[fpena944]

I've had a few people asking questions on how best to post photos on the forum.

There are actually two choices. Both will accomplish the same but one helps save space on our server but has some restrictions on size and dimensions.

The first choice is shown below, it is the "Upload Attachment" selection highlighted below:

image.png

Once you click on this you will need to click on "Add Files" which uploads the file itself. After you upload it then click on "Place Inline" and it'll upload to the post. It will add text similar to {attachment=0}image.png{/attachment} which will need to remain in order for your image to show up.

The next option circled below is "Upload an Image" :


Operation is similar but in this case it saves space on our servers so this is the recommended approach.

Finally the last option is to just copy and paste the image by using your computer's clipboard. It'll also add the tag mentioned above but aside from that there are no other prompts.

Hopefully this helps, if any questions ask!

[worf]

Finally the last option is to just copy and paste the image by using your computer's clipboard. It'll also add the tag mentioned above but aside from that there are no other prompts.

If you copy and past (I think drag and drop works too?) does it go to imjur or does it upload to the server?

Apropos not much, when I post from my desktop I always resize to 1600xN or 1280xM; Nobody needs 73-Megapixel images in a browser window.

[fpena944]

Finally the last option is to just copy and paste the image by using your computer's clipboard. It'll also add the tag mentioned above but aside from that there are no other prompts.

If you copy and past (I think drag and drop works too?) does it go to imjur or does it upload to the server?

Apropos not much, when I post from my desktop I always resize to 1600xN or 1280xM; Nobody needs 73-Megapixel images in a browser window.

Copy and paste is saved locally. So the only one saved remotely is the "Upload an Image" function.

[LPMM]

Fernando - I am glad you posted and shared a screen shot, now I know what is going on. I told you I did not have the “Upload an Image” option to help save space on your server, that I only had the “Attachment” option. When I looked at the screen shot you posted, I realized that you are using the FLATBOOTS view while I am using the Elegance view. The Elegance seems to have limited options, however when I switch to FLATBOOTS, the “Upload and Image” option becomes available. So, it is not a permission issue, simply a difference in options depending on the view format you choose.

Elegance View


FLATBOOTS View

[fpena944]

Fernando - I am glad you posted and shared a screen shot, now I know what is going on. I told you I did not have the “Upload an Image” option to help save space on your server, that I only had the “Attachment” option. When I looked at the screen shot you posted, I realized that you are using the FLATBOOTS view while I am using the Elegance view. The Elegance seems to have limited options, however when I switch to FLATBOOTS, the “Upload and Image” option becomes available. So, it is not a permission issue, simply a difference in options depending on the view format you choose.

Elegance View


FLATBOOTS View

Ah that explains it! Yes you are correct, there are fewer options in the original theme compared to the new one and I always forget that.

Are you ok with using Flatboots? If not I can check with my developer to see what type of options we can add without affecting the newer theme. The problem with this platform is that I can't apply something to the secondary theme without applying it to the primary. So it creates a bit of a disconnect. But I am glad you discovered the issue as I was pretty stumped!

[LPMM]

No need to do anything, I’ll just change the view to Flatboots. I was stumped as well and I did not think it could be that simple until I saw your screen shot.

[Skyhawk172]

test

[eflight]

The upload image tab has a line below it that says Direct Link with abox and a copy button

Is there a way to just link to a picture from another site? If so how?

Or do I have to download the photo and then upload here?

[fpena944]

The upload image tab has a line below it that says Direct Link with abox and a copy button

Is there a way to just link to a picture from another site? If so how?

Or do I have to download the photo and then upload here?

Actually linking to an existing image is pretty simple.

If you click on the circled icon below you'll get two "img" tags. Simply paste the image URL between those tags and that'll do it!

Note that some sites don't like you linking directly from their image so they'll kill that idea. In that case downloading and uploading here are the only options. But otherwise the link will do the trick.

image.png

[eflight]

thanks

[hernanca]

Test

Worked - Cool!!

[eflight]

Is there any easy way to upload multiple images?

[fpena944]

Is there any easy way to upload multiple images?

Right now the image upload only allows one as you've recognized.

But if you upload them as attachments then you can select multiple.

Only thing is it takes up more room on the back-end in terms of storage but you don't have to worry about that as I'll compress the images if needed.

There are limits to how many can be done at a time so let me know if you hit them and I'll see if I can raise without affecting performance.

[eflight]

OK, thanks

[worf]

I would suggest - if practical from a code perspective - a limit on pictures per post: 5 +/- 2.

Thread pagination is based upon number of posts not the “screen length” of the thread.

So, the 928 photo thread, in which several folks make a habit of posting 5 to 10 pics per post, has some pages that basically go on forever.

Since the mechanism for “jump to first unread post” decides *once* how far to scroll and does it before these long-page threads can load all their pictures, it makes the photo threads tedious and annoying… on mobile browsers certainly.

[fpena944]

I would suggest - if practical from a code perspective - a limit on pictures per post: 5 +/- 2.

Thread pagination is based upon number of posts not the “screen length” of the thread.

So, the 928 photo thread, in which several folks make a habit of posting 5 to 10 pics per post, has some pages that basically go on forever.

Since the mechanism for “jump to first unread post” decides *once* how far to scroll and does it before these long-page threads can load all their pictures, it makes the photo threads tedious and annoying… on mobile browsers certainly.

I can change the pagination to go from the current 50 to less.

But like you said it's really only the picture heavy posts that are problematic. All others seem to load almost immediately.

I could also add a gallery function as I tried that early on but it seems most users didn't like it and preferred the embedding option. But maybe if there's a way to give the choice then it might be a different alternative.

[worf]

I could also add a gallery function as I tried that early on but it seems most users didn't like it and preferred the embedding option. But maybe if there's a way to give the choice then it might be a different alternative.

Yeah. No: embedded pics are what folks want.

I can change the pagination to go from the current 50 to less.

But like you said it's really only the picture heavy posts that are problematic. All others seem to load almost immediately.

Hmmm…. is there a way to “trick” post count for pagination purposes? For example: mod(pic count, 2) + 1 for every post? So, a post with 3 pics counts as two posts, a post with 6 pics counts as three posts? I’m sure there is, but the code might be too ugly/bugly to stand.

[worf]

Or, can users set their preferred post/page?

I haven’t look very hard, but I don’t recall that setting.

[fpena944]

I could also add a gallery function as I tried that early on but it seems most users didn't like it and preferred the embedding option. But maybe if there's a way to give the choice then it might be a different alternative.

Yeah. No: embedded pics are what folks want.

I can change the pagination to go from the current 50 to less.

But like you said it's really only the picture heavy posts that are problematic. All others seem to load almost immediately.

Hmmm…. is there a way to “trick” post count for pagination purposes? For example: mod(pic count, 2) + 1 for every post? So, a post with 3 pics counts as two posts, a post with 6 pics counts as three posts? I’m sure there is, but the code might be too ugly/bugly to stand.

There's a lot of variables there because honestly what slows down the rendering isn't so much the images themselves but the response time of anything hosted externally. Twitter especially is awful because it renders so much slower than anything else so you start reading text and BOOM, it's gone as an embedded tweet loaded and pushed everything further down the screen.

That's harder to control and code for.

Or, can users set their preferred post/page?

I haven’t look very hard, but I don’t recall that setting.

No it's something I set up in the admin console. It defaulted to 25 previously but I just felt that was too little so increased it. But if it does become problematic it's an easy change.

[worf]

There's a lot of variables there because honestly what slows down the rendering isn't so much the images themselves but the response time of anything hosted externally. Twitter especially is awful because it renders so much slower than anything else so you start reading text and BOOM, it's gone as an embedded tweet loaded and pushed everything further down the screen.

Oh, I get that the offsite stuff is to blame for not being able to properly scroll to the first unread post. I wasn't suggesting anything along the lines of compensating for random-sized twatter inclusions.

The devil is deep in the details. And, in the end it's probably the browser black-box that limits how smart one could theoretically be with any of it.