Rob, Ann, a little confused here.
There is not a doubt in my mind that seeing a picture, like that beauty that Ann posted sure makes for a nice looking picture on the forum instead of thumbnails. The problem I have with thumbnails is that I have to click on the picture and it takes a few seconds for imageshack to load the picture, plain and simply a nuisance, don't like it.
As for imageShack, it is an easy integrated solution for someone who has no webspace of their own or does not know how to size images correctly. As you can see from the tests below, full sized images kill those on dial-up. We have no love for ImageShack, other than it does provide a solution for photo newbees.
I ran a few test for you Cindi. If you want to try some for yourself, here is a program
that will slow your connection down to dial-up. If you do test, remember to clear your cache in between tests, or you won't get the true results.
I tested at 28.8K which is faster than I can get at home. On a good day I'm lucky to get 26K.
Ann's full size image (2832x2128) took 3:13 minutes to load. So if all 11 of Annette's photos where that size????????
Ann's posted image (800x600) took 0:10 minutes to load and at 14.4K it took 0:28 minutes. A few images of this size wouldn't be an issue, but larger quantities may. The problem is getting people with no experience resizing images and falling into the first scenario.
Ann, you said that you posted the pictures using your webspace. I would be interested in how you do this and if forum members that still have to use dialup, if it is slow for them or if something done in your webspace makes it as easy as thumbnails to look at. Curiosity never got this cat.
Where the images are stored (own server/imageshack/etc) has only a minor affect on speed, the size is the biggest factor.
I love the see the pictures posted on the forum that I don't have to bother to click on and wait for imageshack, that is a terribly slow program. Have a wonderful day, best of this life. Cindi
Wouldn't we all. No offense to Annette (I'll just use her post as am example because it is here), but I would rather see 11 thumbnail and click on the ones I'm interested in verses waiting minutes for 3 photos of a pond with bees drinking and not getting to a photo after them that I may really be interested in. Many times I end up skipping a post because of too many large images, so I miss them all.
If clicking on thumbnails seems like such a burden, I suggest you do some testing of your own to see how insignificant it really is compared to not being able to see images at all because they take to long to load.
We are pretty lenient when folks know how to size properly and post reasonable quantities of pictures. We make ImageShack available for those that aren't savvy enough. I would hate to have to start banning people for posting inappropriate size and quantities. If someone many photos to share, getting a photo album hosting site and link to it is more appropriate.