Login

***Like Ra*** · (This post was last modified: 26 Aug 2019, 15:57 by Like Ra.)

What do you think about the current thumbnail size? Is it OK? Or is it better to increase it? To give you some ideas:

- current (this one is clickable)

[Image: single-glove-bondage-art-102-96px.jpg]

96px 3.89KB (MyBB default)
[Image: single-glove-bondage-art-102-120px.jpg]

120px 5.26KB
[Image: single-glove-bondage-art-102-140px.jpg]

140px 7.08KB
[Image: single-glove-bondage-art-102-160px.jpg]

160px 8.82KB
[Image: single-glove-bondage-art-102-190px.jpg]

190px 11.50KB
[Image: single-glove-bondage-art-102-220px.jpg]

220px 8.8KB (new compression?)

On one hand it's easier to see without clicking on the image, what may save some traffic and clicks. OTOH, the pages will load slower and will be larger. On one hand, Google might prefer the bigger size, OTOH, even 190px is not big enough to show in the image search.

***Like Ra*** · (This post was last modified: 04 Oct 2017, 23:23 by Like Ra.)

(And please do not tell me that MyBB attachment system is atrocious - I a

eady know it ... the hard way 😁 ) But the thumbnail size can be changed automatically (I hope it works as promised 😉 ).

Christina · (This post was last modified: 05 Oct 2017, 06:53 by Christina.)

190px is still small enough to make pages load quickly on a poor connection but big nough to see what the image is without having to open it.
Currently its a bit too small.

It's the same with IMDB though, so you're in good company.

***Like Ra*** · 05 Oct 2017, 09:52

(05 Oct 2017, 06:52 )wilsd Wrote: 190px is still small enough to make pages load quickly on a poor connection

Let's check the extrema. The archives have 80 thumbnails per page - ~800KB. Additional 8KB per image will result in ~1.4MB. Still not bad, indeed.

***Like Ra*** · 05 Oct 2017, 12:41

More info about the thumbnail sizes

Blog: 160px
EBay: 140px
Boundanna: 400px
Google: 95px
Google image search: 190px (varies)

***Like Ra*** · 08 Oct 2017, 15:40

I added another option: "I don't care" (though, not a very productive one 😉

krinlyc · 08 Oct 2017, 16:58

less is more ....
we are talking about thumbs, don't we?

***Like Ra*** · (This post was last modified: 25 Aug 2023, 21:34 by Like Ra.)

(08 Oct 2017, 16:58 )krinlyc Wrote: less is more

On one hand this is true, on the other, the thumbnails should have enough details to decide if clicking on them is needed (especially, if there are more). For example, on the smallest thumbnail above you can't see, that the girl in strappado is wearing a harness gag.

***Like Ra*** · 09 Oct 2017, 11:52

21 votes so far. And there is a tendency.

***Like Ra*** · (This post was last modified: 11 Oct 2017, 12:20 by Like Ra.)

Just made a test, that should make the final decision easier: I used Google Image search with all sizes:

95px - nothing found. Google did not recognize what's on the picture.
120px - nothing found. A "person" was recognized.
140px - 2 pages. Google thinks, that it's about "Female submission". Not bad!
160px - 3 pages. "Female submission"
190px - 3 pages. "Female submission"

The smallest images in the results are 96x150px.

So, 160px is the golden mean here.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Poll: What thumbnail size do you like most? You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
96px (previous)	11.76%	4	11.76%
120px	11.76%	4	11.76%
140px	11.76%	4	11.76%
160px	23.53%	8	23.53%
190px (current)	41.18%	14	41.18%
I don't care	0%	0	0%
Other (please comment)	0%	0	0%
Total		34 vote(s)	100%