The problem with high res images (long post)
So on this site we prefer the highest-resolution image available for a given image, and in fact lower-res dupes are deleted.
However...I've noticed that when I do post a really high-resolution upload it usually doesn't get that many upvotes as I think it should.
In fact when the occasion arises when two of the same image are uploaded around the same time...but one is like 900x1200 and one is 3375x4500 it seems to me the smaller one usually will get more upvotes than the mega-large one. I see this sort of thing all the time because I usually keep my eye out for duplicate images.
So why are the small ones preferred? I don't think it has to do with connection speed...most people in the world have a decently fast internet nowadays to the point where downloading a 3 to 5MB image isn't too much of an issue. I think it's because viewing really huge images (usually tagged "absurdres") is simply difficult with the current UI. I mean if you just go search "absurdres" right now you will probably only be able to see the top-left corner of most of those images, and you have to pan around using the scroll bars to see the rest...not exactly ideal.
Now when WEBMs were added to the site I remember there was a huge outcry. People are not used to seeing a video that is LARGER than their screen, so the comments sections of large 1920x1080 videos were filled with people griping "it's TOO BIG! ARGH!" (that's what she said). Anyways, to remedy this I simply used Stylish to constrict the maximum width of the video so it would fit on my screen, but after a while I noticed that a similar CSS was baked into the site so that all WEBM videos are a maximum of 1000px wide. This makes it so they fit on the screens of most people and so those angry comments stopped.
So my proposal is that perhaps similar code could be added to still images so that extremely large ones can be shrunk down to fit on people's screens and thus make the viewing experience more enjoyable. Perhaps make it a toggle someone in the user's profile? And I know normally the policy is "we can't change the site AND DON'T ASK!" but here, like I said, I noticed the same type of code being added to WEBMs. So there is a precedence.
Now this is the part where most people are probably thinking "wow, what a noob, we ALREADY HAVE THAT! It's called the sample size! Go back to school!" Well I don't like the sample size...for one thing it is literally a sample size, so what you're viewing is not the original image and thus it's not as high-quality. It just seems weird to me that we're simultaneously striving for the HIGHEST QUALITY images, but then you say "oh, but if you want to actually look at that extremely high-quality image fit onto your screen...here's a lower-quality dupe to look at." Would be much better to do what they did with WEBMs and simply scale the original rather than to create a smaller dupe.
Additonally the sample size option is really clunky to turn on/off and occasionally there will even be threads on here asking how to toggle it back on, as it is difficult for a layman to turn back on once it's been turned off. I'm just guessing most people have it turned off though.
But I'm not saying to get rid of the sample size option. I understand that it saves bandwidth, which is important to some people, I'm just saying for most people it's probably not an issue, and thus all we really need is the original, but scaled down a bit.
So that's my proposal to make the site a bit better. Tell me what you guys think of it...thanks.
However...I've noticed that when I do post a really high-resolution upload it usually doesn't get that many upvotes as I think it should.
In fact when the occasion arises when two of the same image are uploaded around the same time...but one is like 900x1200 and one is 3375x4500 it seems to me the smaller one usually will get more upvotes than the mega-large one. I see this sort of thing all the time because I usually keep my eye out for duplicate images.
So why are the small ones preferred? I don't think it has to do with connection speed...most people in the world have a decently fast internet nowadays to the point where downloading a 3 to 5MB image isn't too much of an issue. I think it's because viewing really huge images (usually tagged "absurdres") is simply difficult with the current UI. I mean if you just go search "absurdres" right now you will probably only be able to see the top-left corner of most of those images, and you have to pan around using the scroll bars to see the rest...not exactly ideal.
Now when WEBMs were added to the site I remember there was a huge outcry. People are not used to seeing a video that is LARGER than their screen, so the comments sections of large 1920x1080 videos were filled with people griping "it's TOO BIG! ARGH!" (that's what she said). Anyways, to remedy this I simply used Stylish to constrict the maximum width of the video so it would fit on my screen, but after a while I noticed that a similar CSS was baked into the site so that all WEBM videos are a maximum of 1000px wide. This makes it so they fit on the screens of most people and so those angry comments stopped.
So my proposal is that perhaps similar code could be added to still images so that extremely large ones can be shrunk down to fit on people's screens and thus make the viewing experience more enjoyable. Perhaps make it a toggle someone in the user's profile? And I know normally the policy is "we can't change the site AND DON'T ASK!" but here, like I said, I noticed the same type of code being added to WEBMs. So there is a precedence.
Now this is the part where most people are probably thinking "wow, what a noob, we ALREADY HAVE THAT! It's called the sample size! Go back to school!" Well I don't like the sample size...for one thing it is literally a sample size, so what you're viewing is not the original image and thus it's not as high-quality. It just seems weird to me that we're simultaneously striving for the HIGHEST QUALITY images, but then you say "oh, but if you want to actually look at that extremely high-quality image fit onto your screen...here's a lower-quality dupe to look at." Would be much better to do what they did with WEBMs and simply scale the original rather than to create a smaller dupe.
Additonally the sample size option is really clunky to turn on/off and occasionally there will even be threads on here asking how to toggle it back on, as it is difficult for a layman to turn back on once it's been turned off. I'm just guessing most people have it turned off though.
But I'm not saying to get rid of the sample size option. I understand that it saves bandwidth, which is important to some people, I'm just saying for most people it's probably not an issue, and thus all we really need is the original, but scaled down a bit.
So that's my proposal to make the site a bit better. Tell me what you guys think of it...thanks.
