2003 Letters to the Editor

[DropFrame]

I prefer the old sort method over the current one. I never had trouble finding my city. But now I have trouble finding the new posts in my state. The date is so small. Please change it back!!

[Prokofiev]

Just my 2 cents . . .

There are millions of pictures of naked women on the net. If this feature caused the Site breakdown last week or uses too much storage, it is not worth it. The only pictures I want to see are of identified providers who are presently available and working. Not some unidentified ladies, attractive or not, that someone happened to screw (or didn't) several years ago. Each picture should have some associated text that explains the relevance of the shot and particulars as to who she is, where to find her and services rendered. Without that who cares? There are a huge number of hits to these photos only because we are curious, not because they are providing anything useful or even entertaining.

As to the 90% lurkers, so be it. It is not the quantity of posts that count, but the quality. If someone does not have anything useful, interesting or funny to post, I would prefer they DON'T post. And most would only ask - "Can anyone tell me how to get laid in Buenos Aires", despite the 1000's of previous posts that they didn't bother to read. Hey, I like to BS and express opinions as well as read the ideas of others, but the real usefulness of the Forum is providing hard info - who, what, where and how much.

God Bless the Forum.
Peace, P

[Freeler]

Sexreview,

Once again you've confirmed what I've said since this posting thing began!

"Many sites have limits much lower 320 x 300 and 65 kb."
Just like you, these people don't see why an image that's smaller in filesize can be larger in screensize. It is their problem. If they understood basics about resolution, downsizing etc, they could save loads of bandwidth.
"640 X 480 is really a large photo for a site to allow someone to post".
It was when 640*480 screens were the norm. Now we're looking at 1024*725 or 1200*1600 and then 640*480 is crap. Especially if you know that my jpegs enter this world at about 1070*710 and only 75kb (after downsizing from TIFF, which I do keep, like the 75kb jpegs and the negatives, THNX!) where your posted image is 61kb at 640*425.
Again: Screensize limits don't save bandwidth, filesize limits do!

Jackson has allowed people to post 215kb images - bandwidth has gone up four times!
Quote: "Regarding the photo size limitation, the restriction is to conserve bandwidth, which has increased 400% from 100g/day to 400g/day since I activated the photo feature."
No surprise!

[SexReview]

Freeler,

My pictures start out as 3008 X 2000 so I don't see how your photos could be four times the size. The 640 X 480 is really a large photo for a site to allow someone to post. Many sites have limits much lower 320 x 300 and 65 kb. You just need to resize the whole photo for the site, as Jackson said keep your photos full size on your system and resize a copy of it.

Sexreview

[Freeler]

Dear SexReview,

Thanks for confirming my point!

Again, my photo is MUCH smaller in byte-size than yours, yet is it equal in screensize.
Your pic uses way more bandwidth than mine. In fact I had to compress for a second time to meet the screensize criteria, the original is smaller than yours byte-wise, yet four times larger in screensize.
The same goes for the pic posted with this message.

Sorry to all others for waking up my case...

[Slim]

I would like to chime in on the sort discussion. I hate the new alpha sort. If it's been a few days and I can't use the 24hr option then I have to fish through everything to find the new posts. The old way was much better.

Also a search for posts with photos option would be cool.

- Slim

[Joe Zop]

Personally, I'd far rather have a limit on size in terms of bytes than in terms of screen size. Internet Explorer will generally automatically resize any pic down to fit into the available window, so that's really not an issue. It's a simple thing to use any number of photo tools to cut down the resolution of a photo so that it will conform to a byte limit, and you will generally lose less in terms of quality doing that than you will by resizing X by Y.

StudPlayer, it must be your computer that's responsible for popups -- it doesn't happen on any of the three I've tried here.

[SexReview]

Jackson,

There is nothing wrong with the photo options as you have them now. I shoot in a Nikon Raw Format and my pictures are up to 34 megs each as shot. All that anyone needs to do is reduce the size, change the DPI and then restore the new image. The quality will still be better than the computer screen is capable of showing.

Below is a photo that in TIFF was 34 megs after resizing and changing to a JPEG, and it is now 61 KB. It is easy to do if the poster wants to take the effort to conform the image to your standards.

Sexrview

[Freeler]

Jackson,

I'm gonna give this one more try:

This message is accompanied by a 18kb pic (523*302-24bits) which is as big, in terms of filling up the screen as this pic:
http://www.wsgforum.com/vforum/attachment.php?postid=119027
which is a wopping 215kb or 12 times bigger in file size than my pic and still just 514*351-24bits!

I rest my case.

[Skinless]

Shit Jackson: That's an awful lot of bandwidth. As you may know , I uploaded some photos myself and I am amazed at the amount of hits they got (nearly as many bonks as I got over 6,000 on some of the Thai ones. Lotsa lurkers not adding much except popularity to the board.

Freeler does have a rather large, unique and genuine set of photos. He wants to post them in original size without shrinking them. He usually knows what he is on about. I personally don't like his choice but he has a cult following.

I had to reduce some of mine in pixel size even though they were quite light.

It might be an idea to restrict access to photos to members only to conserve bandwidth and get rid of the kiddies.

Two other points:

1. Good to see you have a sense of humor: your summary of SA's post was a good laugh and had me chuckling all day.

2. Laura, the diamond found by Roxana, is worth a diamond. A body made in heaven!

Hi Skinless,

The thing is that posting a high resolution photo on a website doesn't make it appear as a sharper photo, in just makes it bigger, many times too big to fit the screen. In addition, Freeler can reduce a copy of his photos for the website and still keep his high-resolution originals for himself. In other words, he won't lose anything.

I'd like to do something about the site's 90% lurker ratio, but if I require user registration to view the photographs, when I'll be flooded with registrations to be processed from "users" who have no intention of posting anything, so what's the point?

Jackson

[Freeler]

Warpig2000,

THNX, but I know how to downsize photo's. I just don't want to post tiny little photos.

[Warpig2000]

Jackson,

I'd like to adress Mr. Freeler with a solution and of course I can't message him directly (yet)....

If you don't want to spend the time learning Photoshop or one of the other profesional photo editing programs, there is a wonderful little graphic viewing program called Irfanview, it is freeware. The program and its pluggins can be downloaded at http://www.irfanview.com . Resizes photos quite well, especially shinking larger images. Getting the photo to 20k shouldn't be a major problem, and would make it load faster for punters and mongers. 640 x 480 really isn't all that unreasonable

[Freeler]

Jackson,

I've tried to post 20-30kb pics but they were all over 640*480pixels and thus denied.
I'm not going to make them any smaller, so please, would you consider this policy:
Under 40kb: Any size is OK
Over 40 kb: Forget about posting
The photo I posted here is 18kb. A 40kb pic would give you the whole scene: Two tits and a face!

Alphabetic order?
Some boards are a mess because you can't see when the original post was made, everytime someone answers the post is back on top, new date and all. Especially when you're trying to find passwords that sucks!
But here on WSG the latest post is exactly what I'm looking for, the hottest threads on top - where they should be.
I'm quite familiar with the alphabet, but I don't want to A-B-C my way through a list of dreadful places before I arrive at my destination.
I prefer the latest-in-first-to-read format by far,

THNX

Hi,

I don't under your statements in the previous paragraph. They appear to be in conflict.

Regarding the ptoto size limitation, the restriction is to conserve bandwidth, which has increased 400% from 100g/day to 400g/day since I activated the photo feature.

Why don't you reduce the original photo to the 640 px max, and then post it to see what it looks like.

Thanks,

Jackson

[Tango Alpha]

Good solution. I'll admit I did try to double click on the "Last Post" column just to see if I could sort.

Originally posted by Joe_Zop


That said, the scripts involved could probably be rewritten slightly to make sortable table columns, so people could just arrange them however they wanted.

[Joe Zop]

I'll weigh in on the minority view, then, I guess. I like being able to find things in the same spot time after time as opposed to searching for them. If I want to see things in time order, I can use the "View New Posts" or "Last 24 Hours" functions.

That said, the scripts involved could probably be rewritten slightly to make sortable table columns, so people could just arrange them however they wanted.