# Quoting posts converts inline images to links?



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

I've noticed it several times recently. Is this a problem or a new "feature?"


----------



## CatBurger00 (Sep 20, 2003)

I assume it's a new "feature". I've never had any problems with quoted images, other than the occasional 5-picture quote that requires additional scrolling, but I for one would rather deal with that once-in-a-while inconvienence than deal with this new every-single-image-quote inconvienence.

My two cents.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

It was added based on the images that were being duplicated within posts. Did this to cut down on the processing time to call each image from a remote server.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

David Bott said:


> It was added based on the images that were being duplicated within posts. Did this to cut down on the processing time to call each image from a remote server.


I don't know how BBS software works and didn't know it crunched your server cycles to display an image from a different host. I would have thought that would have been done on the user's computer. Good to know.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I don't know how BBS software works and didn't know it crunched your server cycles to display an image from a different host. I would have thought that would have been done on the user's computer. Good to know.


It shouldn't. All the BBS does is convert the tags to html <img src> tags on the page it serves up to you. Your browser should still go and fetch the external file.

And assuming that the original image and the duplicate image are on the same page most of the time, the amount of time it takes to go get the file will be the same. It gets it once, and then populates all the occurrences of it on the page.

I'm having trouble understanding how it is saving anything at all from the server side, unless there is something else I'm missing...


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Okay, that was my line of thinking as well.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

It generally doesn't save anything in the way of server resources because (a) the image will be cached locally and (b) if caching is disabled the original image being on the same page will still have the browser optimize the retrieval and only grab it once.

It generally makes things more confusing to determine what a reply is all about when the image is now not visible.

Actually I suppose it possibly requires slightly more CPU time on this site to determine to present a real img tag or a link to the image based on being inside or outside of a quote tag.

The only benefit is it cuts down somewhat on the length of a page of postings, which might aid people who print them out for whatever reason. There are times I've thought it'd be nice if quoted images could be reduced in size, too. 

But honestly the link-only-when-images-are-quoted does rather annoy me much more than having the images there.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

It cuts down on the thread rendering within the browser which makes for an issue when the thread is rendered. Ever notice the shifting of the browser window when images are called? Thus the processing on the browser end. More of an issue on slower machines or slower connections. 

Personally when I browse a thread and find and image duplicated over and over again, I actually do not like it. I find it redundant.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

David Bott said:


> It cuts down on the thread rendering within the browser which makes for an issue when the thread is rendered. Ever notice the shifting of the browser window when images are called? Thus the processing on the browser end. More of an issue on slower machines or slower connections.
> 
> Personally when I browse a thread and find and image duplicated over and over again, I actually do not like it. I find it redundant.


That begs to be a user-controlled option.

I mean, why not just make all images only links? Why not just remove all graphics from the page entirely? That'll make a serious difference in the load of YOUR server. 

Heck, get rid of all links to avsads.com and the page will load a lot quicker more often; I can't count how many times I see that being the cause for the final rendering being delayed. It's almost been enough to make me write a Firefox plugin to remove any references to that site.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

I agree with the user control feature, can we request that?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

David Bott said:


> It cuts down on the thread rendering within the browser which makes for an issue when the thread is rendered. Ever notice the shifting of the browser window when images are called? Thus the processing on the browser end. More of an issue on slower machines or slower connections.
> 
> Personally when I browse a thread and find and image duplicated over and over again, I actually do not like it. I find it redundant.


I thought the browser was doing that, and that's why we had some problems with IE and Firefox handling pages differently right after the upgrade. But I don't know what the details are on that part, so I'll defer to your knowledge...

Normally, when a picture is quoted, the person quoting it is making a comment related to it, so having it there puts the comment in context, in my opinion. I like that.

In fact, when I am quoting someone, but the picture is not relevant to my comment, I edit the picture out of the quote so that it won't take up space.


----------



## CatBurger00 (Sep 20, 2003)

hefe said:


> In fact, when I am quoting someone, but the picture is not relevant to my comment, I edit the picture out of the quote so that it won't take up space.


I do the same thing.

So now, to put a message with an image quote in context, you have to click a link* (as opposed to before, when you could just read it), whereas if you are not interested in it, you skip over it (like you would before). I just don't see the improvement, let alone the need for the change in the first place 

*I certainly can not identify most pictures by the filename/URL alone.


----------



## David Bott (Jan 1, 1999)

Hi... 

It can not be user controlled for that would be a major hack to add in the setting. 

The intent was to cut down of the browser loads of large images that are redundant within posts. As you may have seen, some can really get in the way when they are large and reproduced time and time again in a thread. The browser needs to take the time to render each one and the site needs to call to it each time. 

In any case, I have reverted it back at this time. But some of the remarks actually made me wonder if I should not just turn off the use of post images all together. Oh wait...and add in more ads!!! Yes, thats the ticket!!!! (kidding)


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Thanks, Dave!


----------



## CatBurger00 (Sep 20, 2003)

Thanks, David


----------

