Started by northerncyclist2 · · 👁 13 views · 88 replies
…
loneraven25 said: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.
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.😵 😵 😁
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.😵 😵 😁
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.😵 😵 😁
northerncyclist2 said:I kind of wish the response would be public, though, since the whole argument is happening right here for everyone to see.
loneraven25 said:Look, her private information isn't out there for the world to see, and honestly, does anyone else on these forums even care?
So, we’ve finally started talking about that initiative to bump up the allowed image resolution within the ZIP code, haven't we? Honestly, it feels like it's about time. Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like we're constantly hitting this invisible ceiling that keeps us from actually utilizing the hardware we've paid so much for? It’s frustrating, really—you have all this processing power sitting there, just waiting to be used, yet we're stuck squinting at pixels because some arbitrary limit is holding us back. Why should we be restricted by these outdated standards when the technology has clearly moved past them? I mean, if we can handle higher fidelity in almost every other aspect of our digital lives, why is this specific area still lagging behind? It seems like a massive oversight, doesn't it?
And let’s not even get started on the sheer lack of basic computer literacy we're seeing in the public section of this forum lately. Honestly, does anyone else feel like they're constantly explaining the same fundamental concepts to people who seem to have never even seen a keyboard before? It’s getting a bit ridiculous, isn't it?
Basically, the scope of this forum hasn't kept up with how wide our monitors have gotten.
loneraven25 said:Look, her private information isn't out there for the world to see, and honestly, does anyone else on these forums even care?
So, we’ve finally started talking about that initiative to bump up the allowed image resolution within the ZIP code, haven't we? Honestly, it feels like it's about time. Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like we're constantly hitting this invisible ceiling that keeps us from actually utilizing the hardware we've paid so much for? It’s frustrating, really—you have all this processing power sitting there, just waiting to be used, yet we're stuck squinting at pixels because some arbitrary limit is holding us back. Why should we be restricted by these outdated standards when the technology has clearly moved past them? I mean, if we can handle higher fidelity in almost every other aspect of our digital lives, why is this specific area still lagging behind? It seems like a massive oversight, doesn't it?
And let’s not even get started on the sheer lack of basic computer literacy we're seeing in the public section of this forum lately. Honestly, does anyone else feel like they're constantly explaining the same fundamental concepts to people who seem to have never even seen a keyboard before? It’s getting a bit ridiculous, isn't it?
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.
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. 😁
