| General > General Technical Chat |
| Moderation reports |
| << < (133/138) > >> |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: AaronB on October 31, 2020, 11:15:12 pm ---If size was the problem then maybe you want to revise your attachment limit: "maximum individual size 5000KB" it says on the the Attachments and other options section. And if size was the problem (Mrs AaronB has not registered a complaint), then a better error message would be one about the size, not a security warning. So what is the issue? Size? security? what? --- End quote --- The limits are set to 5MB per image and 5MB total maximum for all images. Just try reducing your file size and see what happens. I don't have control over what error message is displayed. As others have said, there is almost no need to upload a 3.5MB image. |
| Bud:
By uploading large oh high res pictures you reduce your viewing audience, 'cause people like me look at the size/resolution and will not bother opening your attachments. |
| AaronB:
There is no warning on uploading a large image that will break the size of all images in the thread, so how was I to know? A security warning when you then break that limit is also not very helpful. But thanks to you all for berating me for trying to add information in the simple form of a picture to the thread I had started. It really makes me feel welcome as a new poster - I guess there isn't a :sarcasm: icon either. |
| tautech:
--- Quote from: AaronB on November 01, 2020, 12:24:42 am ---There is no warning on uploading a large image that will break the size of all images in the thread, so how was I to know? A security warning when you then break that limit is also not very helpful. --- End quote --- I agree it's not very helpful that the forums warning messages don't properly indicate what your 'security' problem was. Like others mention it may have to do with the images size and maybe there are clues in the SMF forum specs as to what limit you exceeded. |
| rsjsouza:
In these discussions of image size, I always wonder what is acceptable over time, with ever more powerful mobile platforms and broadband access. The size limits used to be more stringent - 1MB per file IIRC. I agree that having a security error is less than ideal and the limits shouldn't be that high if it causes an aggravation with a large number of users. Question is: how representative is the number of posters in this thread? Is it really a majority that cares for for the extra computational effort? Or is such limitation perceived as too stringent and hinders the adoption of this forum by new members? I sure went through the extra effort to reduce images when the previous limits were in force and try to keep doing this even now - unless the subject of the discussion begs for image quality (the microscope discussion, for example). Regarding storage space, this is much better than those posts with image servers that go down and the image context is completely lost. So, in a way, we have it much better now, large file or not. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |