Are big pictures in threads annoying? Vote yes and get a free half bottle of beer. S&H only $99.

Yep, you need to reduce your images before inserting them in BLF, the BLF editor will do nothing about the size, if your picture was full res. it will load the full res., it will just display it differently. For example, look at this cute little pic :smiling_imp: , then right-click it and open in a new window :

lol I thought it was a 17 man crew at the Best Buy geek squad counter who were 3rd party contracted to make all the images display smaller.

Seriously, who knew that it was naked little elves squeezing down pictures making BLF such a great place this whole time

Too small pictures are even more annoying.

You know, Iā€™m pretty sure I got stuck on a blind date with her once, back in the day. Iā€™ll never forget that laugh.

PTSD is real!

30% size using !IMAGE URL!


[/quote]

You dated AOC? :person_facepalming:

Yes images should fit the page.

You can just hover over thumbnails and links with this greasemonkey script

The C01 is looking wellworn :+1:

For the Advanced Post Editor crowd the fit to width option is not available, but of course it is easy to use a standard maximum moderate width. I usually select around 640 pixels, maybe a little bit more. 540 pixels ensures an always fit in my experience.

I believe one can always use the Simple Post Editor to insert the image with the size limit set, then switch to the Advance Post Editor. Doing that will result in the need to edit what has been typed already as some formatting is removed with the change.

You can set image size in the advanced editor too, but in a bit weird way: instead of setting width to a certain amount of pixels, instead fill in a percentage in the width field, i.e ā€œ70%ā€ , then empty the height field.

Good to know. :+1:

Yes! Very nice, djozz.

I rarely notice long load times, but layout-breaking pics are a thing. Use max-width.

So if I upload a large pic to imgur and copy and paste the link in blf using the insert image option then click on relative width and set to 50% does blf have to resize the image ever time itā€™s viewed and the page loads slow?
This is how I do it to make sure the image doesnā€™t take up the whole page. If itā€™s slowing down browsing for some members Iā€™ll resize the image in imgur first before linking.

I vote yes, so whereā€™s my free beer?

Most people wonā€™t because their DSL, cable, whatever is fast enough. But when on cell data those big files gobble data unnecessarily. Sometimes when I can see the images ā€œpaintedā€ line by line I could scream.

The beer is free. $14.99 prepaid for shipping and handling. :money_mouth_face: ā€¦ā€¦ :confounded:

I donā€™t know about others, the issue I have is the size in the thread. What set this off was a seller posted these enormous pictures that I kept scrolling and scrollingā€¦.then hit these tiny posts.

If people put ā€œ100ā€ then itā€™s post width and that should be fine. For meā€¦but others may have data and speed issues on their phones.

I knew there was a catch regarding the free beerā˜¹ļø

So, when using that relative width dialog, youā€™ll get something like:

!https://i.imgur.com/3rZNm2r.jpg!:https://i.imgur.com/3rZNm2r.jpg

But if you just want to make sure it doesnā€™t break the layout, change it to:

!{max-width: 100%}https://i.imgur.com/3rZNm2r.jpg!:https://i.imgur.com/3rZNm2r.jpg

Yup.

Iā€™m no programmer but it appears that 100% represents 100% of the normal post box width. Big or small.

Here is an example of a pic that is very small but is full post box widthā€¦.13.8 kb.

Same size imageā€¦.different percentages.

100%

50%

25%

5%

The important distinction is that max-width wonā€™t stretch the image if the screen is large, while width will.

Iā€™m not sure what you are saying.

See my example above. Choosing the width controls how much of the posting box it fills, no matter what the actual picture size.