Avatar and Photo Sizes

[KDStudios]

Well it's come to my attention that the nexus has an immense size for files, screenshots and various other things.

So when I saw the 30kb size limit for Avatar's I was a bit confused.

If people can upload Gigabytes of files why not have a "slightly" larger image size.

 

Now it's only occured to me recently because I've only just started making custom animated avatars.

 

The most common and smallest size I make are usually in between 39 and 59kb's.

And a few times I made a 31kb file that was 1kb too large?!

If 31kb is too much for the site to handle I have no idea how it handles screenshots and mods =S

 

So my suggestion is basically to increase the maximum size to about 50 or 60kb?

It's not a large increase but sure it all mounts up when all users have 60kb avatars but really... It can't be THAT much of an issue for size?

 

Or maybe this could be another Premium member thing?

Give them the larger image sizes?

 

Photo sizes I can not complain about and had no issues with but maybe the same request for Premium members could be done?

 

 

Now I understand I could be completely wrong on the size of the nexus or maybe that avatar's are stored differently to mods.

But not everyone uploads mods and therefore wouldn't exactly take up that space.

A lot of people just enjoy the mods on this site and love to post.

 

PS. I know I'm not a Premium Member but I was and am still thinking about getting it again =P

[Pushkatu]

I am also very confused about this. It might have been explained before, I think I even red somewhere about this, but I can't remember where or what was the reason behind the drastic limit. :blush:

[KDStudios]

Thats for the reply =)

Hopefully this will get peoples attention.

And if it has been asked and reasoned before. I'd be happy for anyone to point me there.

However I couldn't find it and thus made this =)

[Ghogiel]

it's not about nexus being able to handle it. it's probably about being courteous to users who have to pay for their net by the kb. you'll just be sucking their bandwidth and their money for pretty much no reason at all. they don't need to pay to see your avatar on every page do they?

 

at 100x100 your 59kb sized ones must be every single pixel a different color and saved as the maximum quality jpg or something, I don't think i can even get it that big..

 

but yeah 30kb is small. i haven't a problem with that though. :biggrin:

[KDStudios]

Still images are not a problem for me.

They get below 30kb no problem.

It's just animated is just that slightly too big, not too big to be a photo (But that doesn't handle animated gif's) but is just too big for that 30kb avatar slot.

I mean 64 x 64 animated gif... A tiny little thing can't cause that much problem surely?

 

And for people who have to pay by the kb.

It must be hell for them to visit any other sites.

Most use Flash and whatnot which take up much more space than a few avatars...

Also with images.

So people who have to pay would still be benefitting from this site being as small as possible =S

 

EDIT: Just looked at the size of this page. 1.08MB

The nexus sites for games must cost a lot for them if this is just as bad =)

[HugePinball]

It's about page viewing and server performance, not the site's storage capacity. Robin's own words make it pretty clear (emphasis added):

 

From the TOS:

Nexus sites have strict guidelines for member avatars and signatures to help reduce page scrolling and load times

From the Avatars and Signature Limits topic:

Ok folks, to try and reduce load times and server queries (which in turn take up processing power, which in turn make the WHOLE server slower) I'm setting the following guidelines for avatars and signatures. These ARE rules. Please keep to them as I don't want to be going around editing everyones profiles - and if I notice people change back their sigs, I'll give them a strike.

 

 

I don't know if this is another reason, but the filesize limit can also help avoid overly obnoxious animated avatars and signature images. Many people find them annoying, and in most cases using animated gifs is considered somewhat tacky. I think most forum software even gives the admins the option to prevent the use of animated avatars and sig images altogether, if they choose. That's also part of the reason most forum software allows you to disable viewing of avatars, images, smilies, and sigs.

[KDStudios]

Yeah I can understand it could make things much slower.

But all I'm asking for is a few extra very small kilobytes.

It's not like I'm asking for a 1MB avatar, that'd be out of the question.

Whether people view them as "tacky" that's their opinion isn't it.

Just because some people don't like them doesn't mean we should all suffer because of it.

That's almost as bad as saying you think having kittens as an avatar is tacky and not allowing people to upload that either.

It's due to taste.

 

But taste isn't the issue here.

That can take part in a different thread if you'd like that discussion.

 

This is a thread of a small suggestion to help facilitate those who want to showcase their artistic talent in making GIF's because some are pretty impressive.

A small increase of filesize would be a huge difference in the quality of the GIF's.

 

I've had to tone my GIF down to 8bit colour. And that is why some people may call it tacky.

Because of the small size of 30kb they have to be toned down and half the time they look horrible.

Yet for about 10kb more they look stunning.

Those few kilobytes may seem insignificant but it changes the GIF's look a ton!

[buddah]

A little over size, no one will bother. It is when you attempt to go around the system by linking to a video or slideshow presentation, that I just delete it on the spot. Does not matter where it is hosted, the query remains open until the entire page is loaded. Zapping resources that are best used else where.

 

The forums are the hub for the file sites file threads, post in either and the other gets updated. excessive load times for excessive image size, etc slows the process for all other queries/posts/comments and updates completely.

[LHammonds]

Yep, like buddah said, Dark0ne is looking at the entire picture (no pun intended...really!), every byte counts and when it concerns EVERY person browsing the site, that is multipled over and over again and can lead to significant savings or costs. Dark0ne looked it over and came up with the best scenario for his site and that is what we've gone by the whole time...and it has worked fairly well.

 

Besides, I hate people with animated avatars...they are just so tacky! :teehee:

 

LHammonds

[evilneko]

Indeed. I will at times browse the web on a very old, very slow Sony Picturebook. Think ancient ancestor of today's netbooks. It has software on it that clocks its Crusoe CPU back to 300 MHz (and can dynamically clock it back up to its maximum of 667 for a few seconds when needed) when running on battery. This, coupled with its tiny 128MB of RAM, most of which is taken up by Windows 2000 (ideal RAM for Win 2k: 512MB), makes for a pretty slow browsing experience. And I make it even worse by turning off disk caching in my browser to help conserve battery too, so yeah.

 

Also, even on a good machine, slow page loading can result in having to wait for a bit before it jumps down to the new posts when you hit the button to jump to first unread.

 

As for sigs, I'm wondering if a system similar to the one DSLReports uses could be implemented here: DSLR doesn't show your sig if yoru sig is longer than your post. :biggrin: