1. Home
  2. ⏣ General Metalworking
  3. Warehouse in a black town? Buerste?
  4. Page 6

Warehouse in a black town? Buerste?

Yes, you're doing something like that but you're not using a smaller pic to reference to the larger one in the link. You used the original LARGE pic and told the browser to scale the -view- down, leaving the entire image to be downloaded and translated, taking more time.

which is a 3,872x2592 pixel 4.7MB pic. Egad, no wonder they were taking so long.

Let's say that Athumb.jpg is an 800x600 pic, 67k in size and A.jpg is the bigass 4.7mb original. Use this code to display the decent sized picture with no translation and a reasonable download time. Click on the pic to get the bigass graphic to download.

-- Not merely an absence of noise, Real Silence begins when a reasonable being withdraws from the noise in order to find peace and order in his inner sanctuary. -- Peter Minard

Reply to
Larry Jaques
Loading thread data ...

He's making the mistake of using the 'Constrain' function. I've tried in vain to convince people not to, to the point that I don't bother with websites like that, or businesses that stupid.

Personally, I keep file names in lower case to make sure It doesn't end up like some websites I've had to clean up. Someone adds a new page or item, and edits a handful of pages. Sometimes they miss a page or

  1. Some are in lower case, some are in upper and some are mixed. If you are using windows based computers and servers it doesn't matter. Other servers are case sensitive, giving 404 errors. One website had hundreds of these mistakes. One way to eliminate that problem is to build the new code, then replace an entire block of code if you maintain a site by hand.

Also, I prefer using '-t' for thumbnails to keep the file names shorter and easier to read in columns when making sure everything is ready to upload.

This is for those who aren't familiar with writing HTML code.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

It is much worse if I do not constrain. Huge images do not display well. If you want to see the whole image, just click on it. Then the browser will scale it, and it is already in the cache, so it is fast.

i

Reply to
Ignoramus12065

That's probably a very good move. Methinks you're smarter than you look, Ig. ;)

Let us know how the auction ends, and follow it up later to see if the purchaser got his money's worth, eh?

-- Not merely an absence of noise, Real Silence begins when a reasonable being withdraws from the noise in order to find peace and order in his inner sanctuary. -- Peter Minard

Reply to
Larry Jaques

Not if people give up in disgust and close the web page. Open the damn images in Paint, GIMP or any other graphics manipulation program and reduce them to 10 or 25% of the original size, then save them as thumbnails. You're just being lazy and wasting a hell of a lot of bandwidth. You don't notice it on a local system, but it is damn annoying online. It's your choice, but a lot of people who might be interested in something, or be able to help will just stop looking at anything you post. I know that I have.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

But I already display thumbnails on the index page.

So, my logic is, you look at the index page, pick pictures you want, and then look at them in the picture page -- where it makes sense to display it full size.

You can always just look at the index page -- which is what I usually post -- and then pick one or two pictures if you really want to look at them.

i Who just got off the phone talking to a Google ad optimization specialist.

Reply to
Ignoramus12065

I will try to keep an eye on it.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus12065

Pete C.

Where is your property located?

I'm currently going thru a similiar thought process to consolidate my workshops into one single warehouse space. I've been weighing the purchase an existing structure versus putting up a manufactured (Morton) building on a vacant lot.

_kevin

Reply to
karchiba

Yawn. So, now you've sold your soul to Google?

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

They pay me for ads, not for soul.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus12065

That''s HOW they pay you for your soul.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Our logic is "Damnit, Iggy is giving us too small a picture to see what the hell it is on one hand and the only option is to click on it and wait to see five freakin' megs download." Our suggestion is to present larger pics to click through and having them link to their bigass partners, which we click only if we want to see the fine print on any of 'em. That would be the most user-friendly approach. (see Jakob Nielsen's book _Designing Web Usability_ for more info. I haven't read this one, but Steve Krug's book might be great, too. _Don't Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability_)

(See refutation of that above.)

I can damnear guarantee that a more user-friendly site would lead to more ad display pages, and make even more money for you, Ig. Invest!

-- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." --Edward Abbey

Reply to
Larry Jaques

Yup, I just couldn't figure out why the HELL you wanted to buy a building an HOUR away, with no tenant and then HOPE to find a decent tenant for the location. If it was closer, you could store some of your "stuff" in it. Just imagine a call on the weekend that the water heater blew up and you had to run out there (2 hour round trip) to clean up a big mess before it ate the drywall. This would get REAL OLD real quick.

If it had a tenant, or was close enough for you to use it for various purposes, it might have made more sense. I almost advised you to cut your bid in half and see what happened.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Elson

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.