Proposal to increase max image size limit

Brandon Lopez6 said:Personally, I think this size is just right—you can actually see what's going on in the photo without it being a total mess. When images are way too huge, they just warp my screen and I end up giving up on reading the thread entirely.
Also, let's be real: any page loaded with massive files (or a bunch of them in a row) takes forever to load compared to a page with standard-sized images.
I'm digging this layout; it's clean. Besides, let's go with that old mantra: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 😬

northerncyclist2 said:Wait, you think an 800*600 image is considered large? 🤔

Reddit is pretty much the only forum out there that doesn't allow that size, even though it's basically the unwritten standard for image sizes online. And I've definitely spent enough time browsing different forums to know that. 😁

Just for comparison:

northerncyclist2 said:Under the current Reddit rules, the maximum image size is capped at 640 * 480 px. I guess that rule probably dates back to when monitors were tiny and most Americans were still stuck using slow dial-up connections.

But things are totally different now, I mean, almost everyone—probably 99.9%—has high-speed broadband or fast mobile data, plus big high-res monitors, and even phones. Images that small just feel way too tiny these days.

So, I was thinking maybe we could bump the maximum image size up to 800*600 pixels, or maybe even 1024*768 pixels if it makes sense for the specific vibe of a certain sub-forum.

If you guys are on board with this, maybe cast a vote in the poll and leave a comment 🙂

Just a little side note: changing the image size won't actually affect the forum's performance or the server itself, since the images aren't even hosted on the Reddit servers and nothing is being processed there during loading.

wiredmason10 said:I can't say I'm on board with this initiative.

The image dimensions are perfectly fine as they are. If we bumped them up any further, the whole layout would become an unnavigable mess—especially on a third-party mobile browser. Besides, I deal with this daily: some user ignores the rules entirely, starts quoting everyone in sight, and then we’re stuck scrolling through a million identical images just to find anything useful.

Bassac The user states:
Someone completely missed the mark on this one. 🙂

wiredmason10 said:

Bassac The user states:
Someone completely missed the mark on this one. 🙂

That’s exactly where my frustration lies. What I was trying to get at is that if they decide to bump up the image sizes, we’re going to end up scrolling for an eternity just to bypass a sea of the same mindless, oversized graphics.

I'm less concerned with how the forum would function under those circumstances; my focus is more on what the end result would actually look like. 😳

slywolf45 said:Are we really posting high-res images on a forum this low-budget?

coppersailor28 said:Your "little picture" used up the bandwidth of 10 (ten) similar ones:


but this one below (from the "Reaction GIFs" thread), for 144 of those above:

slywolf45 said:Are we really posting high-res images on a forum this low-budget?

rustydrifter10 said:Could you guys please stop uploading such massive images? The ones posted so far have served their purpose as examples, so we really don't need any more of them.

Since our server is already struggling quite a bit, I think it's best if we don't overload it more than we absolutely have to. I'm really not sure that going with larger files would be a smart move, and honestly, a 640*480 resolution is perfectly fine for what we need here.

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.

slywolf45 said:And?
I rarely post images or GIFs anyway, so I highly doubt the entire site is going to crash because of one single file.

Besides, even if the servers are already running on fumes, I’d much rather look at an image in these dimensions than the ones being suggested.

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

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

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.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Technically, you could host stuff directly on the forum servers, but Reddit doesn't have that enabled, though a few other sites do. If you just drop an image in using a URL tag, you won't run into any issues.

However, if you use an IMG tag, even if your browser manages to render it, it’s still going to drag things down. Like I said, if you try to shove a massive 10 MB photo through an IMG tag, you're definitely going to notice a lag while that 10 MB loads, at least until it hits your cache.

I doubt most people will actually do it, but there are plenty of unoptimized animated GIFs floating around out there being used by idiots.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Technically, you could host stuff directly on the forum servers, but Reddit doesn't have that enabled, though a few other sites do. If you just drop an image in using a URL tag, you won't run into any issues.

However, if you use an IMG tag, even if your browser manages to render it, it’s still going to drag things down. Like I said, if you try to shove a massive 10 MB photo through an IMG tag, you're definitely going to notice a lag while that 10 MB loads, at least until it hits your cache.

I doubt most people will actually do it, but there are plenty of unoptimized animated GIFs floating around out there being used by idiots.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Technically, you could host stuff directly on the forum servers, but Reddit doesn't have that enabled, though a few other sites do. If you just drop an image in using a URL tag, you won't run into any issues.

However, if you use an IMG tag, even if your browser manages to render it, it’s still going to drag things down. Like I said, if you try to shove a massive 10 MB photo through an IMG tag, you're definitely going to notice a lag while that 10 MB loads, at least until it hits your cache.

I doubt most people will actually do it, but there are plenty of unoptimized animated GIFs floating around out there being used by idiots.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Technically, you could host stuff directly on the forum servers, but Reddit doesn't have that enabled, though a few other sites do. If you just drop an image in using a URL tag, you won't run into any issues.

However, if you use an IMG tag, even if your browser manages to render it, it’s still going to drag things down. Like I said, if you try to shove a massive 10 MB photo through an IMG tag, you're definitely going to notice a lag while that 10 MB loads, at least until it hits your cache.

I doubt most people will actually do it, but there are plenty of unoptimized animated GIFs floating around out there being used by idiots.

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.

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.