Well, I guess I should finish here by eating a few of my words...

Page numbers are back on "what's new" and they go all the way back into the distant past.

'nuff said, I'm off to do something far more important - browsing artwork!

Thanks for listening!

...and not only is it back, the page numbers on 'what's new' go right up to 302!

Wow - I guess my rant had some effect then (and I guess it wasn't only mine, I'm not that egotistical, lol)... I nearly didn't come back here, but now I'm glad I did.

Thank you for listening, seriously!

I know there are page numbers in other places, but the 'What's New' gallery is the one I need, and have always used. There was nothing wrong with it as it was, and I even did access it (the old way I mean) on my phone when on holiday. No change was really needed.

While I'm not shocked at the management attitude that implemented this change and towards customers who don't like the new site, it does surprise me that such a decision clearly limits the exposure of new artwork when surely that is the opposite of what the site needs most of all... I'm baffled, but then I often am at many 'management decisions' that fly in the face of logic.

As to changing the new coding as mentioned above: I would guess that the most obnoxious thing to me (the history limit) could be changed be increasing a single parameter in the code. If not, then that's pretty poor coding (and yes, I've done more than just a tad of coding myself). The other site manages to display thousands of images this way, and also displays many more images before a 'wait for more images to load' is needed. I don't like it as such, but at least it is still usable over there because of those two simple differences. And really, given the cheapness of CPU these days, why could not two systems run in parallel, for those of us with real screens to sit in front of?

It's not a case of coding; it's a case of management decisions being made because someone had the bright idea that doing this means you can boast about your 'fancy new site' and maybe make a few extra pennies. Who cares about the people that the loss of actual usability and practicality loses along the way. I spent a lot of money on my monitors, and I don't appreciate being limited to a tablet-targeted, limited-bandwidth interface, and a poor implementation of it at that.

Standard company practice these days: asking for and expecting loyalty yet offering none in return. It stinks.

Thanks for the links to those scripts - they're really useful. I didn't know that we could do stuff like that.

I still wish that the powers that be would stop fixing things that aren't broken though, and bring back full size view.

Just another, 'Please bring back full size'...

I've actually stopped browsing until this is back.

Quote - Yeah, I believe if it ain't broke, don't fix it. lol q-:

...words that I've often lived by as a professional computer guy!

The pop-up is now popping up to the right of the thumbnail, blocking the one next to it and preventing that one being clicked on without deliberately moving the cursor off first.

It's still instant, and still very annoying.

XP SP3, Firefox (latest update) if it really matters... :sigh:

I wouldn't call it a feature, just an annoyance. It's a completely unneeded distraction which obscures the thumbnail we are trying to see and makes middle-clicking on it to open the image in a new tab a real pain.

Either (prefereably) remove this 'feature', give a long delay before it appears, or allow it to be clicked-through so the middle-click still works without having to maneuver onto the very edge of the thumbnail.

Rick :)