Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay, so looking through current threads on the P&M forums, I got to wondering.. Is there even a reason for a thread to say this anymore?

I mean, it IS a forum for showing images of your mini´s... I would expect there to be pictures, wouldn´t you?

I just think that some threads recently, boasting as little as 10 images on page one (and in one case, zero!), really make a mess of this "Image Heavy" concept. So wouldn´t it be better if we got rid of it altogether, like the All Caps concept?

To me, it´s just annoying, since it pretty much reads as if the person is desperate for anyone to look at his/her thread, and will do anything to achieve this..

Anyways, just needed to vent a bit, does anyone else even notice those tags? Or am I way off the mark? Would be interested in hearing people´s opinions.

Depends on just how image heavy something is.

If you don't resize any really large images (and I mean the ones that take up half of your computer screen) and you have lots (10+) of them, even with a DSL connection its slow to load and can slow down one's computer. It's mostly a bit of a carry-over from the dial-up days, but it's not completely pointless.

Sometimes the comment isn't really worth mentioning, though.

Really though does it matter as we all like to see what the person is refering about. At least I know I do.

This thread is full of fail, it says "Image Heavy" in the title and I see no pictures in it (except avatars and sigs)! Please learn to title your threads correctly in the future!

I say it when my pictures are huge on purpose. Every other time I get comments on how big my pics are.

I think image heavy is fine as it proves you have a few images (normally) which will make me more inclined to check it out,

Shaman wrote:I think image heavy is fine as it proves you have a few images (normally) which will make me more inclined to check it out,

I think Shaman's right. The phrase has gone from "Warning: Image Heavy" to "Come Look: Image Heavy."

It's additional promotion for the post, especially in the hobby forums.

I think it's been hanging on since the "56k beware" topic titles.
I think it's mainly to get people to look, though.

I dunno, I always get bored with threads pretty quickly unless I am getting bombarded with shiny and awesome things. Even though some are likely to use it as a marketing tool, I don't care, I will find out soon enough.

"Oh noes, this thread is not actually pic heavy, and I am just reading through random ass commentary... hmmm... a whole minute of my precious time lost forever, I will never forgive the OP... EVAR!!!"

Oh... this thread needs moar cowbell too... .

It is indeed a useful warning for those of us who live in areas where internet access is slow, expensive and usually comes with very small download limits.

Only the other day I saw an advertisement on the TV for an internet plan offering 100MB a month of downloads.

Its also handy for people like me who do most of their Dakka viewing on their mobile phone... I know to leave those threads until I get on a main computer.
Mick

Ahh, I didn´t consider mobile users. Good point. But seversl of you have mentioned exactly what I was getting at.

That the thread title may say "Warning, Image heavy", but it should probably say "please look, there are pretty pictures".

Anyways, good to see that it does help some users, and isn´t purely an annoyance.

One real way to find out - make a post that has 100s of images embedded from the gallery, and see if anyone complains...

Redbeard wrote:One real way to find out - make a post that has 100s of images embedded from the gallery, and see if anyone complains...

You're a bad, bad man.

My 2800 baud modem hates me.

Not everyone has access to high speed broadband (what they refer to as 'broadband' in Oz is a joke, for instance).

I have supposedly 512kbits/second ADSL.
It generally trots along at around half of that.

a 1mb photo takes 10 minutes to email.

There are still people here with dialup (although it's a lot better than the old 56k dialup I used to use (which was just 9600 with v42bis data compression). Wireless broadband is getting more common in the capitals, but away from there it is a different story.

The internet is no longer useable at dialup speeds. Those people shouldn't be surfing this forum.

chromedog wrote:
a 1mb photo takes 10 minutes to email.

Upload speeds are generally a fraction of download speeds for residential connections, regardless of where you live (Oz, US, Uk, wherever). That's because most residential customers aren't uploading nearly as often as they're downloading. The time it takes you to send a 1mb photo is, for the most part, irrelevant in a discussion about whether pic heavy warnings are needed on a forum, as sending is uploading, not downloading.

Not that 10 minutes doesn't suck, mind you. I think I got better upload speed than than on my 56k modem 10 years ago.

How long does it take you to download a 1mb photo?