Cool riding photos of KB Adv inmates

[pete-blen]

Maybe NO pics now..
But dam this threads got GOOD...

[Padmei]

Ok back to talking about me -
Any advice on cameras would be appreciated on this other thread I started here

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...-camera-advice

[Eddieb]

You can attach files of almost any size, no dramas there. But embedded images are to be no larger than 640x480 and 100kb. Learn how to use the technology rather than abusing those that help run the site.

So, for the sake of those of us who don't get this rule can you elaborate on the reasoning behind it further?

A file or image hosted on the KB server(s) is not going to download any quicker to the end-user via a 5kb/s dial up connection than a file of equivalent size hosted elsewhere. The source of the file is irrelevant if the restriction point is the users internet connection speed.

Unless I'm missing something here about the interweb or the technology behind it?

[Jantar]

So, for the sake of those of us who don't get this rule can you elaborate on the reasoning behind it further?

A file or image hosted on the KB server(s) is not going to download any quicker to the end-user via a 5kb/s dial up connection than a file of equivalent size hosted elsewhere. The source of the file is irrelevant if the restriction point is the users internet connection speed.

Unless I'm missing something here about the interweb or the technology behind it?

Maybe its because a 100 kb file will open relatively quickly, even on dial-up, whereas a 5 mb file may take 20 minutes or more to load. Put a few large photos in a post and it becomes unusable for some who would like to read the article.

[Eddieb]

Maybe its because a 100 kb file will open relatively quickly, even on dial-up, whereas a 5 mb file may take 20 minutes or more to load. Put a few large photos in a post and it becomes unusable for some who would like to read the article.

But that argument is immediately negated by the ability to add large images to a thread if the image is loaded as an attachment and hosted on the KB servers. In theory if all those embedded images that were removed were re-loaded as KB attachments then this thread would be exactly the same size?

[NordieBoy]

But that argument is immediately negated by the ability to add large images to a thread if the image is loaded as an attachment and hosted on the KB servers. In theory if all those embedded images that were removed were re-loaded as KB attachments then this thread would be exactly the same size?

Only of you clicked on all the images.

[Eddieb]

Only of you clicked on all the images.

Ahh, true. That's quite possibly the bit I was missing.

[onearmedbandit]

But that argument is immediately negated by the ability to add large images to a thread if the image is loaded as an attachment and hosted on the KB servers. In theory if all those embedded images that were removed were re-loaded as KB attachments then this thread would be exactly the same size?

Attached .jpeg's etc are only displayed as thumbnails. You have to click on the image to actually load it.

[marks]

But that argument is immediately negated by the ability to add large images to a thread if the image is loaded as an attachment and hosted on the KB servers. In theory if all those embedded images that were removed were re-loaded as KB attachments then this thread would be exactly the same size?

logic has nothing to do with it

we simply have a site that has some outdated rules combined with moderators who aapear to take great pleasure in zealously enforcing those rules

one day a bright light might come on in the moderators lounge and they may see that a site that caters to the reasonable wants/needs of its posters/inmates will experience greater growth/success/popularitly than one that buries its head in the 56kb sand...

I'm going to be a good boy now and turn off rant mode now and reluctanctly contnue posting all my photos over on advrider.

[onearmedbandit]

I'm going to be a good boy now and turn off rant mode now and reluctanctly contnue posting all my photos over on advrider.

Are you not aware of how to attach images? It's not terribly difficult.

[Virago]

For what it's worth, I can expand on the clear explanations given - for those willing to consider.

I helped formulate the compromise solution that was adopted into the Site Rules. Indeed, the 640x480 limit was at my suggestion (around four years ago).

And it is a compromise - there will always be those who cannot see past their own point of view, so it's impossible to keep everyone happy.

Without that compromise, the Site Admin were considering the disabling of embedded images, in response to the embedding of increasingly large images. With the rapid increase in the pixel limit on standard every-day cameras, people were often embedding images at stupidly large sizes.

This caused two problems. Firstly, those members on dial-up were not able to view and read the thread. Secondly, the embedded image was often unviewable, being several times normal screen size.

Four years down the track, the 640x480 limit is probably outdated, with regard to normal screen resolution usage - perhaps 1024x768 may be more appropriate. But that change would further compromise the ability of dial-up users to view threads.

The dial-up issue is still an problem for a considerable number of New Zealanders, who live in remote locations without Broadband access. However, dial-up users do have the option not to download large attachments, so little restriction is placed on the size of attachments.

Don't like such compromise? That says more about you than it does about the Site Admin. And at the end of the day, it is a minor restriction placed on maybe 90%, for the benefit of 10% of users in this country.

Attaching large images is not an onerous task.

[Denniso]

Just to have a go at attatching a pic I had a go , hope it works , I'm a bit shit on a computer .

[NordieBoy]

Embedding large images is not an onerous task.

Only if "onerous" means "not allowed".

[marks]

Are you not aware of how to attach images? It's not terribly difficult.

Yes I do but I think its an archaic 3rd rate solution - the images fail to load 25% of the time, its hard to relate each picture to a particaular part of your post and non logged in members can't view them.

For what it's worth, I can expand on the clear explanations given - for those willing to consider.

I helped formulate the compromise solution that was adopted into the Site Rules. Indeed, the 640x480 limit was at my suggestion (around four years ago).

And it is a compromise - there will always be those who cannot see past their own point of view, so it's impossible to keep everyone happy.

Without that compromise, the Site Admin were considering the disabling of embedded images, in response to the embedding of increasingly large images. With the rapid increase in the pixel limit on standard every-day cameras, people were often embedding images at stupidly large sizes.

This caused two problems. Firstly, those members on dial-up were not able to view and read the thread. Secondly, the embedded image was often unviewable, being several times normal screen size.

Four years down the track, the 640x480 limit is probably outdated, with regard to normal screen resolution usage - perhaps 1024x768 may be more appropriate. But that change would further compromise the ability of dial-up users to view threads.

The dial-up issue is still an problem for a considerable number of New Zealanders, who live in remote locations without Broadband access. However, dial-up users do have the option not to download large attachments, so little restriction is placed on the size of attachments.

Don't like such compromise? That says more about you than it does about the Site Admin. And at the end of the day, it is a minor restriction placed on maybe 90%, for the benefit of 10% of users in this country.

Attaching large images is not an onerous task.

thank you for the detailed explanation although I question the logic of limiting the site for 90% to help 10%

I think it boils down to the difference between adhering to the 'spirit' of the rules versus the absolute unyielding application of the rules.

half of the images deleted from this thread were 800x600 and maybe 120-140kb in size - and this warrants a separate infraction for each image?

Around 3 years ago I decided I wanted to try and keep my ride reports together in the adventure section - simply because its the only sub forum I visit as that is where the people who I ride with predominately post.

It turned into a shitfest from day one. Any 800x600 images got deleted, and trail riding content got moved to the dirt section. I remember posting some photos of a great local trail that included photos of the mountain bikes we were on at the time being moved somewhere else because it was inappropriate content.

I ended up posting it all to a thread on advrider. This thread now has over 800 posts and 60,000 views and I think it would have been an asset to KB. I certainly would have preferred to keep it here.

I thought the job of moderators was to police gross abuse/misconduct - not to try and drive away people who are seriously interested in building a long term online community.

[Padmei]

Thats the reason I keep my bike build/ blog thing over on advrider - I use it like an external hard drive.