- May 21, 2003
- 14,644
- 10
- 81
Inline linking to ridiculously, an unnecessarily, large .gifs needs to be limited. Badly.
I could post example after example but anyone who visits the Jesus's middle name is Hume! thread knows what I'm talking about. Regularly 40-100+Mb images are linked inline.
I actually use this page as a stress test for connections. It's FAR more stressful than anything I have seen due to the raw number of simultaneous threads and size/thread.
Even on a moderately fast connection, 20 Mb/s that's a blazing 2.5MB/s, or 28 seconds to load.
Per image.
With multiple large .gifs linked in a 100ppp, hell even 20ppp settings, it takes MINUTES to load.
Almost all of these will shrink down to under 10MB, often closer to ~4MB VASTLY improving page loads. All you have to do is force users to load properly compressed images.
It's like allowing .raw vs. .jpg, which would never be allowed, so why allow this?
I could post example after example but anyone who visits the Jesus's middle name is Hume! thread knows what I'm talking about. Regularly 40-100+Mb images are linked inline.
I actually use this page as a stress test for connections. It's FAR more stressful than anything I have seen due to the raw number of simultaneous threads and size/thread.
Even on a moderately fast connection, 20 Mb/s that's a blazing 2.5MB/s, or 28 seconds to load.
Per image.
With multiple large .gifs linked in a 100ppp, hell even 20ppp settings, it takes MINUTES to load.
Almost all of these will shrink down to under 10MB, often closer to ~4MB VASTLY improving page loads. All you have to do is force users to load properly compressed images.
It's like allowing .raw vs. .jpg, which would never be allowed, so why allow this?
