-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Photos in Bird identification forum (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gerald762
- Start date
Deb Burhinus
Used to be well known! 😎
Yes, I found that too. ( But thats a good thing imo)
Deb Burhinus
Used to be well known! 😎
Imo, It’s good for members that post their images on the ID forums etc because it is easier to control who might be downloading an image so therefore protects the owner of the photo. Members would know that they would need permission from the OP first.
I agree it’s not so helpful for all those members who regularly have an interest in viewing the ID threads but don't want to log on for some reason (or for those who want to spend hours going through guide books or ebird before they log in to the thread and would rather not be seen taking ages to ID the OP
!).
I agree it’s not so helpful for all those members who regularly have an interest in viewing the ID threads but don't want to log on for some reason (or for those who want to spend hours going through guide books or ebird before they log in to the thread and would rather not be seen taking ages to ID the OP
!).
That's good, I hadn't thought of it in that fashion.
More on the photos, this time in Opus . I was just checking Abyssinian White-eye, an Opus rarity, as I'm about to post an old shot and wanted to be sure I hadnt posted it before. The link to the photos takes you to the search page not to the photos (I appreciate that it has extra functionality so you can search by the members's name, date etc) but you have to put the name of the bird in again and tick a box to restrict the search to the title only so that makes 3 actions compared to 1 before, which is a unfriendly . (If you click on videos rather than photos, you go straight through as before) If you dont tick that box to restrict the search to the title you get White collared pigeon, White-billed starling and a random Blackstart because they have Abyssinian in the text, which is bonkers. There's the message that 'eye ' has been excluded form the search as the word is too common, and this time the page has Abyssinian Black and White colobus monkeys !!! The 'common word' exclusion completely screws up the search.
Hi Max
Ollie is aware of this issue and is working hard on the solution with the people who supply the forum. He thinks the solution will be even better than what we had before. Fingers crossed.
Ollie is aware of this issue and is working hard on the solution with the people who supply the forum. He thinks the solution will be even better than what we had before. Fingers crossed.
MacNara
Well-known member
This is about photos in the Bird ID forum, not the Opus problem.
I think that the new photo attachment system is rather less efficient and more fiddly than the old one in several ways.
(This refers to my experience on a desktop Mac using Firefox on a 27-inch screen, 2560x1440.)
When I opened a thread that sounded interesting in the old forum, then I could look at the thumbnails and sometimes decide to look closer, sometimes not. And if I decided to look, I would click on the thumbnail holding down cmd and with my settings the full-size photo would open in a new tab. And I could open the photos that I wanted, click on the tabs to see them, and re-order or delete the tabs to have just the ones that I wanted. And with one click switch from the thread posts to any particular photo.
First annoyance: in the new system, the thumbnails are a square cutout from the photo, and sometimes the bird is only partly (and potentially, not at all) visible. So in many cases it will be necessary to open the full photos to judge whether to continue.
Second annoyance: the new thumbnail system will not open photos directly in a new tab by clicking one one with the cmd button down. Instead (cmd or not) it opens above and obscuring the text of the thread. It's true that there is a button in the top right to get all the thumbnails into this view, but the text is still obscured (and they are still the cropped thumbnails). Reading the thread text and then looking at one particular photo is still going to require several clicks instead of one.
Now, once I have got to this overlay view, there is now a button in the top right of this full-size overlay photo which allows me to open the photo in a new tab (window). But the overlay still remains above the text so I have to click on the background to get rid of it and read the message again. So, it's several clicks, rather than one.
So: with some effort, I can still do what I used to do - have the thread in the first tab and each photo open in its own tab.
So, perhaps not such a big deal.
Annoyance three: I, and quite a lot of other people in threads I have taken part in, sometimes drag unclear photos to the desktop and open them in photoshop to lighten them or darken them. Occasionally these 'improved' versions are posted back to the thread; in my case at least, once I have used them for ID, I delete them from my system. This method doesn't work with the new full-size photos And the download button which shows in the overlay view doesn't work - so why is it there?
In post #4 above, Deb suggests that this protects posters' copyright. But it doesn't. Because all you have to do is to do a screen grab over the photo (on a Mac, cmd+shift+4, then drag over the area you want to copy). I don't know what the new maximum uploadable image size is, but when I used this method it got me one photo at 1700 pixels wide.
(And to further counter Deb's point, the old drag and drop to copy to the desktop works fine for all the photos in the Opus and Gallery, which is where most of the photos likely to be 'stolen' are; and you don't need to be signed in to see the full-sized photos there. And if this were changed so you did have to sign in, then what would happen to all the Opus articles and Gallery photos that come up as a result of regular online searches from over the world - and draws new members who make their first visit to the forum because a search threw up such a link?)
So far: it's maybe just me being annoyed at trivial (but time-consuming as there are quite a lot of extra clicks involved) changes to my working habits.
But where I think this will be a problem for more people is when you get a long thread, and especially a thread where several posts have photos. Because here, I might have several photos from different posts in the thread all open in their own tab, and want to refer simultaneously to the thread itself, so I can remember which post each came with (which will be even more difficult with the new thumbnails not showing the whole photo because in some threads it will make it difficult to match the photo to the thumbnail). Again, I'm sure there's some kind of workaround, but it's going to involve lots more clicks and faff. For me, at least, the old system worked fine, and the new one will be less satisfying.
Bonus point: in the post/reply box, there is a button at the bottom to 'Attach Files' in the old way which produces the new, less helpful thumbnails. But there is also a button with the editing tools at the top of the page to put a photo directly into the post, not as an attachment (and another button to directly insert sound or video). This has already been used since the new site was done (see the thread 'Three from Cora Rica'). This doesn't affect me on fibre-to-the-home at 10GB/sec, but surely it's going to annoy people in less-well-served places and phone users who will end up downloading full sized pictures for every thread which puts them in directly and uses up their data allowance? Interestingly, if the photos are directly in the post, then cmd+click will open the photo in a new tab, but this is less necessary because the photos are full size already in the post itself.
I think that the new photo attachment system is rather less efficient and more fiddly than the old one in several ways.
(This refers to my experience on a desktop Mac using Firefox on a 27-inch screen, 2560x1440.)
When I opened a thread that sounded interesting in the old forum, then I could look at the thumbnails and sometimes decide to look closer, sometimes not. And if I decided to look, I would click on the thumbnail holding down cmd and with my settings the full-size photo would open in a new tab. And I could open the photos that I wanted, click on the tabs to see them, and re-order or delete the tabs to have just the ones that I wanted. And with one click switch from the thread posts to any particular photo.
First annoyance: in the new system, the thumbnails are a square cutout from the photo, and sometimes the bird is only partly (and potentially, not at all) visible. So in many cases it will be necessary to open the full photos to judge whether to continue.
Second annoyance: the new thumbnail system will not open photos directly in a new tab by clicking one one with the cmd button down. Instead (cmd or not) it opens above and obscuring the text of the thread. It's true that there is a button in the top right to get all the thumbnails into this view, but the text is still obscured (and they are still the cropped thumbnails). Reading the thread text and then looking at one particular photo is still going to require several clicks instead of one.
Now, once I have got to this overlay view, there is now a button in the top right of this full-size overlay photo which allows me to open the photo in a new tab (window). But the overlay still remains above the text so I have to click on the background to get rid of it and read the message again. So, it's several clicks, rather than one.
So: with some effort, I can still do what I used to do - have the thread in the first tab and each photo open in its own tab.
So, perhaps not such a big deal.
Annoyance three: I, and quite a lot of other people in threads I have taken part in, sometimes drag unclear photos to the desktop and open them in photoshop to lighten them or darken them. Occasionally these 'improved' versions are posted back to the thread; in my case at least, once I have used them for ID, I delete them from my system. This method doesn't work with the new full-size photos And the download button which shows in the overlay view doesn't work - so why is it there?
In post #4 above, Deb suggests that this protects posters' copyright. But it doesn't. Because all you have to do is to do a screen grab over the photo (on a Mac, cmd+shift+4, then drag over the area you want to copy). I don't know what the new maximum uploadable image size is, but when I used this method it got me one photo at 1700 pixels wide.
(And to further counter Deb's point, the old drag and drop to copy to the desktop works fine for all the photos in the Opus and Gallery, which is where most of the photos likely to be 'stolen' are; and you don't need to be signed in to see the full-sized photos there. And if this were changed so you did have to sign in, then what would happen to all the Opus articles and Gallery photos that come up as a result of regular online searches from over the world - and draws new members who make their first visit to the forum because a search threw up such a link?)
So far: it's maybe just me being annoyed at trivial (but time-consuming as there are quite a lot of extra clicks involved) changes to my working habits.
But where I think this will be a problem for more people is when you get a long thread, and especially a thread where several posts have photos. Because here, I might have several photos from different posts in the thread all open in their own tab, and want to refer simultaneously to the thread itself, so I can remember which post each came with (which will be even more difficult with the new thumbnails not showing the whole photo because in some threads it will make it difficult to match the photo to the thumbnail). Again, I'm sure there's some kind of workaround, but it's going to involve lots more clicks and faff. For me, at least, the old system worked fine, and the new one will be less satisfying.
Bonus point: in the post/reply box, there is a button at the bottom to 'Attach Files' in the old way which produces the new, less helpful thumbnails. But there is also a button with the editing tools at the top of the page to put a photo directly into the post, not as an attachment (and another button to directly insert sound or video). This has already been used since the new site was done (see the thread 'Three from Cora Rica'). This doesn't affect me on fibre-to-the-home at 10GB/sec, but surely it's going to annoy people in less-well-served places and phone users who will end up downloading full sized pictures for every thread which puts them in directly and uses up their data allowance? Interestingly, if the photos are directly in the post, then cmd+click will open the photo in a new tab, but this is less necessary because the photos are full size already in the post itself.
Has something changed with the new platform MacNara... it was always the case you had to be logged in to see the full size versions of images in the Forums, Gallery and Opus?
I know I've been unable to see them if I wasn't logged in.
MacNara
Well-known member
I thought it was not the case, Delia (as I said, photos from the Gallery show up in Google image searches, but if a person could only see thumbnails, there would be no point). But as you can see from the attached screen shot, here is a full-size Gallery picture, and as you can see, I'm invited to register or to log in, so I'm not logged in at this time. (I used a different browser, Safari, than my usual Firefox because on Firefox I am logged in automatically when I visit the site. Using this browser, I am asked to log in to expand thumbnails in Bird ID, but not in Gallery or Opus.)
Last edited:
MacNara
Well-known member
Well, I can't get it to work here. Maybe it's something to do with my cookie settings or something. The other buttons work, just not the download button.
MacNara
Well-known member
I notice that recent posters are including fullsize photos in the main post - rather than thumbnails. I find this a bit odd. As I said, any thread anyone glances at will download all the fullsize photos (maybe it's different on a phone, I don't have one). But often the thumbnails is all you need.
To show what I mean about the new thumbnails in posts being less useful than in the old version, here is a screen grab showing that the square crop thumbnails of the new version sometimes leave the bird out completely, and sometimes only show a part. Photo two has no birds showing, and photo four is missing the head.
Interestingly, if I am logged into BF, then on Bird ID if people have chosen to post fullsize pictures, I get the all the photos fullsize automatically; but if I am not signed in, then I get only thumbnails and am asked to sign in to see the fullsize pictures. But these thumbnails show a miniature version of the whole photo, like the old thumbnails (which is what I would like all thumbnails to do).
And I haven't posted yet, but it seems that on this section of BF, thumbnails also show a miniature of the whole thing.
It's a bit confusing.
It just seems to me that the new system in Bird ID makes it less simple to use (especially in longer threads where there are photos posted in various posts) for no benefit at all. But others may find that the new system has things that work better for them.
To be clear, I like the overall look of the new site, even though as a long term user there are details which I miss which had become automatic.
To show what I mean about the new thumbnails in posts being less useful than in the old version, here is a screen grab showing that the square crop thumbnails of the new version sometimes leave the bird out completely, and sometimes only show a part. Photo two has no birds showing, and photo four is missing the head.
Interestingly, if I am logged into BF, then on Bird ID if people have chosen to post fullsize pictures, I get the all the photos fullsize automatically; but if I am not signed in, then I get only thumbnails and am asked to sign in to see the fullsize pictures. But these thumbnails show a miniature version of the whole photo, like the old thumbnails (which is what I would like all thumbnails to do).
And I haven't posted yet, but it seems that on this section of BF, thumbnails also show a miniature of the whole thing.
It's a bit confusing.
It just seems to me that the new system in Bird ID makes it less simple to use (especially in longer threads where there are photos posted in various posts) for no benefit at all. But others may find that the new system has things that work better for them.
To be clear, I like the overall look of the new site, even though as a long term user there are details which I miss which had become automatic.
Andrea Collins
Beside the Duddon Estuary, Cumbria
Personally I've always preferred to have sensibly sized images embedded within a thread rather than thumbnails. However I'm speaking as someone who only normally accesses the site on a laptop with a large screen and a fast internet connection so I appreciate that may not be ideal for others.
On another site I frequent which has long had the ability to embed images I typically downsize them first so the long edge is no more than 1200 pixels and the file size is less than 150kb. This also makes them less attractive to anyone who might want to pinch them. The pic embedded here is 1200 pixels wide and 127kb. Is this sort of size still too big for those people who prefer thumbnails or are on slow internet connections?
There have been occasions when I would have liked to have embedded several images of this sort of size in a description of a days wildlife watching in the Your Birding Day part of the forum and personally I would like to read other people's descriptions of their days out with photos embedded in the text where possible rather than as separate thumbnails.
Admittedly on the other site I mentioned it was certainly annoying when someone simply posted a lot of full size images without downsizing them in any way. (If anyone wants this photo removed speak up quick as the post editing time is limited!)
On another site I frequent which has long had the ability to embed images I typically downsize them first so the long edge is no more than 1200 pixels and the file size is less than 150kb. This also makes them less attractive to anyone who might want to pinch them. The pic embedded here is 1200 pixels wide and 127kb. Is this sort of size still too big for those people who prefer thumbnails or are on slow internet connections?
There have been occasions when I would have liked to have embedded several images of this sort of size in a description of a days wildlife watching in the Your Birding Day part of the forum and personally I would like to read other people's descriptions of their days out with photos embedded in the text where possible rather than as separate thumbnails.
Admittedly on the other site I mentioned it was certainly annoying when someone simply posted a lot of full size images without downsizing them in any way. (If anyone wants this photo removed speak up quick as the post editing time is limited!)
gerald762
Well-known member
I am just going to repeat my experience of photos more fully. I use a windows 10 laptop, running Firefox. Ever since I joined the bird forum I could go to the Identification forum, click on a thumbnail photo and a new tab would open showing a bigger photo. This was without logging in. I think this applied to all forums.
Conversely if I went to Gallery and clicked on a thumbnail I was asked to log in.
Conversely if I went to Gallery and clicked on a thumbnail I was asked to log in.
Deb Burhinus
Used to be well known! 😎
Andrea, you might be interested in the post on the link below - there is now a grid function that you may be able to use in your Birding Day threads that allows you to be a bit more creative with the layout. I embedded an mp3 file into the body of the post the typed around it (just as a very rough try out!)
Post in thread 'Tips & tricks'
https://www.birdforum.net/threads/tips-tricks.401722/post-4100831
Wasn’t that the case with everyone? You could access Opus but Opus only contains limited images. If you wanted to click on the Gallery link in Opus to see more of the same sp. you got a request to sign in so Opus only got you so far.
MacNara
Well-known member
Well, I thought that the Gallery had always been open to members and non-members (photos come up on Google image search), but I may be wrong.
But at the moment, the Gallery and Opus are freely available. See my unlogged-in screengrab below (from another browser, not this one logged in by accident). NB I resized this screengrab to be only 1000px wide. If BF did this automatically it would be great, but the new BF seems to allow really big, automatically-loading photos by default which will be a real nuisance to me and some others.
MacNara
Well-known member
A small thumbnail and a reasonably-sized image linked to this would be much more friendly. I find your woodpecker photo far too large (relatively to everything else on my large screen). I would much rather have the thumbnails (four or five horizontally) and the choice of which to see full-size. If you were regularly posting four or five fullsize photos like this, I would block you if I could.
But I use almost exclusively the Bird ID forum, and I think this would be / will be in this new format, a problem there.
However, I have just checked all this on my iPad Mini, and there your woodpecker appears as a nice thumbnail which expands on clicking. So basically BF has moved to being a nice desktop / laptop site with a poor phone profile to the reverse, rather than becoming more inclusive.
