Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Cut-tag photos?

Historically I've used a cut-tag for all photos posted in my journal. Now that I have a high-bandwidth connection I find that I tend to prefer seeing other people's photos in the main entry rather than under a cut-tag. So I am trying to decide whether to change my policy, and therefore I'm creating a poll about it.

Note: I try never to post photos that are bigger than 500 pixels wide; if I did post a photo that was wider, I would definitely cut-tag it so that it wouldn't make people's friends pages really wide. So this poll is about photo file size rather than photo size.

Poll #404413 Should firecat cut-tag photos? Poll

Should firecat cut-tag photos in her journal?

Cut-tag all photos
Cut-tag only photos totalling more than 10K
Cut-tag only photos totalling more than 50K
Cut-tag only photos totalling more than 100K
Don't cut-tag any photos
Other (explain in comments)


( 13 comments — Leave a comment )
Dec. 16th, 2004 06:08 pm (UTC)
I don't care about the data size, just the pixel size. More than 600 wide might stretch out my page farther than is comfy for reading.
Dec. 16th, 2004 06:23 pm (UTC)
What he said: Cut-tag wide photos.
Dec. 16th, 2004 06:29 pm (UTC)
I don't know anything about pixel sizes, but I hate it when people don't cut-tag images that happen to be wider than what my window is currently set at.

Dec. 16th, 2004 06:42 pm (UTC)
Since they're not going to be insanely wide, it matters to me not at all. I have my browser set not to display off-server pictures anyway, so I'll be clicking something whether it's cut or not.
Dec. 16th, 2004 07:01 pm (UTC)
I prefer not cut at all, as long as they're not wide, but feel like by answering the poll, I would be attempting to guess at what would make everyone happiest, and it's been so long since I was on dial up that I've no idea.
Dec. 16th, 2004 08:25 pm (UTC)
I'd rather you answered the poll because the overall results will help me determine what would make everyone happiest ;-)
Dec. 16th, 2004 08:05 pm (UTC)

Depends if there is more than one photo, it's a layout rather than bandwidth question for me. One 50K photo I don't mind uncut (hee!), more than one and it starts to clutter up my friends page.
Dec. 16th, 2004 09:52 pm (UTC)
Ah-hah! I'm not alone!
Dec. 16th, 2004 08:38 pm (UTC)
well...the way I went about this issue in my journal

I posted a warning - what size images I post, and how many I post without a cut tag. Seems fair enough - I've had just a few complaints - but, I don't feel responsible for keeping my journal work safe for others!

What ever it is you decide - post as you wish, and I'll be happy I get to see the photos - cut, or not :-)
Dec. 16th, 2004 09:58 pm (UTC)
I do that thing where it hides images behind a little link thing, so it doesn't make much difference to me.
Dec. 16th, 2004 10:41 pm (UTC)
I'm another one with the width brigade.
Dec. 17th, 2004 01:44 am (UTC)
Re: Cut-tag photos?
i'm now cut-tagging all photos because of loading issues (lj's pics seem to be terminally slow at times).

other than that, width concerns me more than bandwidth. and if i never see another bad jpg again (too highly compressed) it'll be too soon.
Dec. 17th, 2004 04:35 am (UTC)
I don't mind if people post one photo on the main page (don't care about file size) if it's not humongous, and then put a "click here" link for the rest. I have friends who post eight or ten in one entry without a cut, though, and that's aggravating.
( 13 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

March 2018
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars