Think about our forum image size policy?

johnraff · 2025-06-01 02:59:11

hhh wrote:

Before anyone brings up the thumbnail policy for large images, that policy is really intended for the Monthly Screenshot Thread, which is in the general forums, where the aim is to allow users with bandwidth limitations to enjoy a thread containing dozens of images.

GalacticStone wrote:

My apologies for the oversize image. I can remove it if required, just let me know.

hhh wrote:

Don't worry about the image size here. In the screenshot forum, use an image hosting service (there are several free ones), they'll offer a thumbnail link for use on forums.

OK so the thing is we don't want people posting huge images all over the place (happens in some forums) because not everyone is on unlimited bandwidth and doesn't want to spend bytes on an image they don't care about all that much in order to be able to read some text they are interested in. Also big images sometimes mess up the page layout.

On the other hand, there are places where the image is the main subject, and people would be better off if it was larger and easy to make out without having to click through to the hosting service to view the full-sized image.

Right now the Rules say:

BL Rules wrote:

Do not embed images larger than 250x250px into posts, use thumbnails linking to a hosted image instead.

We might consider:
1) Is 250x250px about right for a general forum-wide size limit? If not, what size?
2) Where on the forum (subforums or specific threads) would we want to relax that limit? And to what bigger size?

Döbbie03 · 2025-06-01 03:09:41

Personally, I think the best way forward is keep it simple. A thumbnail everywhere, there will be no confusion that way.

johnraff · 2025-06-01 04:15:29

^I can see that, but for example the "cheery pic of the day" thread would look a bit sad if only thumbnails were allowed IMO.

Pirx · 2025-06-01 10:38:03

Doesn't the forum engine scale images automatically? I've posted bigger pictures previously and the posts always looked fine both on my PC and my mobile. As long as we don't post massive, uncompressed BMPs, the size in pixels shouldn't be an issue.

Last edited by Pirx (2025-06-01 13:42:22)

hhh · 2025-06-01 14:18:41

@Pirx, good question.

We should keep the thumbnail policy for the monthly scrot threads, IMO.

marens · 2025-06-01 15:00:20

hhh wrote:

Before anyone brings up the thumbnail policy for large images, that policy is really intended for the Monthly Screenshot Thread, which is in the general forums, where the aim is to allow users with bandwidth limitations to enjoy a thread containing dozens of images.

She is right.
This should not be an overly restrictive rule and there should be exceptions.

johnraff wrote:

I can see that, but for example the "cheery pic of the day" thread would look a bit sad if only thumbnails were allowed IMO.

That's a good example.

One more:
I'm breaking forum rules here, but the image size is 705x251 and I think forum resources (space) are saved because the height of the original image is only 1px larger, but the screenshot looks much better than the thumbnail:
https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic … 19#p143519

I don't think we have a big problem with the thumbnail policy here at all.
Sometimes new members make mistakes, but the moderators quickly fix it and leave a note.

If they don't know how to use thumbnails, someone here will always help them.

johnraff wrote:

1) Is 250x250px about right for a general forum-wide size limit? If not, what size?

That's enough (IMO).

EDIT
Sometimes it is necessary to bypass the forum software and use an image smaller than 250x250 to make a post look better.

This also saves forum resources:
https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic … 81#p141981

Last edited by marens (2025-06-01 22:30:39)

johnraff · 2025-06-02 05:15:26

Pirx wrote:

Doesn't the forum engine scale images automatically? I've posted bigger pictures previously and the posts always looked fine both on my PC and my mobile.

I think it's Firefox which is doing the scaling. It seems to scale big images to fit nicely into the posts column. Check the real dimensions with right-click > View Image Info. For example, Marens' Audacious image shows:

705px × 251px (scaled to 657px × 234px)

GalacticStone's big screenshot the other day was also shrunk to fit nicely.
I don't think Firefox did this in the past, and I don't know what other browsers do.

But the full image is still downloaded, so the issue for people on slow or metered bandwidth still applies.

As long as we don't post massive, uncompressed BMPs, the size in pixels shouldn't be an issue.

The main issue is the size in MB, really. And for many of us that's no longer much of an issue, but as a distro that low-powered machines can use, we have a duty to consider the environment they might be running in.
Especially for technical support sections of the forum. Playtime with movies, music and pictures, not so much.

I guess we could replace a pixel size limit with a file size limit - or both - but that makes it more complicated.

johnraff · 2025-06-02 05:27:18

hhh wrote:

Before anyone brings up the thumbnail policy for large images, that policy is really intended for the Monthly Screenshot Thread, which is in the general forums, where the aim is to allow users with bandwidth limitations to enjoy a thread containing dozens of images.

Good point about the screenshot thread, in particular, being full of images. If all of them were big sized that could be quite a load on some networks.

marens wrote:

This should not be an overly restrictive rule and there should be exceptions.

I agree there should be exceptions, but think we ought to spell it out explicitly.

So I was hoping on this thread we could agree on
1) what the exceptions should be, and
2) how people can best know about them. ie in the Rules, or in the OP of specific threads...

I don't think we have a big problem with the thumbnail policy here at all.
Sometimes new members make mistakes, but the moderators quickly fix it and leave a note.
If they don't know how to use thumbnails, someone here will always help them.

I don't think it's a big problem either, but it would be good to have the rule available somewhere for the moderators to point to.

Sometimes it is necessary to bypass the forum software and use an image smaller than 250x250 to make a post look better.

I don't think the forum software is doing anything to images. It's just putting the <img> link in the html. You can post images any size you want, as far as the software is concerned.

brontosaurusrex · 2025-06-02 08:59:44

Maybe the post as an example could be make. As to in what cases bigger images are ok.

a. This one is around 12 kb (1171 x 358)

b. ~ 132 kb (680 x 680)

c. ~ 87 kb (1920x1080) - due to avif compression

So which one make sense in which one doesn't? Or maybe the rule could be anything bellow 200/300 kb is fine?

marens · 2025-06-02 14:44:20

johnraff wrote:

For example, Marens' Audacious image shows:
705px × 251px (scaled to 657px × 234px)

It also depends on the size of the Firefox window you are using.

In my case:

Normal: Maximized:

EDIT

johnraff wrote:

I don't think the forum software is doing anything to images. It's just putting the <img> link in the html. You can post images any size you want, as far as the software is concerned.

I thought that when you follow the thumbnail rule (policy), you sometimes end up with a larger image than the original.

Like a thumbnail: Original image:

The result is of course not good because you should never increase the size of the original image.
It also takes up more space (forum resources).

Last edited by marens (2025-06-02 17:20:40)

hhh · 2025-06-02 21:36:16

brontosaurusrex wrote:

So which one make sense in which one doesn't? Or maybe the rule could be anything bellow 200/300 kb is fine?

None of those are a problem, IMO. 132kb is not a problem. The problem, like @JohnRaff said, is when we get into MBs due to PNGs. I've never seen anyone post a BMP, but I could see someone posting an uncompressed PNG that could be hefty. Who checks the size in bytes of their image before posting? That's why pixel dimensions kind of work, you can only get so much data into 250x250px (or 320x180, etc...), no?

I think John is also right about browsers resizing images, both on desktop and mobile.

Cheery Pic, sure, allow big images. That thread has only recently made any traction, and everyone in Off Topic is fine with getting moderated anyway, AFAIKT.

In the main forums, limit Monthly Scrot, the conky thread, and maybe Distro Hoppers, though not many scrots get posted there. Anywhere else we can just moderate on a case by case basis, IMO.

If it's in a help thread, allow it. Forums like Dev, where we might get a theming or bug issue, case by case. Wallpapers in Artwork should be limited, but it's been some time since any new posts there.

I'm not even sure about the conky thread. I guess the Scrot thread is the only one where it's a consistent stream of images, and the thumbnail rule should apply. We post a plea in the OP every month, so we can always just refer to that in a mod note if we delete an image there.

hhh · 2025-06-02 21:57:34

These are the problem. They're 2 and 3 MBs apiece (4160x2340), and they're JPGs...

https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic … 40#p143640

But they're in OT. I think that should be fine there. I just wish my phone had a better camera.

johnraff · 2025-06-03 05:48:48

marens wrote:

johnraff wrote:
For example, Marens' Audacious image shows:
705px × 251px (scaled to 657px × 234px)
It also depends on the size of the Firefox window you are using.

Yes, that's what I meant. Firefox is making its own judgement about what size the image needs to be to fit in the page. But the full-sized image file is always downloaded.

johnraff wrote:
You can post images any size you want, as far as the software is concerned.
I thought that when you follow the thumbnail rule (policy), you sometimes end up with a larger image than the original.
The result is of course not good because you should never increase the size of the original image.
It also takes up more space (forum resources).

I don't understand what you mean here. There's no automatic image processing going on. The forum just puts the image link that you provide in the html and sends it out.

Also there are no "forum resources" being used because the images are not stored anywhere on the forum server. They're all on third-party image hosts.

---

@hhh Firefox reports those two images as roughly 1.1 and 1.8 MB. Even bigger is HoaS's squid gif at 6.3MB.
But in a thread specifically for pictures I don't think it's such a big deal. As long as people who don't want big downloads know which pages not to open.

Maybe Bronto's suggestion of a limit of 200 or 300 kb for the default forum in general, relaxed in "Off topic"?

Or maybe as @hhh suggests, only apply the limit in a few places where it could be a problem, like the scrots thread?

Or just appeal to people to use their discretion and common sense? Something like this in the Rules: "if the image you are planning to post is bigger than 300kb, please consider the needs of users with restricted bandwidth and possibly post something smaller"? Along with a note in the scrots thread - as there is already.

Last edited by johnraff (2025-06-03 06:03:15)

brontosaurusrex · 2025-06-03 08:36:12

p.s. I did some digging in attempt to blame browsers, and it appears neither chrome nor firefox have ability to block image loading over certain size (without 3rd party extensions). Still I have a feeling that we should simply do nothing and blame browsers. I mean for a user with limited data plan, one forum will not make much difference, this needs global solution/setting.

hhh · 2025-06-03 12:13:48

johnraff wrote:

@hhh Firefox reports those two images as roughly 1.1 and 1.8 MB.

They're bigger on my computer, I assume imgur is doing some compression.

3 MBs of data in one post isn't all that bad, really.

johnraff · 2025-06-04 00:56:29

hhh wrote:

johnraff wrote:
@hhh Firefox reports those two images as roughly 1.1 and 1.8 MB.
They're bigger on my computer, I assume imgur is doing some compression.

Quite likely.

3 MBs of data in one post isn't all that bad, really.

In one isolated post, no but as you've already pointed out, a whole succession of 3MB posts in eg the Screenshots thread would make for a pretty heavy page.

johnraff · 2025-06-04 01:01:16

brontosaurusrex wrote:

...I have a feeling that we should simply do nothing and blame browsers. I mean for a user with limited data plan, one forum will not make much difference, this needs global solution/setting.

OK, but consider the case of a user who's setting up a minimal BL on a very underpowered machine, maybe using dillo to access the forum to get help with some glitch. They would likely appreciate a lightweight support forum. (While having no need to visit the fun-and-games section.)

Pirx · 2025-06-04 11:08:27

There is an option in the forum engine settings (display option) to block images in the posts. Instead, the links are displayed and you can click on them to see the images if you wish to do so. Doesn't this solve the problem for people on limited data plans?

Last edited by Pirx (2025-06-04 11:09:18)

johnraff · 2025-06-05 01:44:28

^Yes indeed.
Well, mitigates the problem anyway.
There are cases when people would rather see a small thumbnail than have to click to another site.

Last edited by johnraff (2025-06-08 08:34:17)

marens · 2025-06-05 02:10:20

johnraff wrote:

Also there are no "forum resources" being used because the images are not stored anywhere on the forum server. They're all on third-party image hosts.

I think we misunderstood each other.
I love seeing nice screenshots, but I don't like it when they're too big and take up a lot of space when the page loads.

Usually my posts here are as tutorials in the topics Show us your Conky / Conky weather+moon.
I don't think I've ever posted an image that was too big, but it would be good if they had a size limit in KB/MB.

I know it is technically difficult (impossible) to determine the magic number exactly.
I think the only solution is for moderators to work on a case-by-case basis.

For now, I mostly use the Preview button before Submit a post.
I often mix thumbnails and full-size images and make sure they aren't too big.

#1 2025-06-01 02:59:11

Think about our forum image size policy?

#2 2025-06-01 03:09:41

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#3 2025-06-01 04:15:29

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#4 2025-06-01 10:38:03

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#5 2025-06-01 14:18:41

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#6 2025-06-01 15:00:20

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#7 2025-06-02 05:15:26

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#8 2025-06-02 05:27:18

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#9 2025-06-02 08:59:44

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#10 2025-06-02 14:44:20

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#11 2025-06-02 21:36:16

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#12 2025-06-02 21:57:34

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#13 2025-06-03 05:48:48

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#14 2025-06-03 08:36:12

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#15 2025-06-03 12:13:48

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#16 2025-06-04 00:56:29

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#17 2025-06-04 01:01:16

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#18 2025-06-04 11:08:27

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#19 2025-06-05 01:44:28

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

#20 2025-06-05 02:10:20

Re: Think about our forum image size policy?

Board footer