Does "Inserted Images" in Trip Reports bother you ?

[Chip]

I really enjoy seeing peoples pics, even if they are unedited and unphotoshopped Point & Shoots, like mine. There are basically three ways to present pictures in a thread; 1) "Insert Image" so the pictures appear throughout the report along with the text, 2) "Insert Link" so that just the text appears and the reader can click on the appropriate links to view the individual pics linked in the report and 3) add a link to the entire slideshow at the end of the report. I suppose you could also do some combination.

A couple years ago there was some discussion of the "Insert Image" threads being basically unviewable by members with slow service. If you want an example of this, go to Paradox's "My dog's better than your dog" thread and see how long it takes a fast computer to load all the pics. I don't know if this is a problem for anyone. Occasionally, the inserted images are too large, which throws off the text, requiring the reader to scroll right and left to view everything (this is the one that bugs me). Finally I thought that Inserted Images occupied a lot more space on Darren's server, but I might be wrong there. That might be regarding uploaded images without their own host.

Anyway, what's the consensus on pictures in threads ?

 

[Billy]

I voted for just a few select photos inserted. A few good pictures sprinkled throughout accentuate the written word. If there are too many, then I would just prefer a link to the photo-sharing site; a link to the photo-sharing site has the added benefit of bringing me to the poster's pictures from other trips.

 

[DougPaul]

A couple years ago there was some discussion of the "Insert Image" threads being basically unviewable by members with slow service.

You can turn off automatic downloading of images, if need be. But, IIRC, it turns off all images, not just the big ones.

If you want an example of this, go to Paradox's "My dog's better than your dog" thread and see how long it takes a fast computer to load all the pics. I don't know if this is a problem for anyone.

This is more an issue of internet link speed than computer speed.

Occasionally, the inserted images are too large, which throws off the text, requiring the reader to scroll right and left to view everything (this is the one that bugs me).

I also find this annoying. It can be reduced/eliminated if posters keep the width of inline pics less than 600 to 800 pixels. (I sometimes widen my browser when reading such posts to reduce this problem.)

Finally I thought that Inserted Images occupied a lot more space on Darren's server, but I might be wrong there. That might be regarding uploaded images without their own host.

Attached images and files take up space on Darren's server, inline images only require the space for the link (the text between the img tags)--the data resides at the location specified in the url.

Doug

 

[Peakbagr]

However posters want to do it is fine with me.

Alan

 

[^MtnMike^]

I voted for just a few select photos inserted. A few good pictures sprinkled throughout accentuate the written word. If there are too many, then I would just prefer a link to the photo-sharing site; a link to the photo-sharing site has the added benefit of bringing me to the poster's pictures from other trips.

Ditto here.

Mike

 

[carole]

For me, personally, I don’t read too many trip reports these days and that’s where most pictures or links are (I think). If I have the time and look at a few reports it’s usually to see the pictures just as much as to read. But if I click on one that requires scrolling to read I stop right there. I have no interest in scrolling to see the picture or to read the report. I also think a few pictures are better than many. I also prefer to see several pictures than to click on several links. A link to the rest of the pictures is nice so one can choose whether they want to see more. But my personal gripe is clicking on a link to several pages of pictures and they’re not even labeled. If I’m going to look at the pictures I like some input of who or what I’m looking at. And I prefer a choice of pictures or slideshow rather than just a slideshow (which I just quit watching).

 

[arghman]

Pictures are great! But encourage users to insert small images (<320x240 perhaps), with links to larger versions of pictures elsewhere, for those interested.

 

[Head]

Love a visual ride!

 

[Hillwalker]

Slooow connection

The only internet access where I live is 26.6 k. I rarely if ever open pictures even though family and friends continue to send them.

Farepoint says that it will be years before the lines up here on the mountain are upgraded to higher speeds. Cable will never make its way up here, and I'm in a terrain shadow that blocks skyview for satellite service.

When I posted the 270 pictures from my 300 mile Northwest Scotland backpack this past May I had to go to the local library to get them uploaded. Still took three hours. Post away, y'all. Some of us just can't see them.

http://community.webshots.com/user/nh_hillwalker

 

[Paradox]

You can also look at it from the standpoint of the purpose of the post -- if the goal is to tell a story (for instance, a trip report), according to a professor (Edward Tufte of Yale University) of information design, the school of thought on this to aid comprehension is to keep information "adjacent in time and place."

I concur.

 

[DiamondRidge]

I love seeing the images right in line with the text describing the trip. It adds dimension to the report.

 

[Chip]

You can turn off automatic downloading of images, if need be. But, IIRC, it turns off all images, not just the big ones.


This is more an issue of internet link speed than computer speed.


I also find this annoying. It can be reduced/eliminated if posters keep the width of inline pics less than 600 to 800 pixels. (I sometimes widen my browser when reading such posts to reduce this problem.)


Attached images and files take up space on Darren's server, inline images only require the space for the link (the text between the img tags)--the data resides at the location specified in the url.

Doug

Good suggestions, Doug. PS: Yeah, I generically lumped the issue of internet link speed and computer speed together when referring to a slow computer. I'm sure it has more to do with the ISP.

Sooo....With apologies to those few who still have painfully slow service, it looks like the consensus is for, at least a considered selection of, Inserted Images in the report along with the text...as long as they're NOT oversized causing the right and left scroll to read/view. thanks for the input.

Now I need to get outside a little more often so I have something to report on.

 

[WhiteMTHike]

I say keep the pics coming. This is a hiking board, so what's better than looking at trip report pics?

Keep 'em coming.

 

[LRiz]

A picture is worth a thousand words. The more the better.

 

[RoySwkr]

I didn't vote as none of the answers really apply to me.

You can turn off automatic downloading of images, if need be. But, IIRC, it turns off all images, not just the big ones.

Yup, that's the setting in my profile. I can either click on them or not log in if I want to see them.

But my personal gripe is clicking on a link to several pages of pictures and they’re not even labeled. If I’m going to look at the pictures I like some input of who or what I’m looking at.

Yup, that's one advantage of putting them inline. Another is not having to join an increasing number to sites to see them, which I don't bother with.

 

[Little Rickie]

A trip report without pictures is like food without salt & spices. It's still good but it's better with then.