pic thread image limit request discussion [split]

[Bagheera]

Split from the pic thread HERE.

Remember that even with spoiler tags every viewer still has to download each and every pic here in it's entirity, and that can get ridiculous in a hurry when some people are posing 30 or so pics per post.

Isn't that up to the users, though? Those big pic dumps tend to be the most popular ones, and I know I appreciate it when people go to the effort of posting pics they like rather than just posting links to other galleries. This is especially true if the pics are part of a set. It's true that downloading all of that can be a pain, but this is a pic thread -- if we truly cared about that we wouldn't be here (which is why I avoid the Moonwalk thread -- too much bandwidth for my systems, and I don't care enough to bother).

My opinions aside I think this is a matter in need of a discussion rather than something that should be decided by fiat.

[TMBounty_Hunter]

Thing with sending people to galleries is assuming everyone has a pixiv account.

Linking to the artist/source is just giving proper credit (although my laziness doesn't ensure that all the time).

[NemZ]

Isn't that up to the users, though?

Frankly, no, it's not. This thread gets special treatment because of it's unique nature, but that also means it needs special limitations to keep it in check. At present the amount of bandwidth this thread draws on average per page is unacceptable and that's specifically because of the number and size of the images being posted. We can either limit the size or the number, and per our previous discussions on the matter I prefer the latter.

The big dumps almost always have several pics that are clearly subpar and would not be especially missed if just left out.

Posting a few examples that a user finds best along with a link is a good practice. It gives people an idea of what to expect without a pic flood, directs traffic to a site that is presumably better equipped for that sort of traffic, and in the case of personal galleries it's a way to give proper credit to the artist.

Posting a reasonably sized image set is welcome. Posting an entire set AND a bunch of other unrelated stuff is overkill.

Besides, if someone really thinks all these images deserve to be posted in full is it such a hassle to space them out over a few posts rather than all at once? That change of pace coupled with the forum's 20 posts per page limit could improve things quite a bit without much of a sacrifice.

It's true that downloading all of that can be a pain, but this is a pic thread -- if we truly cared about that we wouldn't be here (which is why I avoid the Moonwalk thread -- too much bandwidth for my systems, and I don't care enough to bother).

Yes, but turn that reasoning around; If we lower the barriers to entry by easing the bandwidth the thread draws per page it serves to allow more people to enjoy these works who might otherwise be missing out.

[Bagheera]

Yes, but turn that reasoning around; If we lower the barriers to entry by easing the bandwidth the thread draws per page it serves to allow more people to enjoy these works who might otherwise be missing out.

But is anyone actually missing out? This is the first I've heard of this problem, so why is it an issue now when it didn't appear to be before?

[NemZ]

You just said the same sort of issue affects you elsewhere, but you accept it here. Wouldn't you agree it is reasonable to expect there might be people who feel the reverse, or who avoid both? It's been specifically bugging me for a while now and I'm not the only staff member who sees it as an issue.

What I'm asking for doesn't really keep the pics away from you man, it just means you might occasionally need to make one extra step. I actually expect most of these pics will still get posted, just spread out over more posts/pages.

[Bagheera]

You just said the same sort of issue affects you elsewhere, but you accept it here. Wouldn't you agree it is reasonable to expect there might be people who feel the reverse, or who avoid both? It's been specifically bugging me for a while now and I'm not the only staff member who sees it as an issue.

Well, if that's so then it is. For my part, the issue with the moonwalk thread is the animated gifs/vids, which don't show up here. That thread tends to break my browser, whereas this one doesn't.

[NemZ]

That's a legit issue as well, but I don't have a good answer for you and it's outside my 'domain'. Maybe you should PM Xard about it and see if you can come up with a solution?

[CJD]

At present the amount of bandwidth this thread draws on average per page is unacceptable and that's specifically because of the number and size of the images being posted. We can either limit the size or the number, and per our previous discussions on the matter I prefer the latter.

Wait what? Isn't the point of embedding images that the majority of the stress is offloaded to the imagehost instead of the forums itself? I'm sorry, but by what metric are you saying "The amount of bandwidth this thread draws on average per page is unacceptable." Is EGF having bandwidth problems here? Is that what's going on? If that's the case I'd like more information. If, on the other hand, you're just trying to limit the amount of bandwidth these pages consume on the users end, I'm sorry but I am very much opposed to the idea of imposing new restrictions on how members post images here. It's 2013, the vast majority of us have internet capable of handling a couple dozen images simultaneously downloading. I'm not ignorant to the plight of people with shitty internet, god knows I remember what it was like back in the dial up days, but the are those people really such a substantial portion of the user base that the rest of us should have to take a hit because of that when they could just as easily a) not load the thread or b) deal with a bit of lag when the open new pages?

And it's not like anyone should be concerned with bandwidth caps being triggered by these images. I don't have the numbers but I'd wager watching a standard length HD movie on Netflix consumes more bandwidth than the entire 100 pages of a pic thread combined.

The big dumps almost always have several pics that are clearly subpar and would not be especially missed if just left out.

That's an awfully subjective metric. Take for example that image of Asuka scowling coL posted a few days back. From what I saw quite a few people liked it, and yet I disliked it. In my opinion that image was "subpar" and would "not be especially missed," I would never have posted it. If me and coL had switched places and I had seen it instead of her, then that image would never have been posted and all those people who voiced approval for it would have been deprived the chance to see it.

Yes, but turn that reasoning around; If we lower the barriers to entry by easing the bandwidth the thread draws per page it serves to allow more people to enjoy these works who might otherwise be missing out.

I'm greatly curious the number of people out there who are getting headaches from their internet due to the amount of bandwidth being used by this thread.

[TMBounty_Hunter]

I'm actually kinda curious as to what exactly the forum itself does to the images (other than the recetly introduced max width and thumbnailing) because I've noticed that when a post has "quite a few" images the Preview function fails and the Submit takes a loooooooooong time.

[NemZ]

@TMBounty_Hunter: I have no idea. That would be a question to direct to Ornette or Mr. Tines, who do most of the code monkey work around here.

limit the amount of bandwidth these pages consume on the users end

This is the reason, yes. Good for you that your internet connection is modern and reliable, but that isn't the case everywhere.

Solutions that amount to "tough shit for the plebs" will not be entertained.

That's an awfully subjective metric.

Which is why I'm just suggesting posters have a little more judgment in deciding what to post rather than making explicit rules on the subject.

[CJD]

Solutions that amount to "tough shit for the plebs" will not be entertained.

But "solutions" that amount to "tough shit for non plebs" will be? Sorry, what grand problem are people with bad internet suffering? I seriously hope you're not going to imply that this thread is a substantial contributor to their bandwidth cap, so the I'm guessing we're talking about slow loading times? Is it seriously being suggested that a policy change be enacted because a few unfortunate members have to spend an extra ~minute loading the page?

[NemZ]

Is it seriously being suggested that a policy change be enacted because a few unfortunate members have to spend an extra ~minute loading the page?

It's not a policy change, it's a request. That's why I'm not using "mod voice". Even if it was a rule it wouldn't really affect most of you at all, and a few individuals with a special exuberance for pic dumping might have to space things out or just offer a link rather dumping everything, which actually requires less effort on the poster's part.

If you read the rules on pics in general this thread actually shouldn't exist in the first place. It is an exception to some general rules, but it comes with new ones particular to it's unique nature that you're just going to have to deal with. And this isn't even officially one of them, so why the drama? Chill.

[Ornette]

I'm greatly curious the number of people out there who are getting headaches from their internet due to the amount of bandwidth being used by this thread.

Anyone who has an ISP that does bandwidth caps, for example. I know Faz's ISP in Australia caps bandwidth, and if the cap is reached, everything slows to a crawl. Some Canadian ISPs are well known for their bandwidth capping.

I'm actually kinda curious as to what exactly the forum itself does to the images (other than the recetly introduced max width and thumbnailing) because I've noticed that when a post has "quite a few" images the Preview function fails and the Submit takes a loooooooooong time.

The forum doesn't do anything to the actual images, it just collects metadata, like the image size and dimensions. Unfortunately, in order to do that, the entire image has to be loaded, and processed on the fly. The bandwidth itself isn't really an issue, I don't think we're close to any dreamhost caps, it's just the processing done ups the CPU usage. When we get close to the CPU cap, an automated process starts killing our processes to free up the load. Ever try to make a post with images and you end up with some 500 error or some other cryptic non-forum based error? Dreamhost killed our forum PHP process because it was using more than our allotted share of server load. Ever just happen to be browsing the forum and you get a random 500 server error or some other cryptic non-forum based error? Dreamhost killed the forum PHP process that was handling your request because some other process was using too much CPU. Searches usually take the most CPU, those are limited to searching for a user's posts and that doesn't happen that often. The next most is probably large image dumps. On a good day, it's business as usual and everything's fine. During times that the forum/wiki/new page gets loaded, uploading a post with dozens of very large images is going to have a more noticeable effect.

[tzigi]

For me the problem with image threads is that they devour my free internet access when I'm using my mobile phone as a modem. I've got only 1GB a month and those threads are great when it comes to spending it in no time.

Perhaps a good solution would be to include only small previews of each picture and turn each one of those previews could be turned into a clickable hotlink to a full-view? An app to resize automatically any given picture isn't that hard to code and it would be a great help to all those who happen to have limited bandwidth.

[pwhodges]

Dreamhost killed the forum PHP process that was handling your request because some other process was using too much CPU.

So I guess Dreamhost doesn't give you a VM for the forum? If they did, they could limit the cpu without interfering with individual processes, which would be cleaner. (Or perhaps they offer VMs but they cost more?)

[Ornette]

We're on a shared hosting plan. I don't have any say in the plan that we use.

[CJD]

It's not a policy change, it's a request. That's why I'm not using "mod voice".

You need to understand that when you say things like

Frankly, no, it's not. This thread gets special treatment because of it's unique nature, but that also means it needs special limitations to keep it in check. At present the amount of bandwidth this thread draws on average per page is unacceptable and that's specifically because of the number and size of the images being posted. We can either limit the size or the number, and per our previous discussions on the matter I prefer the latter.

It comes across as "Heed this request... or else." You're stating that there's a problem that needs to be fixed, and you're throwing it out there to the users to fix it on their own. The inference is that if they don't, then mods will intervene to force the fix by enacting a policy change.

Anyone who has an ISP that does bandwidth caps, for example. I know Faz's ISP in Australia caps bandwidth, and if the cap is reached, everything slows to a crawl. Some Canadian ISPs are well known for their bandwidth capping.

Obviously people with bandwidth caps need to watch their internet, but my point was that the pic thread shouldn't be the cause of people's headaches, and if it is removing the pic thread from their browsing habits likely won't help much, there's probably something way bigger consuming your bandwidth, Youtube videos or Netflix or something. Page 32 of the thread, a page where Kendrix made a massive contribution, was itself only 100mbs. A huge number for nothing but pictures I admit, but most pages don't have near that many pictures.

The bandwidth itself isn't really an issue, I don't think we're close to any dreamhost caps, it's just the processing done ups the CPU usage. When we get close to the CPU cap, an automated process starts killing our processes to free up the load. Ever try to make a post with images and you end up with some 500 error or some other cryptic non-forum based error? Dreamhost killed our forum PHP process because it was using more than our allotted share of server load. Ever just happen to be browsing the forum and you get a random 500 server error or some other cryptic non-forum based error? Dreamhost killed the forum PHP process that was handling your request because some other process was using too much CPU. Searches usually take the most CPU, those are limited to searching for a user's posts and that doesn't happen that often. The next most is probably large image dumps. On a good day, it's business as usual and everything's fine. During times that the forum/wiki/new page gets loaded, uploading a post with dozens of very large images is going to have a more noticeable effect.

See, now that's the kind of information I was looking for. If the pic thread is causing problems with the forum itself then that's a legitimate problem, and one that affects everyone.

[Bagheera]

Obviously people with bandwidth caps need to watch their internet, but my point was that the pic thread shouldn't be the cause of people's headaches, and if it is removing the pic thread from their browsing habits likely won't help much, there's probably something way bigger consuming your bandwidth, Youtube videos or Netflix or something. Page 32 of the thread, a page where Kendrix made a massive contribution, was itself only 100mbs. A huge number for nothing but pictures I admit, but most pages don't have near that many pictures.

Also, the suggested changes involve spreading pics out over multiple posts and including links to galleries on other sites, so I don't see how that will reduce bandwidth consumption. People with bandwidth caps will still be consuming the same amount of material in the end so it sounds like a wash to me.

[NemZ]

Actually no, it's not. Depending on how frequently such people decide to check on the thread and thus have to load the whole page over and over again it could make a noticeable difference. Using links also adds an extra layer of granularity for individual users to make their own decisions on how much content they want to view.

It comes across as "Heed this request... or else." You're stating that there's a problem that needs to be fixed, and you're throwing it out there to the users to fix it on their own. The inference is that if they don't, then mods will intervene to force the fix by enacting a policy change.

Look man, I'm really trying to handle this issue the easiest way I can think of. If people voluntarily comply then the occational person who slips up and doesn't isn't that big of a deal and no actual rules (and thus, punishments) need to be enforced. I don't particularly like having to call people out with the modvoice or have people get temp banned for minor things like this. Avoiding going that route is really in everyone's best interest, don't you think?

[Bagheera]

But shouldn't images be cached after the first viewing?

Also, if they click through a link won't that take them to the same number or more pictures? Seems to me the thing to do if one is close to a cap is to not visit an image thread, not to impose constraints on that thread that may or may not amount to much in the end.

Have any users actually complained about this?