because some people don't realise it's a rigid rule, not something that you should aim for but it's okay to break occasionally. i know that's how it was traditionally, but i think it makes too many people angry now (despite the fact that internet connections are only getting faster). it'd avoid a few clashes with new folk who are just getting the swing of things
(,
Sun 23 Mar 2008, 20:55,
archived)
How hard is it to optimize for christ's sake, especially with the above needlessly large example
(,
Sun 23 Mar 2008, 21:05,
archived)
it's that the faq doesn't say that it's a rule at all
(,
Sun 23 Mar 2008, 21:16,
archived)
it does point out that about 600 pixels wide is about large enough for the board, and to be blunt, there is no need for a jpg to be larger than 50kb at that size under normal circumstances, this isn't an art gallery
(,
Sun 23 Mar 2008, 21:23,
archived)
But yes, making it clearer wouldn't hurt.
(,
Sun 23 Mar 2008, 21:07,
archived)
but i'd still feel awkward telling people that they must abide by an unwritten rule. if we're going to lay on the abuse when an image goes over 50k, the faq shouldn't be dithering around saying "well, you don't really need it to be more than 50k you know, um..."
(,
Sun 23 Mar 2008, 21:20,
archived)
I think the fact that people jump on the 'fuck off' bandwagon is a bigger problem.
When you're polite and tell them 50k is a general limit, they normally pay attention and at least make the next image smaller.
(,
Sun 23 Mar 2008, 21:23,
archived)
When you're polite and tell them 50k is a general limit, they normally pay attention and at least make the next image smaller.
but i'm tired of telling people to play nice, especially if they genuinely think they're being helpful. if there's a simple way to give folks less reason to be nasty, i want it to happen
(,
Sun 23 Mar 2008, 21:32,
archived)