1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

Site Topics - Part II

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by j, Feb 4, 2010.

  1. patrickBOOTH

    patrickBOOTH Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    33,334
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Location:
    New York City
    Well, on a content based site you would think high res photos would be a priority. I see his frustration.
     
  2. Bhowie

    Bhowie Senior member

    Messages:
    13,099
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Location:
    Running the trap house.
    

    We only care about content provided by sponsors, duh.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. otc

    otc Senior member

    Messages:
    14,215
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    

    It looks like it is the scaling that is bad.
    I looked at this photo (clicked on it to make it big, then clicked "original") and the full size version doesn't have the bad artifacts that the version in the thread had.
    Here is the "original" (is this the res you uploaded at? its obviously not camera res but can't tell if SF cuts it to 1000x1500 or if you did that).
    http://cdn.styleforum.net/1/11/11b572d6_IMG_2069.jpeg
    here is the thread version:
    http://cdn.styleforum.net/1/11/500x1000px-LL-11b572d6_IMG_2069.jpeg

    The artifacting is particularly bad around the eyeglasses in the reduced version. The reduced version isn't that much smaller than the full size--I wonder if their reduction algorithm is better at making larger reductions?

    As an experiment, I would try posting that same image both 2x as large (2000x3000)and pre-shrunk to 500x750 (to fit 500x1000)
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2014
  4. Harold falcon

    Harold falcon Senior member

    Messages:
    27,420
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Location:
    NE PA
    

    That's something I don't get. Why can't I just hotlink to another site like Photobucket?

    Is Styleforum claiming that every photo hosted on it's site becomes it's property? Anybody read the terms of service?
     
  5. sugarbutch

    sugarbutch Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    15,841
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Location:
    People's Republic of San Francisco
    I think you can still link. Holdfast does that with his WAYWRN pics.
     
  6. patrickBOOTH

    patrickBOOTH Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    33,334
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Location:
    New York City
    

    I think sites like Photobucket reduce image quality.
     
  7. b1os

    b1os Senior member

    Messages:
    9,448
    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Location:
    Berlin/Hamburg
    The problem is that image hosters oftentimes shut down over the years. So if you "outsource" every upload to another website without backups, you stand to have a forum where older threads, especially image heavy ones, are unreadable because every second picture is gone.

    Also, if you were to upload to Photobucket, or Imgur or whatever and use a specific URL to bind the image into your post, if Photobucket's or Imgur's infrastructure changes, the image might not be able to load via the link used in your posting.

    Either way, image hoster or not, storage space is not for free. Maybe there could be an option for high quality uploads. That probably won't happen so outsourcing those to image hosters that do not compress the uploaded pictures and implementing them with the IMG-tags might be the only option for now.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2014
    1 person likes this.
  8. CDFS

    CDFS Senior member

    Messages:
    5,048
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2008
    Location:
    Ljouwert
    I don't think this happens when you use an externally stored photo, with [ / img] tags..

    For instance; the same picture:

    [IMG]http://www.styleforum.net/content/type/61/id/1211483/width/500/height/1000


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2014
    2 people like this.
  9. b1os

    b1os Senior member

    Messages:
    9,448
    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Location:
    Berlin/Hamburg
    Also, after you upload the picture, you can change the values of the width and heigth so the resolution doesn't downscale.

    @CDFS
    Bot pictures have the same "quality", it's just that one is downscaled and one is upscaled. You can play around with the URL.

    This is uploaded at "medium"--all link to the same file:
    "350x700"
    [​IMG]

    512x384
    [​IMG]

    1024x768
    [​IMG]

    2048x1536 doesn't change anything. Since the uploaded file was 1024x768, it seems it can only downscale, not upscale.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2014
  10. Neo_Version 7

    Neo_Version 7 Senior member

    Messages:
    19,625
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    Love the zoom on that cock.
     
    10 people like this.
  11. StanleyVanBuren

    StanleyVanBuren Senior member

    Messages:
    4,726
    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles
     
  12. patrickBOOTH

    patrickBOOTH Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    33,334
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Location:
    New York City
    Out of curiosity, which would you prefer, the return of thumb comments, or higher res photos?
     
    5 people like this.
  13. CDFS

    CDFS Senior member

    Messages:
    5,048
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2008
    Location:
    Ljouwert
    I didn't realise photobucket does its own resizing.

    Flickr try:

    [​IMG]

    OK, it is this site. Or I don't know what I'm doing.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2014
  14. otc

    otc Senior member

    Messages:
    14,215
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Odd, although the thing around the eyeglasses seems to be particularly susceptible to artifacts on whatever algorithm they are using.

    As to SF hosting the images...just look at what happened to the site when imageshack started acting up. We lost a lot of good content in old threads because of that. Also, other hosts often have bandwidth limits that will be exceeded by busy threads, and many free hosts (like min.us) have even worse compression than SF.

    As to hosting them externally--you can still do that. Just use [​IMG]
     
  15. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Senior member

    Messages:
    21,825
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    

    LOL, who reads TOS?
     
    4 people like this.
  16. otc

    otc Senior member

    Messages:
    14,215
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    

    Don't worry, by reading any part of the site (including the front page for the first time, or the TOS page itself), you have already indicated that you have read and agreed to the binding TOS.
     
    1 person likes this.
  17. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Senior member

    Messages:
    21,825
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    

    That was kind of my point. It's all outrageous lawyer BS.
     
  18. otc

    otc Senior member

    Messages:
    14,215
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Actually, looks like they are doing ok in terms of draconian claims on member content:

    IANAL, but it seems to me that the key parts here are that:
    you grant a license for use "only on, through or by means of the Site or Services."
    and
    that SF "does not claim any ownership rights in any Member Content"
    Its a little murky in that I don't know what they mean by "services" (what if they started a service that existed to sell a stream of photos?), but it seems to imply that they aren't claiming a transfer of ownership and that they are only using content within the realm of SF.

    Of course, they can change the terms at any time, and claim that it will apply retroactively to anything that is already here (i.e. if the TOS changes, the old photos won't still be covered by to original TOS). They are probably fairly limited in what they actually can do...half of the content uploaded here is uploaded by people who are not authorized to grant usage rights and thus SF wouldn't really be able to use the image for anything even with the TOS (e.g. WAYWT is fine, but nobody in the Best GIF thread has rights).
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2014
  19. otc

    otc Senior member

    Messages:
    14,215
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Can I request hall monitor privileges for the game of thrones thread so I can keep spoilers within the spoiler tags?

    There is a post in there now which pretty much spoils the entire season... And someone broke the spoiler tag when they quoted it.

    If you want my resume, I have moderated a forum before, admined a counter strike server, and have read all of the books so I know when something is a spoiler vs speculation (and I promise to only make changes in instances of egregious spoilers).
     
    2 people like this.
  20. indesertum

    indesertum Senior member

    Messages:
    17,863
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    omicron persei 8
    ^yes please mods. Please make this happen
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by