Uploading Files? File Types?

[bpossel]

I know this is 113 (car) forum discussion area and not a computer (techie) discussion forum, but....  how can I upload file types other than .jpg?

Can I upload:
.pdf? (Adobe)
.htm (html)?
.doc (Word)
other types?

I am sure that others have had this question (issue) also?
Also, I have seen posts where the "poster" somehow cut and pasted text and image files directly into the posting, so that the pic was displayed in the post and not just as an attachment.  How is this done?

If questions could be answered here and then maybe eventually transferred to the FAQ area, that would be great!

  Thanks!
Bob

bpossel
Memphis, TN.
1971 280SL
1997 E320

[rwmastel]

According to this, you can upload a .doc file.
http://index.php?topic=12

I just tried it an it works, if it's under the 80kb size limit.  I can convert to .pdf format, but we can't upload this format.

Rodd
Powell, Ohio, USA
1966 230SL, Euro, Auto, Leather, both  tops
1994 E420

Download Attachment: Lode Star Fest.doc
39.46 KB

[Peter van Es]

I can get anything on the site you like, so if there's something you want, just mail me.

I'm a little tired right now, but I'll post instructions on how to get your picture in-line in your text here sometime later this week and then add it to the FAQ.

Peter (aka Admin)

Check out http://bali.esweb.nl for photographs of classic car events and my 1970 280 SL

[bpossel]

That would be great, thanks Peter.

I did try uploading a Word doc after reading Rodds post.  I was able to upload the file if less than 80k.

What is unclear is the "Attach an Image" paper clip on these posts. I was assuming that "Image" meant picture file only.  Didnt realize this really means upload a file...

Maybe you can list in the FAQ exactly what files types can be uploaded.  Hopefully Adobe (pdf) files can be...  also .htm (html) files..

Thanks!
Bob

bpossel
Memphis, TN.
1971 280SL
1997 E320

[rwmastel]

quote:Originally posted by vanesp

I'll post instructions on how to get your picture in-line in your text here sometime later this week and then add it to the FAQ.

Peter,
I know others disagree, but I've never been a fan of this method for posting pictures.
- For people with slow traditional dial-up connections, the page can be slow to load.
- For people with small screen resolutions (800 x 600), photos can be much larger and demand scrolling to see parts, thereby never seeing the whole picture.
- It creates more scrolling to get past the picture-filled post to read further down the thread.
- I'm forced to view pictures instead of click on a link if I'm interested.

Must my $.02, if it's even worth that much.  Apparently it's worth $1.98 from an Australian MB Dealership!  

Rodd
Powell, Ohio, USA
1966 230SL, Euro, Auto, Leather, both  tops
1994 E420

[Ed Cave]

Rodd:

I guess I'm one of those others who disagrees. First, if anyone out there is still using dial-up for their internet connection, its time to wake up and smell the coffee. Mrs. Olsen's not brewing the Joe anymore. [:0] Secondly, anyone with a 800x600 resolution setting is simply robbing themself of free real estate. Valuable screen space is just a right click away!  

Finally, scroll through these threads (links below) and look at how much richer this other forum is  where participants often include images in their postings. The experience is, IMHO, far more rewarding.

Here are two examples...

http://www.early911sregistry.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7562

http://www.early911sregistry.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8446

I guess that would qualify as my 2 cents worth. I'd like to know what others think...


Ed Cave
Atlanta, GA


1971 280SL
1973 911S
2004 A4 3.0
2006 GS430

[rwmastel]

quote:First, if anyone out there is still using dial-up for their internet connection, its time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Well, I know people do use it.  Remember, we're a Global group.  There are probably members in rural areas,underdeveloped countries, and who knows where.

quote:Secondly, anyone with a 800x600 resolution setting is simply robbing themself of free real estate. Valuable screen space is just a right click away!

If your a member who's vision wasn't what it was 20 years ago, the large resolution helps.  Many users who don't know how to size photos might post 1600 x 1200 or larger and it's really impossible to look at those.

quote:Finally, scroll through these threads (links below) and look at how much richer this other forum is  where participants often include images in their postings. The experience is, IMHO, far more rewarding.
http://www.early911sregistry.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7562
http://www.early911sregistry.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8446

Both of these examples took about 13 - 15 seconds to load, and I'm on high speed access.  This example took over 20 seconds to load, and I can't see complete pictures:
http://index.php?topic=4588

Rodd
Powell, Ohio, USA
1966 230SL, Euro, Auto, Leather, both  tops
1994 E420

[Cees Klumper]

Those Porsche pages took only a few (two to three) seconds on my connection, and I just ordered triple the speed that I have now, for $2 a month more.
I guess what makes a big difference is the size limit for picture uploading. I have seen sites where there is no limit, so there are for example 1.2 MB photos in the posts: that will slow things down a lot - if we stick to our size limit of e.g. 80kb, then I suppose the loading speed would be affected much less.
Having photos in our threads would make quite a difference in the 'look and feel'.

Cees ("Case") Klumper in Amsterdam
'69 white 280 SL automatic

[admin]

Dear all,

quote:Both of these examples took about 13 - 15 seconds to load, and I'm on high speed access. This example took over 20 seconds to load, and I can't see complete pictures:
http://index.php?topic=4588

I'm afraid this is comparing apples and pears...

The pictures on the Porsche page are all loaded from their website, and have been reduced to less than 80K in size. So clearly they enforce a policy, like us that has the effect of reducing both the picture size and the download size. As a result the picture downloads quickly and does not require too much screen real-estate.

In the thread you referred to our dear member Green250SL has used a little known trick, available to the tech savy, of hosting the pictures on a different server (perhaps his own or some other public web-site) and subsequently pulling them in-line into his message.

That has a number of effects:
 

• he circumvents our 80K limit  
• pictures can be larger than the way an average user displays a forum message  
• the server from which it loads may be slower than ours or have a slower connection to the internet  

Here's an experiment you may want to try. Go to his first picture, click on it with your right mouse button. Select "properties...". You'll find some interesting details (the URL is http://www.hostdub.com/albums/Black20th_album12/DSC00305_edit.jpg  the picture format is 1024x768, and the file size is 1006570 bytes, i.e. 1MB).

If I look at all the pictures in that particular thread, the size is over 7MB. That actually means that our site with his hosting method is considerably faster than that of the Porsche site (given the difference in loading times you quote).

This trick of linking is possible with most forum software. We can inform the few members who use it that it is frowned upon. Primarily because the files become too large, but more importantly, because we have no control over the original location of the pictures. If that other server stops providing a service or goes down, we suddenly have empty messages with no pictures.

So, my recommendation would be:
 

• allow in-line pictures, but only when hosted on our own site, with reasonable sizes and limits on file size
• the forum moderator and admin politely advise posters who put in-line links to pictures hosted elsewhere that we don't allow this -- but that they can always include an external link to these pictures  
• open a "relief for the needy" fund for the one or two members who still use dial-in. In the example of the thread used above it would have taken them 15 minutes to get the page...  

.
My 2 Eurocents worth. I hope you all agree with this policy, then in my next message (which I will post within 24 hours) I'll teach you all the trick of how to put an in-line picture in your message!

Peter

[Ed Cave]

Peter:

Thanks for sorting that out. Your 2 Eurocents is worth about 20% more than our 2 US cents and it shows! I Look forward to having the ability to post photos in-line.

Just out of curiousity; if you read this thread and are connecting to the internet via dial up, reply here and let us know. It is not my intention to make the use of this forum more difficult, rather more rewarding.

Ed Cave
Atlanta, GA


1971 280SL
1973 911S
2004 A4 3.0
2006 GS430

[Ricardo]

Yes Ed...sad but true...still on dial-up, 24kbps....downloads are more like 3kbps and  we'll never see cable or high speed phone lines....rural customers just don't make the service providers enough money.
I can get satellite, but at $1,000 installed and $65 per month.....
The upside is no locks on any doors, leave your keys in the car and the only nightime danger is meeting a skunk or a deer on the road [:p]
I have to agree with Rodd on this one

Peter..... well I'm all for R.F.T.N....sign me up  

[Peter van Es]

Ed,

Good initiative to capture what our real members need to cope with.

 

quote:Yes Ed...sad but true...still on dial-up, 24kbps....downloads are more like 3kbps and we'll never see cable or high speed phone lines....rural customers just don't make the service providers enough money.
I can get satellite, but at $1,000 installed and $65 per month.....

Ricardo, I do feel for you, but I don't think our little fund would get you going at these prices  :? . When you browse, do you switch off the automatic downloading of pictures, or do you put up with slow loading times (For Internet Explorer, under Tools, Internet Options, tab Advanced, section Multimedia, option "Show Pictures" unchecked)?

When you hit a slow downloading page like the one in the thread below, do you just hit the BACK button... Curious minds want to know.

Peter

[Peter van Es]

This is an example of an in-line image.



This is my car in my garage, with rally trophies on the wall. The bonnet is open with a drip-charger to keep my car fully charged.

Peter

[Peter van Es]

Dear all,

as I promised, today I'll provide some insights on how to create in-line pictures in your posts. As I explained in an earlier post, when images are placed in-line in a forum message we want to make sure that:

• these pictures are hosted on our own site, with reasonable sizes and limits on file size. This ensures that these pictures are always available when our server is
• these pictures are reasonable in display size (maximum dimension is 640 pixels, either horizontally or vertically)
• these pictures are less than 80K in size so that even dial-up modem visitors can see them in a reasonable amount of time

.

Process for putting pictures in your post

The general process for putting pictures in your post is actually quite simple and not too dissimilar from the normal process most of you are familiar with today. For the sake of new users and in order to reach optimum quality I shall repeat some of these steps here. I apologise in advance if this is too familiar to you. The general process, for which I'll describe each step in detail, is as follows:
 

• edit the picture to reduce its size
• upload the picture in your post
• edit your post manually to get the picture to show in the text

.

Editing your picture

The typical photograph, taken with your digital camera, is between 2 and 6MB large. That is far too big to show in a forum message. Most people view forum messages on a screen either 800x600 or 1024x768 pixels. A universally applicable maximum display size for a picture is therefore to make the largest side (either vertical or horizontal, depending on picture orientation) 640 pixels. Frequently the other side will end up being 425 or 480 pixels, or something close to that. This is an excellent size for our forum.

Just by doing this, picture size will be reduced dramatically. Use your favourite software to save your picture as a ".jpg" file, and verify its size. Sometimes you can do this in your editing package, sometimes you need to right-click on "Your computer" or "My Pictures" to verify that size. If it is over 80K you need to further reduce that size. The easiest way is to perform a "Save As..." operation on the original file, and then to select an Image quality of say 60% (or 6 out of 10) or smaller to reduce the size below 80%. The smaller the percentage, the better.

Note that this jpg compression process typically leaves a better image than if you try to achieve the same result in another fashion. These operations can be performed using Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Photo Editor, the GIMP and other packages. If you use Windows and need an excellent free-of-charge package, I recommend XnView.

This package is easy to use and leaves camera information in the .jpg file intact in editing sessions. When using the "Save As..." function select the button "Options" and then use the JPEG quality leaver to fit within the 80K.

Uploading your picture

Edit your post. Then press the paperclip icon and in the resulting dialog box upload your file, and press the button "upload to ...'s post". A window appears with the following information:

Code: [Select]

The following file has been successfully received:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Filename   PvE Garage.jpg  
 Extension   .jpg  
 Size   77.75 KB  
 Link   uploaded/vanesp/200637173426_PvE Garage.jpg  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please click here to close this window.
Click the close button. Note: in the remainder of this post a space follows the opening (left) square bracket. In your posts there should not be a space between the [ and the text.

In your post a text appears with the following information (provided the file size is ok):

Code: [Select]

[ b]Download Attachment:[ /b]
[ url="http://www.sl113.org/forums/uploaded/vanesp/200637173426_PvE_Garage.jpg" ]
[ img]images/icon_paperclip.gif[ /img] PvE Garage.jpg[ /url][ br]77.75 KB
This is the code for the normal way of showing a picture by downloading it.

Putting your picture in-line

You can put your picture in line with the text of your message by editing the upload message to look like this:

Code: [Select]

[ img]http://www.sl113.org/forums/uploaded/vanesp/200637173426_PvE_Garage.jpg[ /img]
In other words: don't change the picture's URL (which is assigned by our software), and get rid of the Download text and other tags, but keep the URL of the image as provided by the upload command and include it in IMG tags as shown above (Note: in your posts there should not be any spaces after the [).

That's all there is to it.

Peter


Check out http://bali.esweb.nl for photographs of classic car events and my 1970 280 SL

[Ed Cave]

Whew!

No wonder few have accepted this challenge in the past. On the Porsche forum I participate in you simply add an appropriately sized image to your post (similar to using the paper clip on this forum) when you write it and it shows up "in line". Is that simply a product of that particular forum's mechanics and not achieveable here?

Let me go one step further and add this comment. I know very little about forum formats, what they cost, etc. I have to say, (and don't take this the wrong way) of all I have experienced this one seems the most basic/archaic of all. How difficult (or costly if that is the factor) would it be to upgrade? The Porsche one for instance has several nice attributes like the ability to 'poll' members on particular questions and shows you who are active users, etc. etc. Here is a link to the front page of that forum. http://www.early911sregistry.org/forum/index.php

And an example of a poll...
http://www.early911sregistry.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6803

I'm not trying to open a can of worms here but sometimes change is a good thing.



Ed Cave
Atlanta, GA


1971 280SL
1973 911S
2004 A4 3.0
2006 GS430

[Ricardo]

Peter
My service provider "rents" me a little accelerator program that allows me to reduce image resolution for regular browsing...I can right click to refresh with full res when there is something I wish to see better...frapper photos are often too large to look at full size and I hit the back button with many of them....

Great looking car, by the way....something about a number plaque that adds a certain je ne c'est que

[Peter van Es]

Ed,

Actually, once you've done it once it is pretty easy to do. Now on to your other questions:

 

quote:Let me go one step further and add this comment. I know very little about forum formats, what they cost, etc. I have to say, (and don't take this the wrong way) of all I have experienced this one seems the most basic/archaic of all. How difficult (or costly if that is the factor) would it be to upgrade? The Porsche one for instance has several nice attributes like the ability to 'poll' members on particular questions and shows you who are active users, etc. etc.

The forum software we use (Snitz forums) offers certain facilities but not others. There are literally hundreds of forum software packages, all free, each with different features and strong points.

However, when this group got started a choice was made for Snitz. Probably because of familarity or availability, I don't know. I was not there. However, in making this choice it affected a whole lot of other things:
 

• the choice of hosting provider
• the underlying database used (we must use SQLServer)
• script language used (we use ASP)

And then we started populating this forum. I am now adding the 27357th message. If we were to change forum software, either we'd lose all that wealth of information, or we would have to run an old and a new forum side by side (not ideal for searching), or we'd have to find a way (and trust me, that would be virtually impossible) to automatically convert all those messages to the new forum. We'd lose who wrote it, how many stars or messages that member had posted and so on.

So I am afraid that switching forum software is not really practical. Whilst some of the newer forum software looks snazzier, and maybe is easier to use in parts, I think that this forum software serves us well. It's reliable, and offers reasonable searching facilities.

Now on to your point about polls and so on. Currently we do not offer something like polls. However, if you look at our home page (i.e. http://www.sl113.org) and the whole set of pages on our site with the exception of the forum, these are all individual pages, with individual code. When I needed to make a change to the menu, I had to manually edit hundreds of files. I can tell you, that wasn't fun. Now have a look at my private website, hosted from my cellar (http://bali.esweb.nl). I know, it has not been updated for months. However, all of the information you see is in a database. Stories, pictures, layout, menus, everything. If I want to change a menu item, I change it once, and it is changed throughout the site. On the right you see a survey. This is called a CMS or Content Management System. It makes managing a site a lot easier.

I have been thinking about - and discussing with Cees - the effort involved about changing all the pages on the front end part of our site to a content management system to make the site easier to manage and to be able to offer additional facilities. That's a significant amount of work however. But there are other practical issues... I need a CMS that works with the database and the script language that our hosting provider offers. And I haven't found one yet that is cheap (as in Open Source) yet robust enough for our needs.

Added to that, if I'm honest, most regulars here visit the non-forum pages very infrequently. And for most new visitors, our current front pages (provided they don't need changing too often) serve our needs pretty well. So I'm not sure I should invest the personal time and effort to make the change.

quote:I'm not trying to open a can of worms here but sometimes change is a good thing.

Generally I would agree with you, except now I'd be doing all the hard work  :evil: .

Peter

Check out http://bali.esweb.nl for photographs of classic car events and my 1970 280 SL

[Ed Cave]

Peter:

Thanks for a well developed response. Now, with a better undestanding of how these forums work I agree, changing formats is not an option; and that's ok. Maybe Snitz will offer a 'modernized' version some day that will allow all of our valuable history to remain intact without a lot of cumbersome cartwheels.

Offering my opinion again, I think the front pages are fine as they are. Any change in that would be strictly your call as the work of maintaining what is there vs. a total re-format all falls in your lap. I think you and the other directors/administrators of this group do an outstanding job with this club. Recognizing that no one is on the payroll, so to speak, the last thing I want to do is create additional work for anyone. I continue to be interested in the quality and welfare of this Group and value the opportunity to learn and contribute through the Forum.

Ed Cave
Atlanta, GA


1971 280SL
1973 911S
2004 A4 3.0
2006 GS430

[rwmastel]

quote:Originally posted by rwmastel

- It creates more scrolling to get past the picture-filled post to read further down the thread.

Sorry to dredge up such an old topic, but here's a perfect example of why I don't like in-line picture posting:
http://index.php?topic=5032

Now, to read any other post in that thread, you have to scroll way over to the side.  Doesn't that annoy anyone else but me?  It's a fine picture and I'm glad I saw it (thanks Naj), but it makes reading everything else unnecessarily difficult.

Rodd
Powell, Ohio, USA
1966 230SL, Euro, Auto, Leather, both  tops
1994 E420

[Naj ✝︎]

Rodd,

 

quote:Now, to read any other post in that thread, you have to scroll way over to the side. Doesn't that annoy anyone else but me? It's a fine picture and I'm glad I saw it (thanks Naj), but it makes reading everything else unnecessarily difficult.

Point taken (and sorted  :oops: )

naj

65 230SL
68 280SL

[Peter van Es]

Pop-up blockers

Many browsers (such as Internet Explorer) and commonly used tool-bars (such as the Google tool bar) use a pop-up blocker. A pop-up is an annoying window that may open if you visit a site, in which advertising turns up. Certain sites of "dubious" nature -- purely researched in the interest of technical knowledge, of course -- open up pop-up windows when you close the main window, in effect making it very hard for you to leave the site.

However, if you have a pop-up blocker it will interfere with your ability to upload files to this site. Once you've uploaded a file successfully, a window will pop-up allowing you to acknowledge the upload. If the file you've tried to upload is very large, it would show the error message in that same pop-up window.

If you do not acknowledge that window, the details of your uploaded file do not get copied into your message. So either
 

• disable your pop-up blocker temporarily or mannually
• or make this site http://www.sl113.org an exceptionm, allowing pop-ups to be shown.

In Internet Explorer, go to Tools / Pop-up Blocker / Pop-up Blocker Settings. In "Address of website to allow", add "www.sl113.org".

If you have the Google Toolbar, click Options on the bar, choose the More tab of the Pop-up blocker, and DISABLE the Pop-up Blocker. Let Internet Explorer handle this function, it is easier.

We promise, the only pop-ups you'll get from www.sl113.org are useful ones!

Peter