Proposal to increase max image size limit

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Yeah, we all know that.

Same here.

It’s not "might" render—the client's browser *actually* renders it. No photo is sitting on the forum's servers eating up resources, nor is there some massive load that would crash them.

Aside from the fact that I've never seen an animated GIF at 640x480 resolution, users really need to realize—hopefully through experience—that opening huge files takes longer to load. Also, the admins should remember that the rule against images larger than 640x480 was made years ago, back when we were using much smaller monitors. They also need to acknowledge that image size doesn't actually strain the servers, so they should really just penalize posts that mess up the forum layout—which is easy enough to do even with images smaller than 640x480.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Look, we don't "all" know this. On a subreddit where half the crowd can't even figure out how to set up a signature or use the multi-quote tool, what I just laid out is strictly advanced stuff. Just because you and I are on the same page doesn't mean everyone else is.

The comment was basically saying that people don't really care about how heavy the image files are. Honestly, if you look at PC gaming, where everyone is constantly demanding these massive, high-res textures that take up gigabytes, we can definitely expect the same kind of thing here on Reddit. That said, if you decide to allow higher resolutions—which, personally, I’m fine with since I’m long past the era of using a tiny 14" CRT monitor—you should probably prepare for a lot more huge files hitting the threads.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Look, we don't "all" know this. On a subreddit where half the crowd can't even figure out how to set up a signature or use the multi-quote tool, what I just laid out is strictly advanced stuff. Just because you and I are on the same page doesn't mean everyone else is.

The comment was basically saying that people don't really care about how heavy the image files are. Honestly, if you look at PC gaming, where everyone is constantly demanding these massive, high-res textures that take up gigabytes, we can definitely expect the same kind of thing here on Reddit. That said, if you decide to allow higher resolutions—which, personally, I’m fine with since I’m long past the era of using a tiny 14" CRT monitor—you should probably prepare for a lot more huge files hitting the threads.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:The real issue is—honestly?—even the admins don't seem to get it.

Of course nobody is checking file sizes when most of the community has been on high-speed unlimited data plans for years! Seriously—it's not like we're stuck on dial-up or ISDN where every kilobyte counts. If we can stream music on YouTube or download torrents without breaking a sweat, why shouldn't we be able to load an 800x600px photo that’s probably barely 200KB?

As for moderation, it's all about the rules. If there's a limit on image size, then anyone pushing past it should just get a warning. Besides, it shouldn't be that hard to teach gamers how to use thumbnails from a hosting service, right? 🤷

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Before we vote or make any final calls, wouldn't it be helpful to actually understand how this thing works?


Look, since these images aren't even hosted on our own servers—they're just pulled from external hosting sites or random websites that have nothing to do with us via URLs—the forum doesn't actually care about the image size at all. It's not the forum doing the rendering; it's just your own browser! The site is basically just a middleman placing the image on your screen, and you'll find all those photos sitting in your local cache folders anyway, not on our servers.

So, my vote is YES for larger images. There’s zero technical reason or objective logic to say no.

coppersailor28 said:Nothing. 🤷
I responded because your post was basically saying, "Quote: Violently happy"What a bunch of idiots. Rude.Dammit, I hope you all rot!")

The site isn't going to collapse just because of one person.

Not even for a few specific threads—which would actually deserve that "privilege"—would I suggest it. Having images at an 800px width would serve the purpose of those topics much better.

It’s much better seeing the actual dimensions in this photo rather than just looking at the suggested ones.

Same here. Most threads aren't even my cup of tea, and a 640px width is overkill—often completely unnecessary for the amount of info being shared.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:The real issue is—honestly?—even the admins don't seem to get it.

Of course nobody is checking file sizes when most of the community has been on high-speed unlimited data plans for years! Seriously—it's not like we're stuck on dial-up or ISDN where every kilobyte counts. If we can stream music on YouTube or download torrents without breaking a sweat, why shouldn't we be able to load an 800x600px photo that’s probably barely 200KB?

As for moderation, it's all about the rules. If there's a limit on image size, then anyone pushing past it should just get a warning. Besides, it shouldn't be that hard to teach gamers how to use thumbnails from a hosting service, right? 🤷

Harold Taylor6 said:Michelle Alvarez8 makes a solid point. Honestly, the actual size of an image doesn't really impact how the server performs. It’s more about the browser itself—you know, when someone loads a massive thread full of high-res photos for the very first time? If they're browsing on a smartphone, things might get a little sluggish. Maybe we could consider approving specific threads where images are the main attraction and allow larger dimensions there, while keeping everything else on the rest of the site at a standard 640x480.

Harold Taylor6 said:Michelle Alvarez8 makes a solid point. Honestly, the actual size of an image doesn't really impact how the server performs. It’s more about the browser itself—you know, when someone loads a massive thread full of high-res photos for the very first time? If they're browsing on a smartphone, things might get a little sluggish. Maybe we could consider approving specific threads where images are the main attraction and allow larger dimensions there, while keeping everything else on the rest of the site at a standard 640x480.

coppersailor28 said:(Not trying to lecture here, just asking because this doesn't track)
If all of Reddit had only three posts, would the server still be "screwed" (overloaded or whatever)? If yes, fine. If not... then the images visible right there are also strictly on this forum and "nowhere else," just like the text of the posts themselves is strictly on this forum and "nowhere else." 🤷

I don't need a technical breakdown. A simple "you're wrong" is plenty—there's Google if I actually cared about the details.

Nicholas King said:You aren't being right🙂. I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding how the very thing you see as a "forum page" actually renders on your screen.

You're looking at this like a classic hotel breakfast, where the waiter—the forum server, in this case—first gathers everything you want to see onto his own tray, and then brings that tray out to you with the coffee, the croissant, the butter, and everything else. So, if you suddenly decide you want ten pounds of butter, or a hundred different items from a hundred different locations, well... that becomes the waiter's problem, doesn't it? It creates the bottleneck...

Actually, a better comparison might be a buffet: your browser pulls various pieces of information from all sorts of different web servers, and then it simply aggregates them all together on your screen just for your eyes. Everything that isn't physically hosted on the forum's actual server—and keep in mind, photos are usually linked from other servers; the forum server itself just holds the instruction of where to go and what to grab—doesn't impact the congestion of the forum server at all.

coppersailor28 said:(Not trying to lecture here, just asking because this doesn't track)
If all of Reddit had only three posts, would the server still be "screwed" (overloaded or whatever)? If yes, fine. If not... then the images visible right there are also strictly on this forum and "nowhere else," just like the text of the posts themselves is strictly on this forum and "nowhere else." 🤷

I don't need a technical breakdown. A simple "you're wrong" is plenty—there's Google if I actually cared about the details.

Harold Taylor6 said:Michelle Alvarez8 makes a solid point. Honestly, the actual size of an image doesn't really impact how the server performs. It’s more about the browser itself—you know, when someone loads a massive thread full of high-res photos for the very first time? If they're browsing on a smartphone, things might get a little sluggish. Maybe we could consider approving specific threads where images are the main attraction and allow larger dimensions there, while keeping everything else on the rest of the site at a standard 640x480.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Yeah, we all know that.

Same here.

It’s not "might" render—the client's browser *actually* renders it. No photo is sitting on the forum's servers eating up resources, nor is there some massive load that would crash them.

Aside from the fact that I've never seen an animated GIF at 640x480 resolution, users really need to realize—hopefully through experience—that opening huge files takes longer to load. Also, the admins should remember that the rule against images larger than 640x480 was made years ago, back when we were using much smaller monitors. They also need to acknowledge that image size doesn't actually strain the servers, so they should really just penalize posts that mess up the forum layout—which is easy enough to do even with images smaller than 640x480.