Attached Link: http://www.mnot.net/cache_docs/

In case of normal link, user can always open into new window if they want (typically, right click and select "open in new window" or similar). But when the web designer forces opening in new window, user does not have the choice.

Further, closing the window is much more difficult than just clicking Back button or pressing Backspace key.

It would be much better just to have a normal link and allow back button to work. Just make sure the pages are cacheable so that user does not need to wait for page to reload. See Caching Tutorial (the attached url).

If you must have the popup window, at least remove the useles menus from the right and top of page. They take up valuable screen space, and also slow down loading and make the page more messy. Instead, add the "next" and "previous" links.

Why so many rules?
If I understand it correctly, rule #2 covers rules #1 and #3, too.

Copyright laws can not have anything to do with it. Only God can claim copyright to persons appearance. In case of celebrities, you can even publish photographs you have taken of them without asking permission. Therefore, a 3D image that only looks like a celebrity can not cause any problems. I guess Gwendolyn has just done the same decision as many other artists: leave Renderosity because of the new TOS that attacks against artistic feedom and freedom of expression. For a merchant, it is even more important to leave Rosity, since more and more people are joining the boycot against merchants and products marketed at Rosity.

hawkfyr: "I would imagine that at least 75% of the planet is on some kind of broadband connection.It doesn't seem fair to set that kind of condition just to accommodate the small percentage of those still on dial-up."

You can imagine what you like, but it has nothing to do with reality. The studies I have seen indicate that only about 20% to 30% of net users have broadband connection.

However, having broadband connection does not mean that the images load instantly.

For example, I acquired a broadband connection few months ago. It is supposed to be able to do 1 Mbps, but in practice I rarely reach transfer speed above 250 kbps even for larger downloads. Thus, if my net connection was the only limiting factor, downloading a 500 kB image would take 20 seconds. That is too long time to spend to find out if the image is worth viewing.

However, the local connection is not the only limiting factor. Unless you are directly connected to Renderosity server, the internet is the limiting factor. Especially for international connections. In addition, Renerosity server is often very slow. When I click on some thumbnail, it typically takes anything from 20 sec to couple of minutes before the image even begins to load.

That is why a good thumbnail is needed. The thumbnail must tell to the viewer what the image contains so that he/she can decide whether or not the actual image is worth downloading.

The thumbnails are there for the viewer, they are not artist's playthings.

TallPockets: "I would like to suggest that all thumbnail pics uploaded here be required to be the 'full' version of the upload submitted and not partial or hidden versions of such uploads."

I totally agree. I really hate it when people post thumbnails that do not tell anything about the image. Often the thumbnail is just a tiny piece clipped from a corner of the image, not related to the actual image in any way. You are then forced to click on the useless thumbnail and wait ages for the image to download, often just to find out that the image is total crap.

JVRenderer : "Isn't that kind of extreme to give up my freedom of expression for your convenience?"

How does a suggestion for artists to use their brains and to do things the right way require you to "give up your freedom"? Why do you think viewers' convenience is a bad thing?

"one friendly suggestion: if you don't like the thumbnails, move on to the next pic."

But that is exactly why a good thumbnail is needed. If the thumbnail shows the image, then the viewer can decide whether or not he/she wants to wait for the actual image to download. But if the image is a cropped piece that does not tell anything about the image, the how on earth is the viewer supposed to be able to make the decision?

Yes, Renderosity marketplace sucks in many ways.

The answer is simple: do not buy anything from Renderosity. There are many other, better market places out there. Go to DAZ store or Faerie Dreams for example.

I have never purchased anything from Renderosity. At first, it was because of the poor user interface. Then, just when I was beginning to figure it out, then came the new TOS. Because of the TOS, I decided to never buy anything from Renderosity.

After all, due to the new TOS that violates artistic freedom and freedom of expression in general, most of the talented artists have already left Renderosity. Haven't you noticed the radical drop in quality of the images posted to Renderosity during last few months? Join the boycot.

What has been bugging me since I first got to Rosity is that the comments are nothing but worthless praise. The comments generally contain just few words like "Great pic", "Excellent", "wow". There is no constructive criticism. No matter how poor the image is, it is overly praised. People do not even say what is good in the picture, and even less so what could be improved. And if there is ranking, it is always "Excellent". That makes the ranking system pretty much useless. Compare this to Elfwood, for example. There people spend significant amount of time writing helpful comments and criticistm. On the other hand, the images do have descriptions, too.

"When you see a young girl with a mini skirt up to the crack of dawn or legs parted ever so seductively or with Lolita like faces looking like they are hungry for milkshakes, is that not just as bad if not WORSE? " Why would there be anyting bad with that (or with nude images either)? Such an image does not harm anybody. Banning the images does harm both the artist and the viewers. Thus, banning the images is bad. I never stop wondering what is in the mind of those people who are on crusade against art. What is the reason for the crusade? Is it just that they want to hurt other people? This thread is an example of the fact that the crusade never stops. When they manage to ban something, they continue trying to create even more ban and stricter rules. In the end, you will notice that the only images allowed are some abstract images such as ornaments (as it used to be in some muslim countries).

What I have seen, the reason why threads are locked is not politics, religion or any OT subject. All the threads I have seen locked recently are those that criticize Renderosity. Especially if you criticize the new TOS, the the thread is quickly locked, and your message may be deleted, too. Even here in the Community Center Forum, which was originally created for discussion about Renderosity, AFAIK. It seems that Renderositys answer to the problems caused by censorship is more censorship. Locking threads after 100 posts or so is not really justified either. Don't forget that there are thusands of members in this community. If the thread is locked, most members have never chance to say their opinion in the subject.

It would be better not to market any products here at Renderosity anymore. Any product marketed here is subject to boycott, because of the offending new TOS that attacks against artistic freedom.

Why do you want you thumbnails to be as close to 15K as possible? Slow page loading time is not something to reach for. 10k or even 5k is quite good enough guality for a thumbnail. Further, square thumbnails showing only small part of image is not a very good idea. It would be much better to have thumbnails that show the whole imgae as it is. But on the other hand, it would be better not to post any images to Renderosity any more. The new TOS is such an offensive attack against artistic freedom. It would be better if we all move our images to other sites. Since you have nude images, you could move them to Renderotica, for example. I have already deleted all the images from my gallery (after the single fairy image I had was deleted without warning).

That is strange. I thought you can not use credit card with any other name than what is written in the card exactly. For example, if the name in the card is "George W. Bush", you can not even pay anything with name "George Bush". On the other hand, it is not necessary to hack any sites to use your credit card number. If you just show your credit card to someone, they can write down the number and use it later. Or, if you throw away the receipt that contains credit card info, anyone could dick that from the trash can. Then there are all these credit card fraud email spams. For example, I have received many emails from "eBay" and "PayPal" asking to "update my account info".

I have seen stupid explanations trying to justify cencorship and attacks against nudity, but this is plain ridiculous. How an earth could attacks agains nudity stop credit card theft? Wakeup! The real reason for cencorship is evilness. The "moralists" just want to hurt other people. That can not be tolerated. I suggest the following course of action: 1. Do not delete any nude images 2. Do not post any new images to Renderosity 3. Write to the site owners and tell them that the new TOS sucks and it has to be revoked 4. If the TOS is not revoked, resign your membership 5. Above all: do not buy any products marketed or advertised at Renderosity. If the site owners want to hurt the users with the TOS, they must be ready to pay for it.

JVRenderer: "I don't have a problem with the TOS either. It doesn't really affect me at all, since I don't do faery pics nor pics with 3d characters that look underage." Several people have written similar comment in this thread. Do you realize what you are saying? You say that any violation of human rights is OK, as long as it does not affect yourself. I am sure in Nazi Germany many people said the same about the persecution of Jews. But in the end, it did affect them. Cencorship is a crime against humanity. But, for some reason, it has become fashionable these days, almost a virtue. People often try to excuse cencorship by claiming that nude art "offends" someone. But the people who are offended by nudity are sick. They should seek help. We should not feed their sickness by giving in to their demands. And why would those few sick people be the only one who should be protected from being offended? What about the rest of us? Personally, I find the new TOS extremely offending. I think such TOS'es should be banned by a law. And, unlike a nude image, the TOS actually does hurt lot of people. I suspect most of those attacing against nudity are not really offended by it. They do it because they want to hurt other people. I think people who enjoy hurting other people are the only group that must not be tolerated in any circumstances. Therefore, we must stop them now.

You do not need a site for discussion.
There is Usenet.