
read the faq regarding size of images?
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2008, 1:28,
archived)

It's under the filesize limit, and you have adblock anyway.
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2008, 1:31,
archived)

that would make you technically more guilty of that than he is, having been here a lot longer to not read the faq more often
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2008, 1:32,
archived)

He had all the time to sort it out. I don't recall them removing the bit saying but you will rarely need to make your image larger than 400 pixels wide.
It's hardly difficult and highly courteous to link to a bigger image.
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2008, 1:43,
archived)
It's hardly difficult and highly courteous to link to a bigger image.

Nowhere.
Leave the poor noob alone, I'm having flashbacks.
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2008, 1:46,
archived)
Leave the poor noob alone, I'm having flashbacks.

I can understand the bandwidth thing, but dimensions?
Unless you're on capped scrolling.
Ultimately the post is funny, ergo it's justified.
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2008, 1:50,
archived)
Unless you're on capped scrolling.
Ultimately the post is funny, ergo it's justified.

Odd, I'll accept. Maybe it's just me but I can remember everything getting shouted at when I started if it was over 400px wide. Mind you those same paupers had shitty little monitors on 800x600 at best.
Perhaps its just me but they provided us with hosting and auto thumbnailing I think it is polite to use it.
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2008, 1:55,
archived)
Perhaps its just me but they provided us with hosting and auto thumbnailing I think it is polite to use it.


I only really get fucked of with people flaunting 'the rules' if the idea is shit and / or it's not funny / well executed. I found this funny so don't really see the problem.
'Politeness' and 'neatness' seem a little bit bureaucratic for a place that's supposedly meant to be about having a laugh.
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2008, 2:04,
archived)
'Politeness' and 'neatness' seem a little bit bureaucratic for a place that's supposedly meant to be about having a laugh.

Regarding the size of images I am going to not read the faq approximately another 200 times per 15 minutes as the narcissistic lobe in my brain takes over and I keep refreshing the page to read people's comments. Then again, maybe I'll eat the faq and feed complainers to Heather Mills where they'll be processed in her ride's four different stomachs, then shat back into her mouth.
Rest assured I will not not also make future images not this big.
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2008, 1:39,
archived)
Rest assured I will not not also make future images not this big.

also ignore that guy, he's a total jerkoff

Seriously, don't worry about it.
The FAQ is a GUIDELINE that says pictures RARELY need to be over 400px in width.
Nowhere in there does it say you CAN'T post anything bigger.
And it's under the filesize limit, so you are absolutely fine.
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2008, 1:43,
archived)
The FAQ is a GUIDELINE that says pictures RARELY need to be over 400px in width.
Nowhere in there does it say you CAN'T post anything bigger.
And it's under the filesize limit, so you are absolutely fine.

and I know you made that parameter ( I don't give a fuck, it's about time the paupers got proper internet ;) sorry Flowerpot, not you )
it's about an image filling the whole screen. There is just no need, it's untidy. I know you want people to see your creations in all their glory but load them to b3ta hosting and use the click for bigger option. Let the viewer decide if they want to fill the screen with it.
That's the honest, not taking the piss reply.
And welcome. I didn't say it last night because I'm usually an ignorant cunt.
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2008, 1:47,
archived)
it's about an image filling the whole screen. There is just no need, it's untidy. I know you want people to see your creations in all their glory but load them to b3ta hosting and use the click for bigger option. Let the viewer decide if they want to fill the screen with it.
That's the honest, not taking the piss reply.
And welcome. I didn't say it last night because I'm usually an ignorant cunt.