In this case, I found my A FACE IN THE CROWD 'upload' picture to be the largest uploaded pic for the writers gallery I have used. It came in at 46.6 kb in file size.

So, doing the math ....

25kb (actual written piece) + 15.0kb (Maximum file size allowed for TNG pic here) + 46.6 kb file size for the 'uploaded' picture for the above written piece.

Rounded off, that totals approximately just under 90 kb of file size used of the 512 kb allowed in the writers area gallery.

512kb maximum allowed -90 kb total file size of entire written upload = 422 kb of remaining file size left over/open.

For further reference: My LABELS written piece was on of my longest. It came in at '5' pages in length in my Microsoft Works Word program on my p.c.

That equates to about 5 kb per each written page, if my math is close. (422kb divided by 5 kb per page = approximately 84 pages of writing still possible to be used.

Trying to now recall some of the 'longest' written pieces I have seen at this site, and doing the basic premise of 5 kb per page written, one would have to write page after page after page after page .... well, you get the idea (As shown directly above).

Not even wordy, grumpy, flap his jaws far too much, TallPockets. WINK.

So, in real practice,  the writers were drastically limited by the TNG and uploaded 300x100 pixels sizes allowed. For, in actuality, no one would most probably ever post an 89 page written work here. Only so many kb could physically be placed in each above size restrictions given.

Or, as Billy Clinton once said, "It matters how one defines what the word IS, is". SMILE.

I thank you for the increase to 450 pixels in the writers gallery. Someday, utopia would be a writers gallery where the written work and the subsequent TNG and uploaded pics that accompany it would be allowed to be configured to an actual practice maximum of 512 kb in file size per each individual written work, in it's entirety. However, each artist would decide to best put his/her works together.

My best to you and yours, kind soul.

PEACE.

Most respectfully, TallPockets.

''I also am puzzled as to why this site, unlike many other similar artistic sites, are size limited to just 512 kb and other uploaded formats such as PNG, etc.? Especially, with the new and improved gallery, server, etc.? Just wondering out loud.

Is the new gallery and server faster? Does it allow for more file sizes? In real terms that are measurable, how much faster IS this new and improved site? I find it not to be any faster or slower on my Directv broadband/1MB dish system than before? Just my own experiences, thus far.''

TallPockets .......

StaceyG:

Care to have a go at this again? Or, one of your technical experts? I would honestly like to know such answers.

I invested over $600 in Hughesnet/Directway high speed 1MB broadband installation charges and about $70 a month in service charges to use such services since I live in rural America.

I still notice alot of ''waiting for ....." at this site .... either excalibur, camelot, or tribalfusion .... ? ....

If I immediately go from your wonderful site to another similar art site, the other site runs much faster in comparison. As was the case prior to your new changeover and even after my new, costly broadband satellite dish service.

Since other sites run fine at the same times, I cannot logically equate it to my own, personal computer or my new broadband company's services.

For, all other sites run much better by comparison within minutes of leaving this wonderful site.

Thanks, in advance, for any/all help you can offer.

Much appreciated,

TallPockets.

Hi TallPockets, I'll take a stab at your questions.

Most (not all) of the site has been migrated to the new (faster) php platform.

Tutorials, Free Stuff, Contests and a few other areas have not been migrated and are still running on the old .ez platform.

The old .ez platform is now running on a single server called camelot.

When accessing these sections that have not been converted you will notice a slower response.

All other sections of the site, Home Pages, Art Galleries, Forums, MarketPlace, etc...are running on the new platform and should run very fast.

Once we get the entire site migrated to the new platform it should all operate at a much increased rate of speed.

I hope this helps.

ClintH:

Hello and thanks kindly for your response..

Do you have an idea as to 'when' this all will come to fruition? Even a best guess estimate?

And, when it does so, do you have an idea of how much faster than previous this improvement(s) will actually result in?

In my simple world, do you expect the members here can expect to experience a speed increase rate of 10%? .... 20%? .... or, ??? (Fill in the blank)  .... Just curious of what to expect in the future.

Thanks, in advance, for any/all help.

MUCH appreciated,

TallPockets.

One important fact you must keep in mind is that when you surf to Renderosity, you're being handed off to many different routers, both to and fro.  You don't have a direct connection to Renderosity.  It really all depends how far from the Internet backbone Rendo's ISP is, as well as your own ISP.  For me, Rendo moves along fairly quickly, but when I surf Yahoo, it's slower than molasses.

For this reason, it would be impossible for Clint to give you an estimate on how much faster this site will be.

Try a tracert from your PC to www.renderosity.com it'll show you up to 30 hops by default and any bottlenecks you're encountering along the way.  Adelphiacom.net is notorious for having backed up routers. 

Hi TallPockets, Your very welcome.

What TerraDreamer said is spot on.

It has a lot to do with routing on the net. However, server speed does play a roll to some extent on the speed that you will experience. There are a lot of factors that can affect the speed you experience.

I expect the rest of the site to be migrated to the new platform in the next 4-8 weeks.

Dont hold me to that since it could change .. but thats a fair estimate.

Thanks to both above for your comments. Much appreciated.

I understand the 'routing' concept and that it depends on who/what/when/where/how fast they run.

But, we've been told for some time now, if memory serves me correctly, that the 'new' and improved' changeover would result in ''faster'' gallery surfings, etc.

Thus, if this site is dependent on the routings used and who does them, how can they intimate a faster gallery, etc. if they don't truly know it will so result?

Did I, and all those I speak to, mis-interpret those statements? Curious.

THANKS for the 'time' line update, Clint H.

My best to you and yours,

TallPockets.