What do you think about the current thumbnail size? Is it OK? Or is it better to increase it? To give you some ideas:
[
attachment=26035] - current (this one is clickable)
![[Image: single-glove-bondage-art-102-96px.jpg]](https://www.likera.com/i/misc/single-glove-bondage-art-102-96px.jpg)
96px 3.89KB (MyBB default)
![[Image: single-glove-bondage-art-102-120px.jpg]](https://www.likera.com/i/misc/single-glove-bondage-art-102-120px.jpg)
120px 5.26KB
![[Image: single-glove-bondage-art-102-140px.jpg]](https://www.likera.com/i/misc/single-glove-bondage-art-102-140px.jpg)
140px 7.08KB
![[Image: single-glove-bondage-art-102-160px.jpg]](https://www.likera.com/i/misc/single-glove-bondage-art-102-160px.jpg)
160px 8.82KB
![[Image: single-glove-bondage-art-102-190px.jpg]](https://www.likera.com/i/misc/single-glove-bondage-art-102-190px.jpg)
190px 11.50KB
![[Image: single-glove-bondage-art-102-220px.jpg]](https://www.likera.com/i/misc/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.
(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 😉 ).
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.
(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.
More info about the thumbnail sizes
Blog: 160px
EBay: 140px
Boundanna: 400px
Google: 95px
Google image search: 190px (varies)
I added another option: "I don't care" (though, not a very productive one 😉
less is more ....
we are talking about thumbs, don't we?
(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.
21 votes so far. And there is a tendency.
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.