Gallery vs Pictures Section

[Sophie 24,398]

At least with the gallery, the main contributors were into things that didn't interest me that much, at least photo wise. I loved doing them. Steve for example, HUGE fan of naughty peeing, so would post a lot of photos of people peeing on carpets etc. That's great, lots of people enjoy it, I enjoy doing it, but photo wise it doesn't really interest me.

As for the pictures section I'm not too sure, looking back at the section there are plenty of threads that interest me, but the content itself doesn't do much for me. I think it's down to my particular likes again. For example just looked at the "using a toilet or a urinal " topic, something that I look at tumblr for often. Most of the photos are of women standing up, posed photos etc. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just picky. I prefer candid, "innocent", relatable photos. That's what the contributors like so that's what they share.

I also find tumblr blogs load much faster than a page of photos, probably because they're not the full size image, I have to click them to get that.

[Admin 14,788]

1 hour ago, Sophie said:

At least with the gallery, the main contributors were into things that didn't interest me that much, at least photo wise. I loved doing them. Steve for example, HUGE fan of naughty peeing, so would post a lot of photos of people peeing on carpets etc. That's great, lots of people enjoy it, I enjoy doing it, but photo wise it doesn't really interest me.

As for the pictures section I'm not too sure, looking back at the section there are plenty of threads that interest me, but the content itself doesn't do much for me. I think it's down to my particular likes again. For example just looked at the "using a toilet or a urinal " topic, something that I look at tumblr for often. Most of the photos are of women standing up, posed photos etc. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just picky. I prefer candid, "innocent", relatable photos. That's what the contributors like so that's what they share.

I also find tumblr blogs load much faster than a page of photos, probably because they're not the full size image, I have to click them to get that.

I've reduced the size of the image that will load in the thread. This won't apply to previous images, but all new images. You'll now have to click to get full size. I don't know how much this will help with speed as some pages have lots of images on (they may be a little slow but will be worth it once loaded), but I feel for viewing them we don't actually want full size in the post. They should still be a reasonable size, but clicking will give a bigger version (with the option to view absolute full size too if preferred).

As for the Pictures section, is it specifically toilet pictures you like best? With candid, un-posed photos? I think the very simple solution there is for us to create a new thread. I have no doubt if you make one detailing what sort of thing you like, we can get it filled with the type of content you like. :)

[Admin 14,788]

To all regular picture posters - 

What are your thoughts on the pictures in the posts now being smaller?

When posting several pictures in a post I think it looks far tidier, and you can still view the full image by clicking on it.

( @steve25805, @zzyzx52, @Abdulapple, @b2939 @Ozabot to name a few, but please everyone have your say)

[Abdulapple 42,884]

3 hours ago, Admin said:

To all regular picture posters - 

What are your thoughts on the pictures in the posts now being smaller?

When posting several pictures in a post I think it looks far tidier, and you can still view the full image by clicking on it.

( @steve25805, @zzyzx52, @Abdulapple, @b2939 @Ozabot to name a few, but please everyone have your say)

I have no problem with the pictures been smaller

[zzyzx52 59,110]

I have no problem with the pictures been smaller

[will64 6,328]

i do not mind pictures been smaller it makes it look tidy and i like it 

[Ozabot 63,205]

I like that after some experiments we came to almost classical design for pictures in the posts - thumbnail=>click=>fullsize image.

Thumbnail size seems to be optimal for good preview. And next step for vertical pics is to place two of them in a row to decrease scrolling

[Admin 14,788]

26 minutes ago, Ozabot said:

I like that after some experiments we came to almost classical design for pictures in the posts - thumbnail=>click=>fullsize image.

Thumbnail size seems to be optimal for good preview. And next step for vertical pics is to place two of them in a row to decrease scrolling

This can already be done, but when uploading, users need to press the 'insert into post' button to get it to display on one line. Looks much better that way I think. Here's an example:

 

[Ozabot 63,205]

19 minutes ago, Admin said:

This can already be done, but when uploading, users need to press the 'insert into post' button to get it to display on one line. Looks much better that way I think. Here's an example:

 

Yes, it works fine, even tree in a row. Thanks a lot

[likesToLick 10,216]

On 23/07/2017 at 10:23 PM, Admin said:

To all regular picture posters - 

@steve25805What are your thoughts on the pictures in the posts now being smaller?@zzyzx52@Abdulapple@b2939@Ozabot

I like it.   The threads seem to load much more quickly, and it is easy to click on the pictures I like best, in order to see them in full size. 

[Admin 14,788]

Yes, consensus seems positive for the way the pictures display now. The fact the Picture section is now neater is probably another mark against the argument of having an additional gallery. 

The poll seems pretty split, but hard to say with such a small sample size. Would be keen to know what everyone thinks on the gallery and whether it should be kept. 

Having said all that, the introduction of clubs utilises the gallery somewhat if club leaders opt to have images within their club, so maybe we keep thing as they are a little longer?

I only continue to ask all these questions because I feel it's best to go with what the majority are thinking when making these sort of decisions, as I really don't know or have much of a preference.