Unanswered PM


Forum » General Forums » General discussion

By Lancashire Lad on 24/08/16 at 3:51pm

I sent the following PM to TallPaul, on 18th May, soon after first registering with WalkLakes. (I had thought that my query didn't really fall into any of the categories of the open forum). Unfortunately, the message still sits resolutely in my PM Outbox, not having been opened, so I'm trying here instead.

From what I've read on the site, I understand that moving house has been on Paul's agenda in the interim, which may explain the message not having been read. (Yes - some things are actually more important than websites! :D ).

"Hello Paul,

Just a quick message to suggest that it might be useful to add a prominent notice to your announcements forum, (or perhaps on the add attachment dialogue box itself - where it presently says "If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below"), advising that a maximum of three attachments are allowed when registered members make posts.

I registered with the site today (after several previous browsing visits - and saving your URL to my favourites bar! :) ), with the intent of sharing some of my recent Lake District walks/photos.

I had viewed all of the "Walk Report" posts relative to the Lake District, and noted that some reports included several photos.

I hadn't actually noticed though, that those reports containing more than three (directly attached) photos were by Beth, and that those of registered members didn't contain more than three. :oops:

Consequently, when I'd partly written my first report, (having resized seven of my photos to 690 pixels wide for use with the report), and when trying to upload the fourth photo, I was confounded by a message saying that no more than three attachments were allowed.

I regularly use (and am a moderator with) another phpBB based website. That site doesn't have any obvious restrictions to the number of photos that can be attached to an individual post, so I wasn't expecting a 3 photo/attachment limit here.

Unfortunately, I don't have a Flickr (or similar) account, and so can't link to any externally hosted site for my photos as some of the other registered members are doing.

Might it be possible to increase the number of attachments that members are allowed to add to a post? (I expect it would come down to host server storage costs, etc. etc.).

Other than for that small niggle, I have to say that your site is truly excellent, and a credit to the vast amount of work that you must have put into it.

Best regards, Mike".

I accept that excessive posting of images could, in theory, become an issue, but feel that it is difficult to put across the true flavour of a day's walk, with a maximum of only three photos.

Regards, Mike.


By TallPaul on 24/08/16 at 4:36pm

Mea culpa. This is the first phpBB forum I've ever managed and I confess I'd not realised there was the potential to limit the number of images in a post (it appears to default to 3).

I've now changed it to 99. I've also tweaked a couple of other parameters in image uploading which would have bitten us later.

You mention that you've re-sized the images. This version of phpBB will do that for you (I've just tested it to make sure). If the image's largest dimension is greater than 690 pixels it re-sizes it to 690 itself (and on our forum the CSS then adds a five pixel border making the total largest dimension 700 pixels).

As for the PM I thought I was meant to get an email when someone PMed me but clearly not so that's the next thing to hit with a stick.


By Lancashire Lad on 24/08/16 at 8:35pm

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your swift and positive reply.

I thought I'd read somewhere on the site that image quality may be affected if the software did the resizing, and that it was preferable to resize images to 690 pixels maximum width before uploading?

However, if current opinion is to let the software do it, then that's fine - It'll save me a job!

Just one thing puzzling me now. At the time of typing this, I can see the following text at the beginning of my original post of the thread: - Date started: 31/08/2016 Start OSGB: NY375033 Distance: 2km or 1.2 miles Ascent: 30m Time taken: 2:00 That text wasn't written by me in my original post, and it doesn't appear in the "topic review" text of my original post when typing the reply.. No idea where it came from or why it is there ??? (Checking that grid ref. it refers to Borrans Park Ambleside ???)

Regards, Mike.


By TallPaul on 24/08/16 at 9:10pm

I thought I'd read somewhere on the site that image quality may be affected if the software did the resizing, and that it was preferable to resize images to 690 pixels maximum width before uploading?

Mmmm ... maybe so. It's using imagemagick to do the re-sizing. You can probably do better with your own tools but, as you say, it does save you a job.

Just one thing puzzling me now. At the time of typing this, I can see the following text at the beginning of my original post of the thread: -

Oh my, that's impressive. That's a bug. I think what's happened there is that someone started posted a walk report but then didn't complete it but your post has picked up the remnants. I need to look at that as it's our bespoke. Another little job to do.


By Lancashire Lad on 25/08/16 at 12:10pm

Hi Paul,

[quote:2zjw69yy]Just one thing puzzling me now. At the time of typing this, I can see the following text at the beginning of my original post of the thread: -

Oh my, that's impressive. That's a bug. I think what's happened there is that someone started posted a walk report but then didn't complete it but your post has picked up the remnants. I need to look at that as it's our bespoke. Another little job to do.[/quote:2zjw69yy] Yes, If I go to that original post and click "edit" that text isn't there, so can't be edited out at my end. Obviously a little bug hidden in the system somewhere. If this was the first time it's happened, it doesn't look to be too serious a problem though. Hopefully, it will be something that's easily found and remedied.

[quote:2zjw69yy]I thought I'd read somewhere on the site that image quality may be affected if the software did the resizing, and that it was preferable to resize images to 690 pixels maximum width before uploading?

Mmmm ... maybe so. It's using imagemagick to do the re-sizing. You can probably do better with your own tools but, as you say, it does save you a job.[/quote:2zjw69yy] The post I'd read about image resizeing was this one: - viewtopic.php?f=4&t=189

Hope you don't mind, but just as a test, to see if I can discern any visible difference in appearance/quality, I've attached a couple of images of the Helvellyn vista from Birkhouse Moor below.

EDIT - having now seen the images in the forum post, I can't see any real differences between the two, so it would seem logical to make life a little easier when uploading, and let the software do the resizing. ;) :D

This first one I've resized to 690 pixels wide before uploading: -

Image Resized to 690 pixels wide

This second one was uploaded at 1250 pixels wide. (My standard resize for upooading elsewhere): -

Image Uploaded at 1250 pixels wide

Mea culpa. This is the first phpBB forum I've ever managed and I confess I'd not realised there was the potential to limit the number of images in a post (it appears to default to 3).

I've now changed it to 99. I've also tweaked a couple of other parameters in image uploading which would have bitten us later. . . .

Regards your tweaks to image upload parameters, (you may already have it set higher), but possibly worth mentioning that on the site where I'm a moderator (UK Fungi), we initially experienced a lot of problems when people were trying to upload photos because the phpBB software's default maximum file-size for image upload was quite small. The parameter was changed to 400KB maximum, and we've had no problems since. (We thought that 400KB file-size max. was a reasonable compromise when asking people to ensure that their upload images were not excessively large, but was large enough to allow the upload of good quality images.

Best regards, Mike.


By TallPaul on 25/08/16 at 1:08pm

EDIT - having now seen the images in the forum post, I can't see any real differences between the two, so it would seem logical to make life a little easier when uploading, and let the software do the resizing. ;) :D

I agree. And they're also exactly the same size (78KB) so it makes no difference to us.

Regards your tweaks to image upload parameters, (you may already have it set higher), but possibly worth mentioning that on the site where I'm a moderator (UK Fungi), we initially experienced a lot of problems when people were trying to upload photos because the phpBB software's default maximum file-size for image upload was quite small. The parameter was changed to 400KB maximum, and we've had no problems since. (We thought that 400KB file-size max. was a reasonable compromise when asking people to ensure that their upload images were not excessively large, but was large enough to allow the upload of good quality images.

It's currently set to unlimited, which means it depends on our PHP configuration which is currently set to 16MB. But as the images are automagically re-sized (and hence get smaller when stored) I''m happy with that.



WalkLakes recognises that hill walking, or walking in the mountains, is an activity with a danger of personal injury or death.
Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions.