The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area General Truck Talk Picture posting Please read

At the request of the Stovebolt Editors, please post URL's or links to images, try to avoid posting images directy on this website as server space is limited, thanks, Tony

Just to be sure we are clear, you are requesting that we only use the URL button (which inserts the [ URL ] tag), not the IMAGE button (which inserts the [ IMG ] tag) when posting "images", correct?

Correct.

"At the request of the Stovebolt Editors, please post URL's or links to images, try to avoid posting images directy on this website as server space is limited, thanks, Tony"

I do not know anything about UBB code: does the "Image" button cause the image to be stored on the Bulletin Board's server? I thought that the image was on the webserver of the person who posted it and the UBB Image tag caused the image to be automatically displayed (taking up bandwidth but not server space). If I look at the addresses of pictures displayed in the Forums, they are not forum addresses, they appear to webservers of each poster/writer.

Is this a storage-space problem/concern or a bandwidth concern/problem?

I am not being argumentative, just trying to get a clearer idea about the workings of the various UBB Codes.

Thanks,
Tim

Just to get things straight is this the way you want them?

Toad Test

Fatfenders catches on quick
All I know is an Image is stored on Stovebolt's server thingy. URL links you to the other guy's server, so no load on Stovebolt.
Sometimes,you may just really have to post an image ,specially when describing in detail what you see in the image.That's ok , just do it only when necessary.

Truckedup, Just for you I went over to the Panels and Burbs forum and changed my picture to a URL. Maybe some of the guys will catch on and do the same. I don't think I have any other pictures posted here, but if I see any that are mine, I'll fix 'em.

Gee, I'm gonna miss some of Norse's stuff tho...

BradB, you the man!
Norse,if everyone co- operates, then you can still post your small images
OOOH, I was wrong, it's not server space but bandwith,never the less same difference.

Ok, got it!

I went back and fixed the one pic you missed.

Hey, do you guys need an additional server?

I have a new condition Intel ISP2150 that I have no need for. It's a dual PIII 750 Hz with 512 PC100 ram and 4 hotswap SCSI bays. It's rackable and 2U tall with two open card slots. It has only one 9 gig SCSI drive installed and a half-tall CD rom and a floppy....No operating system installed, but will run Redhat or Winduhs 2000 Pro like a champ.

If you need it, send me shipping info.

If you need it, it's yours free....except for shipping. (about 30-35 bucks, cause this thing is big and heavy!)

[img]http://www.norcalspeedshop.com/_offsite_images/bsmeter.gif[/img]

OK, now I can post it. (less than 3KB)

Just so we're all on the same page - we have plenty of space on our server - more than we will ever use.

When you post an image in a Forum, the image does not reside on the Stovebolt server. It resides on the server to which the url you provide points. (This is why some images fail - the provider doesn't allow "remote" links.)

The problem isn't space. It's bandwidth use. We pay a certain amount per month for a specific amount of bandwidth. If we exceed that bandwidth, the cost increases.

So far we have not come close to exceeding our bandwidth, but if posting large pictures in the forums becomes a widespread practice, we could.

The problem with pictures, when you use the IMG tag, is that they cost us double the bandwidth. First our server has to fetch the image in order to display it to you. Then your browser has to fetch the image from our server. So a 2MB image costs us 4MB of bandwidth. That is what we're trying to avoid by asking you to post links rather than images.

If you use the URL instead, then your browser fetches the image directly from the site where it resides and our bandwidth is not used to display the picture.

My guess is that all the Stovebolters with slower connections would appreciate not having the pictures embedded. If it's just a link to a URL, it would up to them whether or not they want to view it.

Forum threads with lots of pictures probably do not load very fast on a dial up connection.

So you don't need my spare server then?

Ok, I'll donate it to a porn site

Seriously, thanks for the info.

I'll be a good poster and try to limit your bandwidth.

Thanks for the site.

Whats a URL? Besides being slow I am somewhat of a dumba$$.

Is it worth while to find our old posts with pictures imbedded and change them? Would they get enough hits to make a dent in the band width? Most of the posts I put pictures up on are in the dumpster with the lounge any way.

URL = uniform resource locator

The URL is a web address.

Joe,

Thanks for the offer but it won't be necessary to do that (go back and change images from old posts).

The big concern is when there is a real popular thread and in that thread there are a LOT of images -- some really big (not everyone can down-size their images). Each time someone comes back to post in this popular thread (or even just read what's going on), chi-ching goes the bandwidth register!

And BradB is right-on. When we had the slower connection, it was really aggitating to wait to see the thread on a "hot" topic because we had to wait for a bunch of images to load.

So, the older ones are not a concern. But we certainly appreciate your consideration of the issue!

Regards,
Peg

Also, your old posts only need to display the images when someone clicks on the thread. The older it gets, the fewer times that happens.

Reducing your image sizes is really not that hard and can be done with many free downloadeble programs. There is no reason for anyone to post huge pictures. In most programs you can find an "image size" option. Change it to about 450 wide and then save as a JPG.

This would make a huge difference. If everyone did that maybe we wouldn't have to worry about adding a small picture here and there. It is nicer to not have to click again.

I have a dialup and generally the text loads first and then the images. So I just start reading first and when I am done I look at the images. Still, smaller images load real fast.

Tony m, I have been trying to tell you that size does matter and you would not believe me

Oh, it is smiling Fred. Still testing that enhancer? :rolleyes:
You can always blow it up in photoshop.

none needed, you have me mixed up with Popcorn but I appreciate your concern,,that was a good come-back, glad to see you awake and up.....Fred

If anyone is in need of a good FREE photo optimizer. Irfanview makes a very userfriendly one. And the best part is, it's shareware. It's also a good picture viewer.

Here's a link if anybody's interested.
http://www.irfanview.com/