> revert 23 Jan. 10:11, from: 144.131.165.71, marine
> is veronica about?

Yes. :-)

What?

A poster calling himself "revert" posted that in another forum (a chat on my homepage) and then I sat there thinking "where have I seen that name before?"...

Unfortunately, he's one of those posters who don't even try to refresh the chat so the chance of him seeing a reply there is zero. :-\

OK! Sounds good to me.

*veronica* why don't you give yourself a name?

Anyway I was doing some searching on google and found [www.ludd.luth.se] just wanted to know what you've been upto. =)

Why should I give myself a name? "Anonymous@199228" feels quite comfortable to me. :-)

I've been up to... buying food... sleeping... that's about it. :-)

If you mean more of the same, here's another idea that's been sort of bubbling at the back of my mind when I've looked at the pictures in your gallery:

[www.ludd.luth.se]

Looks interesting and I'm always interested in UI design. But we can only do so much in our free time so are still focusing on features that users want.

Once that is complete we may start working on the third UI of plus613. For all the changes that your suggesting I think the website is fairly easy to use given the type of users that seem to manage to post forum topics and alike. =)

Frames usually suck, but for things like this, when you want to look at a long list of pictures (especially animated gifs) they can be useful.

Here is an idea that I really think could be help full. I always forget which pics I post on and would like to follow up them. If there was a way to search for my postings on pic's that would be awsome.

BTY sorry for budding in.

Yes, that is a good idea.

More user comment and forum tracking would be nice for yourself and also for other users, *devildog*.

I've been planning on something like that and will hopefully start working on it soon.

Idea for this page:

[www.plus613.com]

Instead of reloading the page with the reload button in my browser and keeping track of what time the newest post was from there could be a "refresh" button in the page which would do the same reloading but with some kind of separator between "new" and "already read" discussions.

I've liked the thought of maybe some variety of read/unread icon for a while. It could probably be kept track of via a cookie in the browser.

Hrm, we'll see.

A non-cookie solution could be that in the list the links to the discussions contain info about which post is the latest. Something like this:

[www.plus613.com]

for this page after your post, and after I send this message it would be:

[www.plus613.com]

That way, when you view the list and see visited links (which, of course, is marked with a different colour than new links, which, in turn, are marked with a different colour than ordinary text...) you will know which ones you have seen and which ones are new.

This solution won't require anything more sophisticated than the user using one and the same browser each time they visit (which is relatively likely). No cookies, and no need for that "refresh" button I described above.

[those semicolons were added by the forum software]

[and they should have been question marks]

[the &s that is]

Here's a "model" version of my frames idea:

[www.ludd.luth.se]
[www.ludd.luth.se]

(note: the icons are quick-and-dirty sketches, colours have not been set, etc. this is just to show how frames could work with the pictures)

Another one:

[www.ludd.luth.se]

[btw, your page titles are a mess]

What *Anonymous@199228* is suggesting above is to use the most basic of features of the web, different colour coding visited links.

Simple and yes we will implement that.

No, not only that (if I want that I just have to turn off CSS). I'm talking about changing the URL slightly, so that the URL to the same discussion will be "new" when there's a new post in it.

The result to the user would be:

bla bla
bla bla

[right now I get purple links at the top and blue links at the bottom and the occasional blue link at the top when there's a completely new discussion]

Also, since you seem to have trouble with load on the server, it could help you by helping the users to avoid clicking on pages they've already seen...

And generally, how "big" are your pages? Many of your images are not-too-big ("postcard size", less than 100k but how many kB of html is there with each picture? (I'm not counting logos and backgrounds and stuff, because those end up in the cache.) Is it really necessary to give "top rated" etc links with *every* image page?

< tries downloading a page "with everything" >

[www.plus613.com]

15569+90+2828+729+2543+417+6256+349+438+444+453+322+2040+2622+1813+2926+12760+15560=68159

68159 for the things that are *not* the main content (the image of a car)

Not counting logos and stars and stuff:

15569+2040+2622+1813+2926+12760=37730

How "heavy" is the average "page" compared to the average picture?

Here's another idea for you: requiring people to read a how-to FAQ about images for the web... or maybe just *including* such a FAQ on your site and recommending it to people who upload pictures... (OK, maybe you do that already, I haven't checked)

[That last comment is because I noticed that the picture on that particular page was about three times as big as I would have guessed from just looking at it...]

[Yes, you can educate users. They may not enjoy it, and some may leave because of it, but they will also benefit from it (faster pages...)]

revert >> Also, you're not going to "implement" link colours, you're going to "un-disable" them. :-)

Cool! Thanks Revert.

If those 40kB per page could be reduced to 5kB, and if unnecessarily big pictures could be "optimized" you might not need that "donate" button.

Then there's the problem of how to optimize some unknown subset of 8000 pictures...

Maybe looking at the ones >100kB would be a good start.

"Chosen"/"Approved" users could get access to a list of such pictures and use a special uploading page to upload "optimized" versions which you could then check (put original and new version next to each other and see that the new one is OK) and use instead of the originals.

Also, when you get the feature to only view (or not view) certain categories that could help reduce server load too. Another idea is that you could have sub-categories (especially for the porn category) so that people can more easily avoid pictures they don't want to see (when somebody chooses not to look at a certain picture there will be one less hit on your server, and it will save them some time too).