SJ77 Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I understand that IPB can't produce software to assist every niche site owners dreams, but shouldn't it be well equipped to handle the needs of those who run image boards? I wouldn't think that's a small niche. I really wish that this is what was in the ACP, but it's NOT there (see screen shot) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ77 Posted March 28, 2015 Author Share Posted March 28, 2015 instead of the above, this is what I see (for those that don't yet have IPB 4) .. This is NOT enough control for large image posting websites. We need thumbnails and re-sampled full size images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ77 Posted March 28, 2015 Author Share Posted March 28, 2015 Clear question for the software dev team: I have many pages in my forum with over 200 images on a single page. How am I supposed to control bandwidth without image re-sampling AND proper thumbnails? Current options: A: I make the image size small (100 x 75) so thumbnails are made. 2KB per thumbnail. Then everyone enlarges thumbnails and site delivers FULL SIZE not re-sampled image. Sometimes over 1MB each!! (bandwidth dies, not good)B: I can make large images (1000 x 750) 70KB each. Most people won't click for full size however every page loads 200+ 70KB images. (bandwidth dies, and page doesn't load. not good) As you can see there are NO GOOD options for people with large image board sites. IPB is completely unable to operate for those kinds of sites. .. what can I do here ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DKiwi Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Totally agree with topic starter. I run a 3D / CG forum and we have lots of image attachments. I need total control over things and from what I can see here with IPB 4 there's less control than there is with version 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplymesobe5280 Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I also agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adlago Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 A:... B:...You tried all images to be loaded from not cookie-free domain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ77 Posted March 28, 2015 Author Share Posted March 28, 2015 You tried all images to be loaded from not-cookies free domain?What? I don't understand your question. These are images I have on my site already. I have a site with over 100K images uploaded to the forums. I need a good way to deliver this to my traffic without destroying my bandwidth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adlago Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 These images will be where you uploaded them. If you use this method / cookie free domain / your images will load faster in your pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ77 Posted March 28, 2015 Author Share Posted March 28, 2015 These images will be where you uploaded them. If you use this method / cookie free domain / your images will load faster in your pages.Thank you but I don't have any issue with speed. I have an issue with lack of ACP options. I am disappointed to see less custom options than most free forum solutions provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adlago Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 You mentioned too many images on your page. For example, if you have 200 images, loading their browser will load and 200 cookies - for each image and cookie. When using a cookie-free domain, browser will not load cookies, and it will also improve your YSlow.Possibility of such a shift was established in ips4 (System-File-Storage Settings) and if you know how to activate very easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ77 Posted March 28, 2015 Author Share Posted March 28, 2015 cookies are not the issue. 200 images X 70KB is the issue. That's a 14 Mb page anyway you slice it. My site gets around 550K page views per day. 550 THOUSAND X 14 MB per day!!!! That will kill me!!!!! I will use my entire months bandwidth in less than 2 days!! (and that is assuming nobody at all clicks for a full size image). This is a serious problem that can't be fixed by adjusting a few cookies or optimizing my JS. This software wasn't built for dealing with high traffic image boards. I appreciate the help, but I am not looking for a band-aid. I am looking for a solution. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation to think IPB should have proper image handling built into the software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZakRhyno Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Totally agree with topic starter. I run a 3D / CG forum and we have lots of image attachments. I need total control over things and from what I can see here with IPB 4 there's less control than there is with version 3.We will have to wait till 4.1 as it is "feature lock" and the won't be doing much till the next release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adlago Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 cookies are not the issue. 200 images X 70KB is the issue. That's a 14 Mb page anyway you slice it. My site gets around 550K page views per day. 550 THOUSAND X 14 MB per day!!!! That will kill me!!!!! I will use my entire months bandwidth in less than 2 days!! (and that is assuming nobody at all clicks for a full size image). This is a serious problem that can't be fixed by adjusting a few cookies or optimizing my JS. This software wasn't built for dealing with high traffic image boards. I appreciate the help, but I am not looking for a band-aid. I am looking for a solution. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation to think IPB should have proper image handling built into the software. Really sounds killer ...Please send me the link to this site - to see him.If my idea came, to inform you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous IPB User Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wmarcy Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Sounds like you could easily hire a third party developer to plug that hole for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram108 Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Everything is too minimal in 4.0 now. It is better to wait half a year until IPS will implement what they bump out of 3.xIf you upgraded already, think about to develop plugin for your needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DKiwi Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Sounds like you could easily hire a third party developer to plug that hole for you. This is basic forum functionality we're talking about here. All I know is I won't be upgrading to version 4.0. I'll wait until 4.1 is out with the improvements. What we have now is too rough around the edges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilihead Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Yeah, no matter what the version number is, I'll be waiting a few months after 4.0 myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimpymoo Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 I find the performance/UI of the Gallery is not as good as it could be when trying to browse MANY images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel R Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 @superj707 You're right, almost all of the attachment settings for forums are removed. There are no more: # images per post, # of images per upload. At the same time, I think it's okay if some of the other settings have been removed, since they've been handled by other settings or in other parts of the ACP. There are also no # of images per page in IP.Gallery settings. Current attachment settings in 3.4.7: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Lindy Posted March 30, 2015 Management Share Posted March 30, 2015 We're not opposed to adding additional settings as needed and it seems apparent further review is needed, so I will open an internal item on it. It seems like the number of images per submission is the biggest concern? If your site is image-centric, many large image intense sites will store the images on something like S3 and/or deliver via something like Cloudfront. IPS4 makes this really easy and a CDN is pretty much a must-have for a serious image community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ77 Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 We're not opposed to adding additional settings as needed and it seems apparent further review is needed, so I will open an internal item on it. It seems like the number of images per submission is the biggest concern? If your site is image-centric, many large image intense sites will store the images on something like S3 and/or deliver via something like Cloudfront. IPS4 makes this really easy and a CDN is pretty much a must-have for a serious image community. I don't agree with a couple of things here and feel obliged to object.1. The biggest problem is not the number of images per post. That is "A" problem but by no means the only real issue. All of it is an issue and almost all of it can be solved by providing the options presented in my original post. Why not make this a robust system with regard to image management? I don't think any of the requests are pie in the sky or unreasonable niche items. The requests are fundamental needs for any serious forum platform.2. With regard to 3rd party image storage: While S3 ETC are great services, it sounds a bit like "pushing the buck". I am glad S3 is an option but I shouldn't have to use a 3rd party service. I already own an enormous amount of hardware, storage space, complete with RAID, and an AC temperature controlled room. The only thing missing is software that can seriously address image management. I want the option to use my OWN hardware. Again, I don't think anyone could reasonably suggest that this is an outlandish request. Are we building the best damn forum software in the world here, or a middle agent dependent on third party software for handling basic forum needs?The fact's are, (as is) IPB 4 is majorly under equipped with regard to image management. Thank you again Lindy, I always appreciate your feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobrenome Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ77 Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel R Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I don't agree with a couple of things here and feel obliged to object.1. The biggest problem is not the number of images per post. That is "A" problem but by no means the only real issue. All of it is an issue and almost all of it can be solved by providing the options presented in my original post. Why not make this a robust system with regard to image management? I don't think any of the requests are pie in the sky or unreasonable niche items. The requests are fundamental needs for any serious forum platform.2. With regard to 3rd party image storage: While S3 ETC are great services it sounds a bit like "pushing the buck". I am glad S3 is an option but I shouldn't have to use a 3rd party service. I already own an enormous amount of hardware, storage space, complete with RAID, and an AC temperature controlled room. The only thing missing is software that can seriously address image management. I want the option to use my OWN hardware. Again, I don't think anyone could reasonably suggest that this is an outlandish request. Are we building the best damn forum software in the world here, or a middle agent dependent on third party software for handling forum needs?The fact's are, (as is) IPB 4 is majorly under equipped with regard to image management. Thank you again Lindy, I always appreciate your feedback. As someone who also runs an image-heavy board, I'm also obviously concerned about image settings and bandwidth. However, you'll need to be more specific on what settings are missing. For example, many of the settings are available, but in another location in the IPS 4 ACP.There are:Advanced image settings in System > Files that covers JPG Quality, PNG Compression, and Image SuiteMaximum image size in Settings > PostingsPer group settings for uploads including total maximum storage space and maximum space per contentIP.Gallery image settings for large, medium, small, thumbanil, and square The ONLY setting that I find truly missing is the # of images per post. As such, you'll need to provide more actionable and concrete details on what features are missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.