About spoilers and big pics...

If I use a spoiler on a large pic, does it still load even though it's not readily visable upon loading forum page?I'm asking because...on the "hotest girls in gaming" as I call it, I see large pics resized...But people think using spoiler tags helps, I just want to make sure for those of us with slow net...Plus we can start pointing user's here, reason why...well sometimes like as of NOW, spam thread has large pics popping up, and people are suggesting spoiler tags...The way I see it, the pics are still loading, just not see until the tag is clicked.

Well let's test it out thenLarge Image:

Spoiler

Well as soon as I press the spoiler the image was there.
So I'm guessing it loads even in spoilers.

Spoiler: Large Photo With Link

It would appear that they are loaded even if hidden in a spoiler tag.
Firefox and the various Image browsing addons know they are there.

Ah I see, thanks trithRR for confirming, you too johnX :)

Replying to #4

No problem.Is there any way to fix this problem?
Because most people put photo's in spoilers for people with bad internet and photo's could take ages to load.

Replying to #5

Actually there is no problem, it just means spoiler's hide content, doesn't prevent them from loading.Not the first time I noticed this, I just wanted confirmation.

That why I try to get people to upload the images to a host that provides thumbnails if they are large. But that doesn't seem to be happening.I wonder if there is a way for Seph to modify it so that any IMG tags are ignored/removed/changes to URL tags if the target image is over a certain resolution?

Replying to #7

WHat about just telling people via pm about the over sized pics...or at worst, warning them if they do 3 or 4.One or 2 ain't so bad if it's just one post, but the whole thread...prehaps also leaving a warning of the change as well.Edit:seeing a mods name that edited the post last doesn't help if they don't come back to see.

Replying to #8

There are 167 pages of people not listening to the posting guidelines setup, and a new page added every few days. It's better in the long run to stop them from being able to do it rather than warn everyone everytime it happens.Edit:
I honestly can't think of any reason why someone would need to post a full sized 1900x1600 image.

Replying to #9

Quickest way to post the pic really, I'm guilty of that....but I don't do it in the same thread.If I see a pic I want to post I'd throw it in, people forget about other's with slower net, or if they are slow themselves, don't make an effort to come back to be hit with lag.

They have lazy bone.It would be better if they just post the link to the image instead putting it into the IMG tag.

Well is there any code for reseizing the image?
Y'know, one in place or together the

[IMG]imagelink[/IMG]

I think it's better just to post the direct link without the tags. But the thing is, some people like the convenience of looking at the image from the same website. But people with slow internet wouldn't want that at all.

There's a forum that I'm in, that uses the tag feature called

[lightbox]url[/lightbox]

That makes the image very smaller and all in same size as others.

Replying to #14

The full image is still downloaded. Makes no difference to the actual amount of data to download.

Replying to #15

Same deal for

[IMG] [/IMG]

?

Replying to #16

Yes, it does not create a thumbnail.

Replying to #17

Well that's silly >.<

not really, if it created a thumbnail it would have to download everything in a [img] tag, verify that it is actually an image and not something malicious and then create a thumbnail of it to be hosted locally. We could handle this just fine, but most users of SMF (the forum software) would die from the cost of doing this.

The thumbnails that imageshack provides for their users are generally low quality.