Topic: Images "Viewed XXX Times"

[Ed Wenn]

Team, I got an email today from Carlos (calibsu) asking why some images in a long multi-post thread (such as the weekend threads) show considerably fewer "viewed" counts than others. Good question. What's even better is that I have the answer!

Since we upgraded & re-designed the forum I've set a max image size of 600x600 pixels (to fit within the main content frame). Anything larger will be re-sized automatically to 600 pixels. One side-effect of this is that re-sized images are now displayed as thumbnails - not that you'd know. For whatever reason, view counts of thumbnails do not increment every time the page is visited - like they are for non-re-sized images.

If someone clicks on a thumbnail to view the original image the count will increment at that point.

I hope this is clear.

[vicky slater]

what happens if i post a thumbnail and then you resize it to 600...will i get minus views?

[Ed Wenn]

When is a thumbnail not a thumbnail? etc.

[vicky slater]

[moominsean]

i think 650x650 would be a touch better. still small enough for those with...old monitors. but less loss of detail.

[Francois]

I don't know, I kinda like it that way since I mostly resize my images to less than 600 for web presentation...
It also makes image theft a bit irrelevant since it can only be printed postage stamp size.

[gregor]

I'm curious if it's possible to tweak the code open so an image opens in a new browser tab or window instead of downloading it? Of course anyone who is compelled to download an image will, but if it's not too hard to tweak the code of the forum, at least images don't download by default.

[moominsean]

looking at the photos in the threads, they aren't resized to 600. so i have no idea what you are talking about?

[calbisu]

Ed, thanks, now is crystal clear 

[Ed Wenn]

Sean, here are my options...and how I've set them. I'll change the width setting to 650 so you don't put a curse on my goop, but beyond that there ain't much more I can do. Only larger images are re-sized. Smaller ones won't be upscaled...if that's what you meant?

[moominsean]

if you look at the posts, some are 1000 pixels tall or 760 pixels wide, etc. so maybe it only adjusts if both are greater than the settings? but there isn't anything outrageously big being posted.

[Ed Wenn]

Hmmm, I've not been checking content here this weekend (been busy) so hadn't noticed that. Will take a look. In the meantime here's an image wider than 650 px....let's see how it comes out.

[Ed Wenn]

...well it worked for me anyway.

We those other images uploaded to the forum, or linked to via Flickr (or somesuch)?

[moominsean]

ah i see how it works. i was looking at the numbers not the photo itself. too bad when you click on the "thumbnail", it doesn't fit. maybe a pop-up?

[gregor]

ah, i see know - if you click image the larger shows if it was larger than 600px wide the larger version will open in the same space. anyway to disable the title showing the JPGs name that downloads by default when clicked on?

[Ed Wenn]

Sean/Gregor: the answer to your respective questions is 'almost certainly - in theory'. In practice, I may or may not get round to it anytime soon. I'm still (slowly) working on the re-design of the forum and there are several things that I don't like and want to change. Top of the list is replacing that fugly 'New' icon, followed by linking the big Filmwasters logo at the top of the page back to http://filmwasters.com, rather than back to the forum mainpage. Unfortunately, the other four moderator Filmwasters aren't 'all about' the technical stuff involved in running the site, so I end up doing a fair amount of the CSS/PHP editing. They do the heavy lifting in other areas.

I like your ideas though and will add them to the list. Cheers.