#61 ·
I actually gave it a shot a few months back, and let's just say I almost got burned at the stake ☕
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions ›
Proposal to increase max image size limit
Proposal to increase max image size limit
Started by northerncyclist2 · · 👁 10 views · 88 replies
Participants
…
…
#64 ·
northerncyclist2 said:I actually gave it a shot a few months back, and let's just say I almost got burned at the stake ☕
Hehe... they didn't actually burn you at the stake. It's fine. The topic is already active, so we can just close this one out. There are some interesting points made there, but clearly, having to quote images is a pain for everyone on Reddit.
#65 ·
The allowed image size hasn't really changed across the board, but certain mods on specific PDF threads or individual topics have made exceptions to let them be larger—and you'll usually see that clearly noted in the internal rules or right there in the opening post of the thread.
#66 ·
Melissa Collins6 said:The rules allow images up to 640x480 pixels. I think it's high time we change that and allow at least 800x600.
The current image size limits were set way back in 2007. Monitors were smaller, computers were slower, and most people were still struggling with sluggish dial-up connections. From that perspective, limiting image sizes made sense—to prevent bandwidth congestion for those on slow connections or to keep things readable—but today? That rule is baseless. It needs to be updated.
Well... I have to disagree. A huge portion of the crowd accessing this forum nowadays is using smartphones or iPads. In many cases, they are actually dealing with much smaller "screens" than before.
If I were to suggest anything, it would be to actually inform all the moderators about the permitted photo dimensions. Some of them still don't even realize what the limit is, and then they go ahead and delete allowed image sizes (that 640x480 limit).
Furthermore, I'd flip the rule entirely; width is arguably more critical than height, so why not allow 480x640?
#67 ·
nimbletinker10 said:Well... I have to disagree. A huge portion of the crowd accessing this forum nowadays is using smartphones or iPads. In many cases, they are actually dealing with much smaller "screens" than before.
If I were to suggest anything, it would be to actually inform all the moderators about the permitted photo dimensions. Some of them still don't even realize what the limit is, and then they go ahead and delete allowed image sizes (that 640x480 limit).
Furthermore, I'd flip the rule entirely; width is arguably more critical than height, so why not allow 480x640?
As far as I'm concerned, I don't care which way the image is oriented;
as long as it fits within the dimensions, I'm not deleting a single one of them.
#68 ·
loneraven25 said:As far as I'm concerned, I don't care which way the image is oriented;
as long as it fits within the dimensions, I'm not deleting a single one of them.
I’m not sure we’re even on the same page here. Technically, the official rule allows for 640x480, but it doesn't explicitly forbid the reverse, which shouldn't actually be an issue anyway. It isn't going to stretch the screen. The image is just narrow instead of wide.
#69 ·
nimbletinker10 said:I’m not sure we’re even on the same page here. Technically, the official rule allows for 640x480, but it doesn't explicitly forbid the reverse, which shouldn't actually be an issue anyway. It isn't going to stretch the screen. The image is just narrow instead of wide.
We aren't. 😁
nimbletinker10 said:I’m not sure we’re even on the same page here. Technically, the official rule allows for 640x480, but it doesn't explicitly forbid the reverse, which shouldn't actually be an issue anyway. It isn't going to stretch the screen. The image is just narrow instead of wide.
At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter—none of that stuff actually carries any consequences.
nimbletinker10 said:I’m not sure we’re even on the same page here. Technically, the official rule allows for 640x480, but it doesn't explicitly forbid the reverse, which shouldn't actually be an issue anyway. It isn't going to stretch the screen. The image is just narrow instead of wide.
I mean, I can see how someone might find a smashed monitor just taking up way too much space and being a total eyesore, but honestly? Who actually cares about that kind of clutter?
I mean, honestly, would anyone even care if they had to spend an extra millisecond scrolling down a page? It’s hardly like we’re performing open-heart surgery here, right? 😁
No matter how you slice it, it’s just plain wrong.
#70 ·
loneraven25 said:We aren't. 😁
At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter—none of that stuff actually carries any consequences.
I mean, I can see how someone might find a smashed monitor just taking up way too much space and being a total eyesore, but honestly? Who actually cares about that kind of clutter?
I mean, honestly, would anyone even care if they had to spend an extra millisecond scrolling down a page? It’s hardly like we’re performing open-heart surgery here, right? 😁
No matter how you slice it, it’s just plain wrong.
Actually, people get punished whenever someone decides to throw them under the bus—which is never done the right way. 🤷
#71 ·
I think PDF Jokes have officially gone dark side; I guess the only rule left is keeping them under an 800-pixel width 🙂
Long live Mrzm! 🙂
Long live Mrzm! 🙂
#72 ·
I’m really not feeling the whole idea of bumping up photo sizes past the usual 640*480 pixels (though I won't count those contest shots people mentioned earlier).
The thing is, the width of this forum hasn't actually grown alongside our modern monitors. So, what happens? If someone posts an 800-pixel wide image, it starts pushing against the text area, totally ignoring the column where everyone's nickname and avatar sit. And don't even get me started on when someone quotes a photo—the posts just go all wonky 😁, you know? They become these weirdly stepped, stretched-out messes that make everything impossible to read.
As a potential fix, maybe we could look at increasing the height from 480 to 640 pixels instead, while keeping that 640-pixel width exactly where it is.
Once the site administrators decide to expand the overall layout dimensions, then we can finally start talking about bigger pictures.
Besides, there's still always a link option for anyone who wants to share a high-res version anyway.
The thing is, the width of this forum hasn't actually grown alongside our modern monitors. So, what happens? If someone posts an 800-pixel wide image, it starts pushing against the text area, totally ignoring the column where everyone's nickname and avatar sit. And don't even get me started on when someone quotes a photo—the posts just go all wonky 😁, you know? They become these weirdly stepped, stretched-out messes that make everything impossible to read.
As a potential fix, maybe we could look at increasing the height from 480 to 640 pixels instead, while keeping that 640-pixel width exactly where it is.
Once the site administrators decide to expand the overall layout dimensions, then we can finally start talking about bigger pictures.
Besides, there's still always a link option for anyone who wants to share a high-res version anyway.
#73 ·
There are way too many inaccuracies here...
The actual width of the columns and cells allocated for posts isn't some fixed number—it’s dynamic. It depends entirely on how big your browser window is. So, while it hits its max width when you maximize the window, it doesn't actually depend directly on your monitor's resolution.
An 800px image will only wreck the layout on low-resolution screens—you know, those cases where there's just no room to breathe horizontally. On standard 16:9 monitors, this only really happens when people use photos well over 1000px. I think the last time I saw one of those was on MK, and it was about 1200px wide.
As for quoting, it's pretty easy to educate users with a simple "hey, please don't quote huge photos, just use a link instead." Plus, basic internet etiquette suggests that if you see your post has trashed the site's layout, you'll just edit it and swap the images for links. For the extreme cases? Well, we've always got our favorite memes to deal with. 😁
Matthew Fox4 said:I’m really not feeling the whole idea of bumping up photo sizes past the usual 640*480 pixels (though I won't count those contest shots people mentioned earlier).
The thing is, the width of this forum hasn't actually grown alongside our modern monitors. So, what happens? If someone posts an 800-pixel wide image, it starts pushing against the text area, totally ignoring the column where everyone's nickname and avatar sit. And don't even get me started on when someone quotes a photo—the posts just go all wonky 😁, you know? They become these weirdly stepped, stretched-out messes that make everything impossible to read.
As a potential fix, maybe we could look at increasing the height from 480 to 640 pixels instead, while keeping that 640-pixel width exactly where it is.
Once the site administrators decide to expand the overall layout dimensions, then we can finally start talking about bigger pictures.
Besides, there's still always a link option for anyone who wants to share a high-res version anyway.
The actual width of the columns and cells allocated for posts isn't some fixed number—it’s dynamic. It depends entirely on how big your browser window is. So, while it hits its max width when you maximize the window, it doesn't actually depend directly on your monitor's resolution.
Matthew Fox4 said:I’m really not feeling the whole idea of bumping up photo sizes past the usual 640*480 pixels (though I won't count those contest shots people mentioned earlier).
The thing is, the width of this forum hasn't actually grown alongside our modern monitors. So, what happens? If someone posts an 800-pixel wide image, it starts pushing against the text area, totally ignoring the column where everyone's nickname and avatar sit. And don't even get me started on when someone quotes a photo—the posts just go all wonky 😁, you know? They become these weirdly stepped, stretched-out messes that make everything impossible to read.
As a potential fix, maybe we could look at increasing the height from 480 to 640 pixels instead, while keeping that 640-pixel width exactly where it is.
Once the site administrators decide to expand the overall layout dimensions, then we can finally start talking about bigger pictures.
Besides, there's still always a link option for anyone who wants to share a high-res version anyway.
An 800px image will only wreck the layout on low-resolution screens—you know, those cases where there's just no room to breathe horizontally. On standard 16:9 monitors, this only really happens when people use photos well over 1000px. I think the last time I saw one of those was on MK, and it was about 1200px wide.
As for quoting, it's pretty easy to educate users with a simple "hey, please don't quote huge photos, just use a link instead." Plus, basic internet etiquette suggests that if you see your post has trashed the site's layout, you'll just edit it and swap the images for links. For the extreme cases? Well, we've always got our favorite memes to deal with. 😁
#74 ·
Michelle Alvarez8 said:There are way too many inaccuracies here...
The actual width of the columns and cells allocated for posts isn't some fixed number—it’s dynamic. It depends entirely on how big your browser window is. So, while it hits its max width when you maximize the window, it doesn't actually depend directly on your monitor's resolution.
An 800px image will only wreck the layout on low-resolution screens—you know, those cases where there's just no room to breathe horizontally. On standard 16:9 monitors, this only really happens when people use photos well over 1000px. I think the last time I saw one of those was on MK, and it was about 1200px wide.
As for quoting, it's pretty easy to educate users with a simple "hey, please don't quote huge photos, just use a link instead." Plus, basic internet etiquette suggests that if you see your post has trashed the site's layout, you'll just edit it and swap the images for links. For the extreme cases? Well, we've always got our favorite memes to deal with. 😁
Not quite!
Michelle Alvarez8 said:There are way too many inaccuracies here...
The actual width of the columns and cells allocated for posts isn't some fixed number—it’s dynamic. It depends entirely on how big your browser window is. So, while it hits its max width when you maximize the window, it doesn't actually depend directly on your monitor's resolution.
An 800px image will only wreck the layout on low-resolution screens—you know, those cases where there's just no room to breathe horizontally. On standard 16:9 monitors, this only really happens when people use photos well over 1000px. I think the last time I saw one of those was on MK, and it was about 1200px wide.
As for quoting, it's pretty easy to educate users with a simple "hey, please don't quote huge photos, just use a link instead." Plus, basic internet etiquette suggests that if you see your post has trashed the site's layout, you'll just edit it and swap the images for links. For the extreme cases? Well, we've always got our favorite memes to deal with. 😁
I have no clue when, what, or where you saw that. I'm just talking about the stuff I run into every single day, you know? And honestly, I’m not even sitting at Grunfov's computer right now.
Look, I don't have any say in the rules regarding photo sizes around here, so if you're looking to push for that change about the 1000-pixel limit or whatever, you'll need to pass that along to the admins directly.
Thanks for the tip on how to educate users and handle that whole "when you see someone totally wreck the Reddit layout" situation, but honestly, I already figured all that out during my first week on the job. So, I was just sitting here thinking about that whole "summa cum laude" thing. You know, that fancy Latin phrase they toss around at graduation? It’s wild how much pressure gets packed into those few little words. Honestly, it reminds me of when I was back in college in Chicago—I remember staying up until 3 AM fueled by nothing but lukewarm coffee and sheer panic, just trying to nail a single term paper. I wasn't aiming for the top honors, just hoping to pass without losing my mind, haha! But there's something kind of beautiful about people chasing that level of perfection, isn't there? Even if it feels a bit intense sometimes. Anyway, just a random thought crossing my mind while I was staring out the window today. Life moves fast!
#75 ·
Look, I’m not giving this as advice—especially not to you. It’s just a simple way to preemptively shut down those "people are going to quote this" arguments. Honestly, some people just can't read for comprehension, can they?
Anyway, you’ve thrown out a mountain of inaccuracies and are trying to pass them off as facts. That’s just not okay. It’s one thing to not know how a specific tech works or how a certain system functions, but it’s another thing entirely to present your misconceptions as the absolute truth.
Anyway, you’ve thrown out a mountain of inaccuracies and are trying to pass them off as facts. That’s just not okay. It’s one thing to not know how a specific tech works or how a certain system functions, but it’s another thing entirely to present your misconceptions as the absolute truth.
#76 ·
Matthew Fox4 said:I’m really not feeling the whole idea of bumping up photo sizes past the usual 640*480 pixels (though I won't count those contest shots people mentioned earlier).
The thing is, the width of this forum hasn't actually grown alongside our modern monitors. So, what happens? If someone posts an 800-pixel wide image, it starts pushing against the text area, totally ignoring the column where everyone's nickname and avatar sit. And don't even get me started on when someone quotes a photo—the posts just go all wonky 😁, you know? They become these weirdly stepped, stretched-out messes that make everything impossible to read.
As a potential fix, maybe we could look at increasing the height from 480 to 640 pixels instead, while keeping that 640-pixel width exactly where it is.
Once the site administrators decide to expand the overall layout dimensions, then we can finally start talking about bigger pictures.
Besides, there's still always a link option for anyone who wants to share a high-res version anyway.
Trying to force higher image resolutions just because some guy posting from a smart coffee maker wants them is honestly absurd. On this site, we allow larger images until someone goes overboard—if we see an extreme case, we just edit it and drop a link back to the source. That’s pretty much our whole philosophy. Sure, maybe 800x600 might give some trouble to people still rocking prehistoric 17" monitors, but honestly, that's their problem to deal with.
#77 ·
Michelle Alvarez8 said:Look, I’m not giving this as advice—especially not to you. It’s just a simple way to preemptively shut down those "people are going to quote this" arguments. Honestly, some people just can't read for comprehension, can they?
Anyway, you’ve thrown out a mountain of inaccuracies and are trying to pass them off as facts. That’s just not okay. It’s one thing to not know how a specific tech works or how a certain system functions, but it’s another thing entirely to present your misconceptions as the absolute truth.
😕
Look, I’m not giving anyone advice here, especially not you.
So don't quote me then.
Reading comprehension? Zero points there.
My little gray cells send their regards from vacation 👋
Basically, you wrote a ton of inaccuracies and you're peddling them as facts.
That kind of blanket statement could have been slapped under anyone's post on any subreddit.
In the future, try using actual arguments instead of attacking people personally—because, to quote you, that "really isn't cool."
Sophia Thomas7 said:Trying to force higher image resolutions just because some guy posting from a smart coffee maker wants them is honestly absurd. On this site, we allow larger images until someone goes overboard—if we see an extreme case, we just edit it and drop a link back to the source. That’s pretty much our whole philosophy. Sure, maybe 800x600 might give some trouble to people still rocking prehistoric 17" monitors, but honestly, that's their problem to deal with.
I have a 19'' monitor. Should I tell it to stop acting like a 15'' brat and start behaving like a big, smart screen? 🙂
800*600 definitely messes with the page layout. I'll leave it to chance that maybe, through some weird glitch, it only does that on my monitor. Anyway, like I mentioned in my last post, it's up to the admins to decide on photo sizes.
I've said my piece on this thread and I don't plan on dragging this out further, since apparently I'm not just failing at reading comprehension, but I'm also failing at looking at things correctly—it's like I can't even process what's right in front of me on the screen.😵 😵 😁
#78 ·
Matthew Fox4 said:😕Look, I’m not giving anyone advice here, especially not you.
So don't quote me then.Reading comprehension? Zero points there.
My little gray cells send their regards from vacation 👋Basically, you wrote a ton of inaccuracies and you're peddling them as facts.
That kind of blanket statement could have been slapped under anyone's post on any subreddit.
In the future, try using actual arguments instead of attacking people personally—because, to quote you, that "really isn't cool."
I have a 19'' monitor. Should I tell it to stop acting like a 15'' brat and start behaving like a big, smart screen? 🙂
800*600 definitely messes with the page layout. I'll leave it to chance that maybe, through some weird glitch, it only does that on my monitor. Anyway, like I mentioned in my last post, it's up to the admins to decide on photo sizes.
I've said my piece on this thread and I don't plan on dragging this out further, since apparently I'm not just failing at reading comprehension, but I'm also failing at looking at things correctly—it's like I can't even process what's right in front of me on the screen.😵 😵 😁
It really depends on what resolution you're running—whether it's widescreen or not.
#79 ·
Fermina-daza, I was wondering if you could maybe walk me through your actual skill set? Like, did you finish a Microsoft certification course, study something tech-heavy in school, or are you more of a self-taught IT enthusiast?
Or, I guess, are you just a regular internet user who thinks scrolling through websites every day counts as enough "training" to weigh in on all things computing?
Or, I guess, are you just a regular internet user who thinks scrolling through websites every day counts as enough "training" to weigh in on all things computing?
#80 ·
Please feel free to shoot me a PM if you have any questions at all; I'm happy to chat about whatever is on your mind.
🔗 Similar threads
- How to batch resize multiple images at once? in IT Support · Dec 21, 2022
- Is anything actually off-limits anymore? in Law · Jul 30, 2026
- The limits of free speech and personal safety in Law · Jul 29, 2026
- The "unlimited budget" era is killing the spirit of competition in Fans · Jul 29, 2026
- Roster limits and the "flavor" of the game in Fans · Jul 29, 2026