The vote was taken and it was very much in favor of a size increase. Then what happened?
I have sat out two challenges in the past two weeks because the photos I want to submit loose too much detail once I get them compressed down to the current size restrictions. This normally would not be a problem. But I traveled and spent time and money to get these shots for challenges then cant even use them.
It is 2007 the year of the 3.2 MP camera is pretty well behind us. The 640px and 150KB limit should be taking the same road.
What happened is the fact that the site usage statistics show that (IIRC) about half of all site users visit the site with 1024x768 monitors. A 720-high image will not fit on the screen of a 1024x768 monitor.
I don't think Langdon is very keep on making voting unworkable for half his members.
Here's a question - how many of us are using more than one computer? Say, one at home with the large sweet calibrated monitor for voting and whatnot, and then a craptastic one at work for checking scores and bantering on the forums when things are slow? I would never subject anyone to a vote cast or critique given using that awful uncalibratible thing at work, but I do check my scores or my threads there. My guess is that the statistics are deceptive and that the number of people who use better monitors for voting is actually much higher than that.
What happened is the fact that the site usage statistics show that (IIRC) about half of all site users visit the site with 1024x768 monitors. A 720-high image will not fit on the screen of a 1024x768 monitor.
I don't think Langdon is very keep on making voting unworkable for half his members.
~Terry
Why bother putting it to a periodic vote then, if the outcome is already predetermined by the web logs?
Who were all those people that voted in favor of the increase? And the 50% of 1024x768 users? Are they the people who are paying for memberships or the people surfing on to the site from Google and other search engines? That is the statistic I would pay attention to.
Who were all those people that voted in favor of the increase? And the 50% of 1024x768 users? Are they the people who are paying for memberships or the people surfing on to the site from Google and other search engines? That is the statistic I would pay attention to.
Actually, since paying members do occasionally use smaller monitors, the statistic worth paying attention to is the size of monitors used when votes are actually cast.
Then you have to take into account. How many of those users do not want to scroll up and down to see the photo, how many do not mind scrolling and like you said how many view and vote on more than one machine with different screen size settings. Because of the landslide victory for increasing size, I would say a good % of the 50% of the users do not mind scrolling.
How about a increase to 200KB? screen size is not an issue for that.
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
Who were all those people that voted in favor of the increase? And the 50% of 1024x768 users? Are they the people who are paying for memberships or the people surfing on to the site from Google and other search engines? That is the statistic I would pay attention to.
Actually, since paying members do occasionally use smaller monitors, the statistic worth paying attention to is the size of monitors used when votes are actually cast.
