W Wai Senior Member Jan 17, 2002 5,265 0 36 44 South Pole with Penguin singastro.org Jan 21, 2002 #1 larger, probably 120 x 120 and bigger file size limit > 40000bytes I have tried very hard to squeeze this 5 frames gif movie into 20000bytes
larger, probably 120 x 120 and bigger file size limit > 40000bytes I have tried very hard to squeeze this 5 frames gif movie into 20000bytes
Y YSLee Senior Member Jan 17, 2002 2,325 1 38 Visit site Jan 21, 2002 #2 My take: The bigger they get, the more annoying than helpful they become. However, I'll see what the rest of the team have to say.
My take: The bigger they get, the more annoying than helpful they become. However, I'll see what the rest of the team have to say.
Simon ClubSNAP Admin Staff member Jan 17, 2002 667,089 2 38 33 ClubSNAP simon.clubsnap.org Jan 21, 2002 #3 Originally posted by kamwai larger, probably 120 x 120 and bigger file size limit > 40000bytes I have tried very hard to squeeze this 5 frames gif movie into 20000bytes Click to expand... The current 100 X 100 is already very BIG. I'm sure everyone prefer the server and web page to load and run faster. One of the way to optimise the server connections speed, is to have smaller Avatar size.
Originally posted by kamwai larger, probably 120 x 120 and bigger file size limit > 40000bytes I have tried very hard to squeeze this 5 frames gif movie into 20000bytes Click to expand... The current 100 X 100 is already very BIG. I'm sure everyone prefer the server and web page to load and run faster. One of the way to optimise the server connections speed, is to have smaller Avatar size.
W Wai Senior Member Jan 17, 2002 5,265 0 36 44 South Pole with Penguin singastro.org Jan 21, 2002 #4 hmm..i dunno if it is possible.... but can we link the avatar from another web site? then won't slow down the server already
hmm..i dunno if it is possible.... but can we link the avatar from another web site? then won't slow down the server already
C ckiang Senior Member Jan 17, 2002 6,405 0 36 50 Singapore, Singapore, Singapor www.ckphoto.net Jan 21, 2002 #5 My take is to have a smaller Avatar. With the images being posted as big as 100K, having a 40K avatar does not quite make sense. The bandwidth can be used for the main content. Regards CK
My take is to have a smaller Avatar. With the images being posted as big as 100K, having a 40K avatar does not quite make sense. The bandwidth can be used for the main content. Regards CK
W Wai Senior Member Jan 17, 2002 5,265 0 36 44 South Pole with Penguin singastro.org Jan 21, 2002 #6 also, can dun limit the maximum number of tag in one post?? rite now we can only post 5 image at a time....
also, can dun limit the maximum number of tag in one post?? rite now we can only post 5 image at a time....
Y YSLee Senior Member Jan 17, 2002 2,325 1 38 Visit site Jan 21, 2002 #7 Maybe 6 then, at the most. Too many leads to super slow pages (even on cable).
W Wai Senior Member Jan 17, 2002 5,265 0 36 44 South Pole with Penguin singastro.org Jan 21, 2002 #8 Originally posted by kamwai also, can dun limit the maximum number of tag in one post?? rite now we can only post 5 image at a time.... [/B][/QUOTE] hmm....or less image better??? then can contribute to more post count if one post only limited to one photo Click to expand...
Originally posted by kamwai also, can dun limit the maximum number of tag in one post?? rite now we can only post 5 image at a time.... [/B][/QUOTE] hmm....or less image better??? then can contribute to more post count if one post only limited to one photo Click to expand...