Image size in threads. Preference question.

[THROBBS]

As I was going through my thread, to check "just what the hell have I already posted?"

I came across (heh heh, not in that way, you pervs) when/where the LIT format was updated and I started (for a while) using the default thumbnails for my posts, where you had to click on them to see full size.

What is your preference?
Thumbnails — quicker scrolling through a thread. More discrete (if you are at work or public place). It's not ALL IN YOUR FACE, and you can scroll by images that are not your taste.
or
Full size — too much work, all this extra clicking.

Thumbnails 3 (4-"medium" thumbnails- "Toenails?")- Full Size 1 (blow up your screen)


So far it's a shut out!

 

[THROBBS]

Thumbnail example



It's so small!
But I don't want to touch it and make it bigger!

 

[THROBBS]

Full size example.




OMG! It's just too big!!
And aggressive! And RED.

 

[Inbef]

As I was going through my thread, to check "just what the hell have I already posted?"

I came across (heh heh, not in that way, you pervs) when/where the LIT format was updated and I started (for a while) using the default thumbnails for my posts, where you had to click on them to see full size.

What is your preference?
Thumbnails — quicker scrolling through a thread. More discrete (if you are at work or public place). It's not ALL IN YOUR FACE, and you can scroll by images that are not your taste.
or
Full size — too much work, all this extra clicking.

I prefer thumbnails.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I prefer thumbnails.

Yes, you can quickly pass it by if it's of no interest.

 

[THROBBS]

Yes, you can quickly pass it by if it's of no interest.

so... you vote for thumbnails?

 

[THROBBS]

65 views and only 2 votes.

Apparently, not much of an issue for folk.

 

[blurhead]

It's not the size that matters, but the content should !

Seriously though looking back over some of my art thread there were maybe a few too large examples (and I don't mean the boobs)
I actually think the example you showed above (full size) is an ideal compromise, perhaps adding a web link to the larger version from there, I'm not a huge fan of those tiny thumbnails.

 

[THROBBS]

As for me, in this corner (Visual art), I'm ok with large images. If I like someone's work, having it big is great.
On the other hand, I totally get the need for discretion, occasionally — at the café and such.

 

[hotwords229_A]

I like when someone shares an image so big it screws up the entire page for everyone.
Does “new Lit” even do that anymore?

 

[THROBBS]

I like when someone shares an image so big it screws up the entire page for everyone.
Does “new Lit” even do that anymore?

So you like it like this...? (let's see if the red stretched really stretches the screen.)
Or do you like it bigger?

 

[THROBBS]

I dunno how much she can handle...
ah... 2000pxW was too much.

1500pxwide seems to work.





But appears at same width on my screen.
Hmmm.. actually if I drag the screen wider, THIS image does, indeed, expand. The previous, does not.

 

[Prudence_Art]

I dunno how much she can handle...
ah... 2000pxW was too much.

1500pxwide seems to work.

View attachment 2247703



But appears at same width on my screen.
Hmmm.. actually if I drag the screen wider, THIS image does, indeed, expand. The previous, does not.

thumbnails please, and is there a spoiler/content warning code for images like the one above.

 

[THROBBS]

Thumbnails are winning!
Could be warnings if the linked elsewhere or...
RED CLAD COCK
But nah.

 

[RamseyMacDonald]

Too new here to understand how you are able to supply thumbnails or bignails. But my preference would be for thumbnails that I can click to enjoy if I like the look of the pictures. And it means I can scroll through quickly. But I guess a lot of people must view this on a phone (I'm on a big screen desktop) and that must make a difference?