TalkImg.com - Image hosting for BitcoinTalk

[joker_josue]

@Joker_josue, since talk image is designed mainly for the forum, why not set the bbcode with height or width that fits well in the forum than maintaining the original dimension of the image. I mean; force the forum parameters on every image, instead of the reverse.

There is no specific height or width that fits well in the forum. It all depends on the user's screen size or the resolution used.

So what TalkImg just does is indicate what the width or height of the image actually is (without any alteration).



I inform you that, to minimize the impact of disproportionate images, from now on, the default embed code is the one that only shows the height of the image. (The other options remain available.) We will see what the result will be in the coming times.

[LoyceV]

When you say I should make my browser small before taking the screenshot, do you mean by zooming or there's another way round it.

I mean: don't use full-screen, resize your browser window. That's the thing where you use your mouse to move the sides.

why not set the bbcode with height or width that fits well in the forum than maintaining the original dimension of the image. I mean; force the forum parameters on every image, instead of the reverse.

"The forum" completely depends on the user's browser resolution.

I inform you that, to minimize the impact of disproportionate images, from now on, the default embed code is the one that only shows the height of the image. (The other options remain available.) We will see what the result will be in the coming times.

As a compromise: can you still add the width by default if it's less than (say) 900 pixels?

[joker_josue]

I inform you that, to minimize the impact of disproportionate images, from now on, the default embed code is the one that only shows the height of the image. (The other options remain available.) We will see what the result will be in the coming times.

As a compromise: can you still add the width by default if it's less than (say) 900 pixels?

You would need to write a few lines of code for this to work, which could take several hours to test and implement. I sincerely believe that this case does not justify this work. But, who knows, maybe in a future update I can explore this idea.

[JayJuanGee]

@Joker_josue, since talk image is designed mainly for the forum, why not set the bbcode with height or width that fits well in the forum than maintaining the original dimension of the image. I mean; force the forum parameters on every image, instead of the reverse.

There is no specific height or width that fits well in the forum. It all depends on the user's screen size or the resolution used.
So what TalkImg just does is indicate what the width or height of the image actually is (without any alteration).

I inform you that, to minimize the impact of disproportionate images, from now on, the default embed code is the one that only shows the height of the image. (The other options remain available.) We will see what the result will be in the coming times.

I just tested out the new default upload function, which was that I took a screenshot of the below image, and this is what I got as my default upon uploading it.  Sure, my own screen resolution may have been a bit high which contributed to the image coming out so BIG.



Accordingly, I found this image a little big for my own preferences, so of course, I had no problem with that, since I was able to adjust the image size (up or) down to around a fifth of the size (or perhaps some other amount) with the adjustment of just the one parameter (the height)

 

You can see that I adjusted the height down from 938 pixels to 188 pixels, and I think that this new way of generating the upload code (with only the height) will work better (in the lessening of distorted images) for a lot of forum members who have been uploading screenshots through talkimg.

[LoyceV]

I just tested out the new default upload function, which was that I took a screenshot of the below image

So specifying only the height didn't solve the problem: if the horizontal browser resolution is smaller than the image width, the aspect ratio still gets mangled.

[JayJuanGee]

I just tested out the new default upload function, which was that I took a screenshot of the below image

So specifying only the height didn't solve the problem: if the horizontal browser resolution is smaller than the image width, the aspect ratio still gets mangled.

Fair enough.. I see what you are saying since I can see that in the first image, it distorts if I narrow my browser to a more narrow perspective.  The second image does not have that problem since I had made the size much smaller than any likely narrowing.. so there still would be some instances in which the images are going to end up distorting when the image is larger.

At the same time, I still believe that only having height as the input parameter fixes the issues that come about when a newbie (or anyone else) only adjusts one out of the two parameters, so if they end up adjusting the one (the height in this case) then the other parameter will automatically adjust (the width in this case). 

I would not proclaim that the recent fix is worse to ONLY have one parameter, and I had been suggesting that it is better to have only one parameter... Yet, sure there is the argument that you are making about distortions on width still potentially taking place and that there could be some value in terms of addressing the creation of some kind of default width that does not distort.

On the other hand, what if joker_josue were to create the width as the default entry field, rather than the height, then the image would not distort in the direction of the height.  Would it? 

In other words, would width be better as the default included field rather than height?

[LoyceV]

At the same time, I still believe that only having height as the input parameter fixes the issues that come about when a newbie (or anyone else) only adjusts one out of the two parameters, so if they end up adjusting the one (the height in this case) then the other parameter will automatically adjust (the width in this case).

I know that's common on the WO-thread (and it's actually where I picked it up myself to make quotes smaller), but it's really just lazyness. It only takes a few seconds to calculate and type the correct width with the adjusted height.

On the other hand, what if joker_josue were to create the width as the default entry field, rather than the height, then the image would not distort in the direction of the height.  Would it?

Let's test it:

This looks okay. BUT: while loading, everything below this image moves. And if several images like this are at the top of a page, it means everything moves several times. It's the same as having no dimensions-tags at all.

[joker_josue]

This looks okay. BUT: while loading, everything below this image moves. And if several images like this are at the top of a page, it means everything moves several times. It's the same as having no dimensions-tags at all.

Exactly. Unfortunately, due to how the forum handles images, there isn't much I can do on the TalkImg side.

I also did some tests, in more detail, and concluded that whether it's just height or width, there will always be a scenario that won't be covered.


There are therefore 4 scenarios:
1. Just have HEIGHT. It allows that when you enter a page with many images, the page is the correct size even before all the images are loaded. This prevents the content from moving down as the page loads. Problem: May cause the image to look disproportionality on smaller screens.
2. Just have the WIDTH. Prevents the image from becoming disproportionate, even if changes are made to its value. This ensures that the image is always proportionality. Problem: When the page loads, the content may scroll down as the images are loaded.
3. Have the HEIGHT and WIDTH. Ensures that the embed code is the actual size of the image. This way, as soon as you enter a page, it will be organized based on the size of the images, even before they are loaded. Problem: It can generate disproportionality on smaller screens, or if the user adjusts these fields incorrectly that does not guarantee this proportionality.
4. Do not include this information. Do not include height and width values ​​in the embed code by default. So it is up to each user to manually add this information or not. Problem: Does not help fix the issues that the previous solutions try to help with.


In your opinion, what is the scenario that I should apply in the default embed code in TalkImg?

[LoyceV]

In your opinion, what is the scenario that I should apply in the default embed code in TalkImg?

I prefer how I do it myself (obviously): add width, height and alt tags. And before uploading, adjust the image to fit a browser tab. Although I don't always do that, especially for graphs or very large images. For graphs, viewers just have to switch to full-screen or even scroll to see it. For other images (I'm thinking about artwork), it's best to create a smaller image to embed, clickable to see the full version. But I must admit I usually don't do that.

[JayJuanGee]

.....
2. Just have the WIDTH. Prevents the image from becoming disproportionate, even if changes are made to its value. This ensures that the image is always proportionality. Problem: When the page loads, the content may scroll down as the images are loaded.
.....
In your opinion, what is the scenario that I should apply in the default embed code in TalkImg?

I don't have strong feelings, yet I prefer 2.

It would be nice to receive more votes - yet maybe members do not have strong feelings on the topic.

[vapourminer]

There are therefore 4 scenarios:
1. Just have HEIGHT. It allows that when you enter a page with many images, the page is the correct size even before all the images are loaded. This prevents the content from moving down as the page loads. Problem: May cause the image to look disproportionality on smaller screens.
[...]
In your opinion, what is the scenario that I should apply in the default embed code in TalkImg?

i vote height. as i hate pages jumping around on initial load worse than anything. i sometimes just wont even bother reading pages that do that more than once or twice.

and im guilty of setting just the width tag myself in WO when resizing on quote. i need to change my habits lol

also:

alt tags.

alt tags would rock. never know when you might want text only.

edit:  bonus points for Snoopy

[Cricktor]

I tend to use width=... mostly and I don't like large embedded pictures a lot. If specifying width only means the pictures won't be distorted on strangely small screens, then that's my prefered setting. Though, afair, it has been shown that using width parameter doesn't prevent distortion on small screens. Or do I remember this wrongly?

I'm fine to have both width and height as default because deleting one of it is very easy and quick. Having to compute or figure out the missing one would be more of a pain for me.

[Rikafip]

Anyone else having issues with TalkImg.com at the moment or its only me? For some reason I can't upload any images and an hour it was working ok without any issues whatsoever.

@joker_josue  can you please look into it so I can finish my monthly overview.  

edit: its working now.

[joker_josue]

@joker_josue  can you please look into it so I can finish my monthly overview.  

edit: its working now.

Sorry, but I was without access to the forum and I couldn't answer.
On the server's part, I didn't detect any problems. It may have been some momentary instability.

Do I understand why? Did it give any error?

[JayJuanGee]

@joker_josue  can you please look into it so I can finish my monthly overview.  
edit: its working now.

Sorry, but I was without access to the forum and I couldn't answer.
On the server's part, I didn't detect any problems. It may have been some momentary instability.

Do I understand why? Did it give any error?

I am using a chrome browser on a Mac, and frequently I have found that I am not able to upload pictures unless I first refresh the page. 



I have no problems with needing to refresh the page before uploading, but I understand that if I might have had failed to refresh the page and tried to upload, then the upload might not work properly, and I might not have realized that the reason that my upload did not work is that I did not refresh the page first.

[joker_josue]

I am using a chrome browser on a Mac, and frequently I have found that I am not able to upload pictures unless I first refresh the page. 

Well, but this happens when you have the page open for some time, being inactive. Correct?
If so, it is due to the security systems that the OS or browser may have active, which disable javascripts or other functions of the website.

[Iamgoat]

@joker_josue  can you please look into it so I can finish my monthly overview.  
edit: its working now.

Sorry, but I was without access to the forum and I couldn't answer.
On the server's part, I didn't detect any problems. It may have been some momentary instability.

Do I understand why? Did it give any error?

I am using a chrome browser on a Mac, and frequently I have found that I am not able to upload pictures unless I first refresh the page. 



I have no problems with needing to refresh the page before uploading, but I understand that if I might have had failed to refresh the page and tried to upload, then the upload might not work properly, and I might not have realized that the reason that my upload did not work is that I did not refresh the page first.

Before I talk about of the possible solutions to your problem, the first thing I will advise you to do is to check if your browser is updated, if it isn't, try and update it first. I want to also know if you will be able to identify the reason for the error by pressing the following command in the keyboard; Cmd + Option + J in the Chrome app to be able to access the Developer Console then check if you could find the root cause of the error will appear when you try to upload without reloading the page. If you do, try and search for the solution to the specific problem, if you do not, you can explore these other options.

Try and Disable the all the active browser extensions by clicking the 3-dots menu (• • •) at the top right corner of the browser then navigate to Extensions and Manage Extensions. Try and disable all the extensions then check if it works. If it doesn't, this is the second option.

Try and clear the Cached and Cookies of the browser. In order to do this, click on the lock icon close to the address bar when you visit the website, then choose Site Settings and scroll down to Clear Data then click on it. The other option is for you to allow Javascript and Pop-ups for the Talkimg.com page. To do this, go to Chrome settings, Privacy and security then Site settings. Allow Pop-ups and redirects for Talkimg.com and also allow Javascript under the Content tab. If the problem still persist then it is most probably something which has to do with the website itself.

[Rikafip]

Do I understand why? Did it give any error?

Hm, I don't remember the exact message I got when trying to upload the various images, but it was something like 'image can't be uploaded' or something along those lines. The most important thing is that it started working again. 

[leonair]

I have some images which appear broken when uploading them to this forum. Because they are hosted on imgur.  I want to use them in the forum and therefore it looks like I need to download every single image and upload them to talkimg and use them in this forum.

Is there any way I can host the images together on talkimg instead of downloading them individually and re-uploading them to talkimg? If there was such an option it would have saved a lot of time for the old users because almost all the old users of this forum used to use imgur and all those images are now broken.

[Z_MBFM]

I have some images which appear broken when uploading them to this forum. Because they are hosted on imgur.  I want to use them in the forum and therefore it looks like I need to download every single image and upload them to talkimg and use them in this forum.

You can use TryNinja Script. the instructions are quoted bellow. for full instructions you can visit quoted topic

How to use it:

1. Choose the image provider you want to use (change provider to imgbb or talkimg - IMPORTANT: all lower case).
2. If you choose imgbb, you need an account and your own API key. Generate your API key here and put it on providers -> imgbb -> apiKey (example).
3. Go to bitcointalk.org (any page).
4. Open the browser developer tools on the Console tab (Ctrl+Shift+I or F12).
5. Paste the script and press Enter.
6. Leave the page open while the script runs and, if you can, do not use the forum (not even in other tabs) to avoid rate limiting errors.

If a error shows up, please report it here and/or run the script again (the process will start over, but already updated posts will be ignored since they won't have any more imgur.com links).

Script:

- If you're using TalkImg, you are free to swap the API key to your own if you have an account there. Otherwise, there is already one provided by @joker_josue for this script.
- You can change the startPage variable if you want to start the script from a specific page (i.e the script errors at page 300 and you want to restart back from there).

GET THE SCRIPT CODE HERE: https://gist.github.com/ninjastic/36c14fb2eb1c4b750f40f332d408688f