The trouble with CactiGuide.com

GermanStar · Post by **GermanStar** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:15 pm

One problem I have with this otherwise stellar forum, is the severe constraints upon image size, and corresponding poor image quality imposed by the forum software.

At a minimum, pic size should be 900x600, 1200x800 would be better. My desktop is 1680x1050, probably about average these days. And even when I do upload a small image or link a larger one, the pic is often blurred beyond recognition.

Fact is this site is frequently employed to resolve ID issues, and pic quality can be critical in relaying important details.

Anyways, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it! Keep up the good work.

charlpic · Post by **charlpic** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:22 pm

I do understand your problem GermanStar. But, due to my education, I also understand Daiv's problem. Better resolution means more hard drive space. In the web hosting world, more hard drive space means money.

There is so much sites providing hosting and resolution you are asking for (photobucket, flick, picasa, ...) that it wouldn't make sense to me that cactiguide.com would pay for more HD space.

In clear... link it ! And if the comment is addressed to people that can't make it into create an account somewhere else, I'd say it would be even deadlier for the forum to accept bigger resolution. Imagine those 12 pictures ID requests @ 15-20 Mb each...

That said, I understand the comment. The forum might need a way to "educate" people who posts pictures before they do, which is not easy.

GermanStar · Post by **GermanStar** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:41 am

Well, my "education" suggests there is no such thing as a 1200x800 20Mb .JPG.

Harriet · Post by **Harriet** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:12 am

Beware the blanket generalization. I just created a 23MB 1200x800 JPG. With a little manipulation it could easily be less than 20 MB. You wouldn't want it, it looks awful, but it can be done.

Bottom line is that there is no way to make everyone happy so you go with the most economical solution. And no amount of tweeking is going to make a bad picture any better for identification - Garbage In Garbage Out.

GermanStar · Post by **GermanStar** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:18 am

OK, I suppose you could if you really tried. Most of my Web-quality 1200x800 photos are around 100K. 900x600, which would also represent a marked improvement, closer to 50K. When I link photos like that from off-site, forum software still fuzzes 'em up.

charlpic · Post by **charlpic** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:33 am

GermanStar wrote:Well, my "education" suggests there is no such thing as a 1200x800 20Mb .JPG.

You're right. But, that's not really what I was talking about though... I was talking about hi-res pictures without size limitations. I agree you never refered to this... I just cut a part of my previous message that did before posting it.

It's just that, often, 1200x800 pics won't make you being able to identify a plant from a bad cellphone picture taken at 3 inches from the plant more than a 600*whatever picture.

If you want to make wallpapers for your 1680x1050 desktop, that's another thing. I was more talking about using tools the web is offering you.

GermanStar · Post by **GermanStar** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:45 am

No, I just think it would be nice to be able to upload Web-quality 900x600 JPGs without forum software reducing resolution by close to 50%. 900x600 max pic size is pretty standard in the forum world these days, with disk space now so inexpensive. One of the three forums I administer even allows 1200x800. In any case, just making a suggestion, not attempting to incite a riot. I just like clear photos. Guess I'm funny that way.

charlpic · Post by **charlpic** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:15 am

I confess I did not make my first post clear enough. An upgrade to 1200*800 would be great. In fact, I never upload any picture directly to the forum because it does reduce quality a lot. I always link pictures because of that.

If had think a little bit more before posting... my post would have ended up like Harriet said: "Garbage in, garbage out." My bad.

Dmyerswny · Post by **Dmyerswny** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:26 am

I always thought the pictures were fine here myself. They seem to always look vibrant and beautiful to me. I even like that they're small because my phone can load them a hell of a lot faster. My only qualm with the guide is that I can't stop buying cacti now.

Post by **daiv** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:51 am

GermanStar wrote: not attempting to incite a riot.

That made me laugh!

I hear what you're saying. There are several things at play here:

1. Images on the guide - not on the forum. I thought of going with an 800 x 600 picture, but I like consistency and the idea of resizing and loading 8000 pictures is not too appealing to me. I also find the 600 x 450 picture size through the guide to be large enough to see on most screens while being unattractive to those who like to thieve images. I hate watermarks (even though I understand their purpose) and so this is an alternate defense. That said, large images are available on request to anyone seeking ID help.

2. Forum images hosted on CactiGuide.com. These are small primarily to keep the cost of disc space and bandwidth down.

3. Images hosted elsewhere, but displayed on the forum within the post. The idea here is to keep the forum pages orderly. In posts with lots of images the page could get a bit unruly, but this could be reviewed. Note that all you have to do is click the image and it will pop-up the full-size version.

Now hosting on Cactus-Mall is part of the reason there is this limitation. I find it advantageous to be part of Cactus-Mall and the "up-time" and server speed has proven to be pretty good. Yet the disc space is much smaller than other shared hosting plans.

I also intend to keep this site ad-free indefinitely.

So there are the nuts and bolts behind it.

Arjen · Post by **Arjen** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:19 am

I have another suggestion to decrease the size of a picture and still have it at a nice resolution:
there is software availabe (i.e. iredsoft image resizer) that gives the option to lower the dpi, which you don't really need on a computer monitor. makes a dramatic difference!

Gnostic · Post by **Gnostic** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:24 am

Dmyerswny wrote: My only qualm with the guide is that I can't stop buying cacti now.

This made me laugh because I have the same problem. Every time I log on I end up adding at least ten more cacti to my wish list.

SO MANY CACTI, SO LITTLE GARDEN SPACE!!!

Harriet · Post by **Harriet** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:29 pm

Gnostic wrote:
Dmyerswny wrote: My only qualm with the guide is that I can't stop buying cacti now.
This made me laugh because I have the same problem. Every time I log on I end up adding at least ten more cacti to my wish list.

SO MANY CACTI, SO LITTLE GARDEN SPACE!!!

Absolutely! Picture quality makes no difference, the slightest whiff of a cool plant I'm off to the cactus or succulent store!

Post by **daiv** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:49 am

By the way, I remembered that the later added Pests and Disease page I moved to an 800 x 600 picture size. FWIW....

promethean_spark · Post by **promethean_spark** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:44 am

People using mobile devices would have trouble viewing such large pictures...

It's impossible to make everyone happy.