Are you kidding us? I mean, you really can't be freaking serious about the new "design"... What on earth took you so damn long to "design" the new theme if you just took the previous 17$ theme and swapped it with another 17$ theme?

https://themeforest.net/item/canvas-mod ... 4?s_rank=1



It seems you didn't finally respect the community by throwing the first crap away and start with something unique again – instead you seem to really enjoy giving us shit by doing not a single bit more than absolutely necessary to keep your readers in the forums to generate revenue from ads... And you're not even ashamed of doing so, you're not even trying to hide how little worth the community is to you.. We all shall just keep coming back to generate further revenue for you.

In the timeframe you took to swap a bought theme with another one, you could have hired a few coders who could have build a theme that would have brought back the old look and feel without a problem. I know it's possible to do so and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to do so even if you're new to phpBB because it's really basic theming. Instead we're given one messed up theme after another which then is bend and flexed to somehow fit the needs to silence the loudest screaming of the community but it still is nowhere near the old forum.

Really, that's it... a.net as finally proven that they don't care at all about anything else but their money. The community is just an unfortunate detail to make things work as you desire. R.I.P.

Virtual737 wrote:

I totally get the need for advertising revenue. However, when the use of adverts totally distracts from the actual data the visitor came to the site for then somebody has lost the plot.

Once again, an ad blocker fixes all that in a trice. It's free (or some are), easy to install and I never see an ad, anywhere.

If I want ro read sites that won't open for me because of the ad blocker (a couple of the newspapers I enjoy) I white page that website. Hey presto.

What get frustrated when the solution is so very easy?

mariner

Nice improvement to home page and tightening of space on photo pages.

rhuns wrote:

Nice improvement to home page and tightening of space on photo pages.

Really? I can't see any difference in what main and photo pages looks like last 3 weeks.

mariner wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

I totally get the need for advertising revenue. However, when the use of adverts totally distracts from the actual data the visitor came to the site for then somebody has lost the plot.

Once again, an ad blocker fixes all that in a trice. It's free (or some are), easy to install and I never see an ad, anywhere.

If I want ro read sites that won't open for me because of the ad blocker (a couple of the newspapers I enjoy) I white page that website. Hey presto.

What get frustrated when the solution is so very easy?

mariner

Your and some other guys constantly promoting AdBlock here became a bit of irritating. First, as I mention already, AdBlock doesn't work on a lot of OS/Devices. I know that you will advice me to change OS, device, lifestyle and so on because this solution is much easier than possibility that A.net became user friendly. Second, by using AdBlocks you literally steals income from site owners. Third, as a former site contributor I wonder why I am forced not only get through very hard screeneing process, but also get through a quest of technical issues. As I answered earlier to another "New A.net Advocate", human can adapt to any difficulties. The only question is - what for?

kulverstukas wrote:

I answered earlier to another "New A.net Advocate", human can adapt to any difficulties[/url]. The only question is - what for?

Easy-peasy - you either want the content or you don't. If you do, you'll overcome the difficulties. If not - not.

I've tried most of the other civil aviation message boards, but I've never found one that matched a.net for both breadth and depth of conversation - and I like that content. When the "white site" first came up, my heart sank because it seemed to involve a much keener understanding of computer language than the old site and I am computer illiterate.

But I wanted the content, so I put my mind to it - and asked for help - and within a couple days I could do most of the things I've ever been able to on a.net and within a week I was extremely comfortable with it. Now, there are aspects of the white site that I miss.

I'm sorry that suggestions of ad blockers (from me and apparently others) offends you, but all anyone is doing is trying to help and whether you change your devices or not is entirely your business. I will defend Demand Media, whom some are trying to cast as the villain of the piece in all this, because I defend their right to make money.

I don't expect what is finally my entertainment to be provided by anyone for free. But each to their own, always.

mariner

Why are registrations not included with the thumbnail and other details when a photo search is done? This is the most vital piece of aircraft info.

Why do watermarks appear on thumbnails often covering the entire aircraft?

Why is the homepage search box so small with tiny white lettering on a light grey background?

mariner wrote:

I don't expect what is finally my entertainment to be provided by anyone for free. But each to their own, always.

mariner

It's not provided for "free". As was mentioned million times, DM bought A.net not because they want to give money to the great guy but because they believe (and all their business is based on) WEB 2.0 concept, i.e. monetizing user generated content. This site consist of - and only of, no value added by any owner - user uploaded photos and user posted articles (in forums). Without this content A.net cost is negative and equals to site maintenance expenses. And nothing at this site - except "new design" - belongs to DM. You can read user agreement if you want. This site is not "service" for photographers, as trying to make us to believe some crew members. It can be "service" probably, if site owners will respect content creators and share their income with them, at least in form of "photos sale option". But I don't believe in such charity from their side. As I proposed earlier, content creators can at least have privileges to not be target of annoying advertising, as it works for many photo sites - after you get your photo accepted (or log in at your photographer account). But I think response is "you want to much, eat what is served".

PS: I wonder if volunteer crew see ads in their backend interface...

kulverstukas wrote:

It's not provided for "free". .

As I said, I wouldn't expect it to be.

mariner

winterlight wrote:

Why are registrations not included with the thumbnail and other details when a photo search is done? This is the most vital piece of aircraft info.
Why do watermarks appear on thumbnails often covering the entire aircraft?
Why is the homepage search box so small with tiny white lettering on a light grey background?

1) This is on the list to get fixed.
2) I will ask for the watermarks not to show on the thumbnails.
3) This is on the list to get fixed.

The new site doesn't keep me logged in, have to log in every day.

Virtual737 wrote:

2.) On opening EVERY forum post I scroll down to try and find the last post I read (because of course the improved site can't do this for me any more)

It can, just click on the icon left of every topic, and that works on every platform. Unread topics show a different coloured icon compared to read topics. On tablet and desktop there is also a Go to first unread button

kulverstukas wrote:

rhuns wrote:

Nice improvement to home page and tightening of space on photo pages.

Really? I can't see any difference in what main and photo pages looks like last 3 weeks.

For an hour or so this afternoon the home page layout was different. It looked more compact and you could several more sections without having to scroll as much. The pictures pages also seemed to have less white space. I left for a few hours. When I returned I could not log in for a while. Now that I'm logged in again, it seems to have reverted to the previous versions.

It was mid-afternoon here, so wasn't dreaming, and had not hit happy hour!!

Mods, tell me I'm not making this up!

rhuns wrote:

Mods, tell me I'm not making this up!

I was sleeping at the time, so don't look at me
However, with a big layout update just around the corner, I wouldn't be surprised if the developers quickly tested something.

airkas1 wrote:

rhuns wrote:

Mods, tell me I'm not making this up!

I was sleeping at the time, so don't look at me
However, with a big layout update just around the corner, I wouldn't be surprised if the developers quickly tested something.

I'd bet that they accidentally deployed some changes to the "live" server rather than to "test".

speedbored wrote:

I'd bet that they accidentally deployed some changes to the "live" server rather than to "test".

I wouldn't be surprised

Hello,

I know some points have already been discussed here and that some things should be changed soon but I would like to express some feeling about the photos side (my main interest for airliners.net) one month after the launch of the new site. Not talking about the huge useless blanks in the photos display or the unpleasant start page but :

I like:

- When uploading a picture we have now to chose file first so we cannot see the "you forgot to add a file" page anymore and the need to fill the infos again.
- The photo profile tool and the flag of the user
- The"About" in the "My profile section showing the number of photos in the database or the number of posts.
- The possibiliy to manage the watermarks
- The re-upload option associated to every accepted pictures.

I dislike :

- I really miss the "view unique entries" which was located at the bottom of a pictures page. For example when I wanted to see the different operators of a Mirage 2000, I wrote the aircraft type in the seach menu and with this option and I was able to see immediately the different pics of each Airlines, Country, Location, Photographer, Year or Registration in the dtb. I was useful, for sure.
- The number of views display, 4,7k iso 4728.
- The photo upload queue page with also our total number of views and the average of views per picture.
- I miss the photo index with a/c types, airlines, locations, photographers etc...
- The number of pages of a requested search is not displayed at the top anymore, only in the bottom and with and insufficient pages displayed : 1,2,3 and the last page iso 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,20,30,40,50 and the last page.
- The impossibilty to click on the photos or the posts of a user in his "about profile.

The changes were radical and I am still hoping a better layout because my favourite website is way less attractive now. I think I am only still there because I have spent hundreds (or thousands) of hours to work on my pictures destined for anet and build up a personnal dtb which make me proud. Please do not mess it up.

Alsatian wrote:

I dislike :

- I really miss the "view unique entries" which was located at the bottom of a pictures page. For example when I wanted to see the different operators of a Mirage 2000, I wrote the aircraft type in the seach menu and with this option and I was able to see immediately the different pics of each Airlines, Country, Location, Photographer, Year or Registration in the dtb. I was useful, for sure.
- The number of views display, 4,7k iso 4728.
- The photo upload queue page with also our total number of views and the average of views per picture.
- I miss the photo index with a/c types, airlines, locations, photographers etc...
- The number of pages of a requested search is not displayed at the top anymore, only in the bottom and with and insufficient pages displayed : 1,2,3 and the last page iso 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,20,30,40,50 and the last page.
- The impossibilty to click on the photos or the posts of a user in his "about profile.

1) Added to the list.
2) Added to the list.
3) This will return.
4) Added to the list.
5) This was already on the list, but I've added your words to the entry.
6) This is possible:https://www.airliners.net/user/airkas1/profile/photos. Unless you mean in one's forum profile. That is also on the list.

Alsatian wrote:

The changes were radical and I am still hoping a better layout because my favourite website is way less attractive now. I think I am only still there because I have spent hundreds (or thousands) of hours to work on my pictures destined for anet and build up a personnal dtb which make me proud. Please do not mess it up.

It's only going to get better from now on.

Thank you airkas1 for the reply.

For the sixth point, I was talking about the About page in the profile where the numbers of photos, views, favorites, posts and comments are displayed. Could be nice if we can click on "photos" or "posts" and the most recents first to be shown.

Did one of the developers take the "watermarks aren't showing" a bit too literally?



I'm far from one of A.Net's biggest uploaders (1300 photos in 8-9 years) but the website is becoming a laughing stock.

I used to log on several times a day to check what was going on. Recently I've logged on around once a week in the hope that someone may have fixed it.

I used to be excited as a shot reached the top of the queue, wondering if it was going to become popular. Now I'm kinda dreading it in case it gets screwed up as in the above example!

Another week for me and then I think I may well log-off for good. I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking the same.

^ The above photo is NOT a f*ckup by developers. It is 100% the photographer's 'fault'.

We've noticed people 'abusing' the new watermark options like that and we plan to make changes to the watermark system in the near future, to avoid ending up with photos like the above. Solutions we're thinking of implementing are removing the dark watermark and restricting opacity to max 50%.

Alsatian wrote:

For the sixth point, I was talking about the About page in the profile where the numbers of photos, views, favorites, posts and comments are displayed. Could be nice if we can click on "photos" or "posts" and the most recents first to be shown.

Ahhh, I think I get your point now.
You mean that on the "about" tab, if you click the "photos" circle, it leads you to his/her photos. And if you click the "posts" circle, you go to his/her latest posts. Correct?
I'm not sure if it's possible, but can't hurt to ask. I will add it to the list.

scbriml wrote:

Absolutely not, but, IMHO I'm not getting it for free even now - I help to provide the very thing that most people come here for. It costs me time, effort and money to produce the images that I provide to the site for free,

I'm not a photographer. In any commentary on the new site I have deliberately tried to avoid photographer's issues.

mariner

airkas1 wrote:

^ The above photo is NOT a f*ckup by developers. It is 100% the photographer's 'fault'.

We've noticed people 'abusing' the new watermark options like that.

People do what they allowed to do. It's another way to say "get old A.net back", isn't it? BTW, even if one changes watermark on the photo, watermark on the thumbnail will remain one which was put on at the first upload.

kulverstukas wrote:

It's another way to say "get old A.net back", isn't it? BTW, even if one changes watermark on the photo, watermark on the thumbnail will remain one which was put on at the first upload.

That's an assumption. Only the photographer knows the reason why he did that. For all we know he did not understand how it would end up looking. Anyway, I don't want to argue on that, since it's a waste of energy. As for your last sentence, I will investigate that claim.

scbriml wrote:

Sure, I was just trying to explain why I personally don't have any issues using an ad blocker.

Nor do I, and not just for here.

In my daily morning round-up of the world's news, there are several newspapers (and others) that won't let me in unless I disable the ad blocker. It depends on how much I want to visit the site whether I white page them or not.

mariner

scbriml wrote:

Not sure if it's abuse or just not understanding how it will look (since there's no preview). Looks more like the plane's been redacted rather than a watermark!
TBH, I'm not sure why the site would offer such a dark watermark. It would be inevitable that someone would select it, whether by accident or design.

I agree. Which is why we see the need for some changes regarding this. It will also help when we can preview the watermark before actually submitting the photo. All of that is in the pipeline.

airkas1 wrote:

That's an assumption.

It is. Hope it will be Top #1 tomorrow whole day

WOW!!!

I couldn't believe my eyes when I logged on to the website this morning, the iconic blue background is back. It looks fantastic and much more familiar than the "white stranger" that had been putting me off from this website. Thanks for the team's effort and the members' constant suggestions.

Hopefully there will be a top banner (not necessarily 747 or any iconic graphics) on the front page will be back soon or already being developed. As well as for other former functionalities that everybody like.

Congrats to everyone.

please go back to the old design,,, this is so jumbled its not user freindly

mariner wrote:

Once again, an ad blocker fixes all that in a trice. It's free (or some are), easy to install and I never see an ad, anywhere.

Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately I cannot install an ad blocker on the PC that I would mainly view A.NET from. I develop web apps and I need to view / test these web apps from "virgin" web browsers, so each and every browser needs to be "as originally installed or updated". Sure there are workarounds. I can add a Virtual Machine or use a different PC... but why should I need to? At the very least DM are making me think to my self "do I really need to go to A.NET now?".

Some others might not be able to install ad blockers because of corporate policy or domain privileges etc. Some might not actually trust the ad block software. A few of my peers will not install software that is "free" or not absolutely mainstream because they are totally paranoid that this type of software is more likely to contain malware.

scbriml wrote:

I have zero guilt in using any tool at my disposal to avoid seeing those ads (some of which gave my wife the distinct impression I was browsing a porn site).

A fantastic and hugely important point. Previously A.NET looked like a professional, industry related site. Now it looks like... Some of the ads (1 of the 3 that are currently trying to pry my attention away from real content) appear to be script generated and written by a 3 year old. The site looks tacky, in my opinion.

I have every sympathy for non-DM employees who are here in a position of authority to help fix the issues. Here voluntarily out of passion or whatever. I applaud you. Those that seem to be in charge though - wow.

Hello, what's happening now?

I'd just got used to seeing the white text on blue background and this morning I see that quoted text has reverted to being grey on white. Why the change? Sure, it makes the quote stand our more but makes the pages look less professional.

A positive feature that I discovered by accident: the time that a post was made is indicated by a little clock face with 14 hours ago, or 10 minutes ago as the case may be. But when you hover the mouse over the time a little pop-up appears saying 19 July 2016 20:36 or 20 July 2016 10:43 as the case may be. Nice.

See, I'm not hard to please.

airkas1 wrote:

For all we know he did not understand how it would end up looking.

That may very well be true, especially since there's no watermark preview on the uploading page. Which makes this:

airkas1 wrote:

It is 100% the photographer's 'fault'.

...not really fair.

I personally was surprised to learn that a 100% opacity actually meant 100% opacity in the watermark options. Because a 100% opacity watermark isn't really a watermark, is it?

So while the photogs have the option, they're certainly not 100% to blame.

Ok, blue background back on main page and some info together with the pictures back, nice!

A few things:
1) The top 5 just takes way to much space showing the full pictures on front page. A 5 photos line (full screen width) like this would be much better in my opinion.


2) Clicking in the past 24h link right below the giant top 5 shows more like a top 48h than 24h as it doesn't even mach the actual Top 5.
3) The past 24h/48h/etc could display 5 pictures each line instead of 3 like my print above.

Just a few suggestions.

Thiago Trevisan

Virtual737 wrote:

Unfortunately I cannot install an ad blocker on the PC that I would mainly view A.NET from. I develop web apps and I need to view / test these web apps from "virgin" web browsers, so each and every browser needs to be "as originally installed or updated". Sure there are workarounds. I can add a Virtual Machine or use a different PC... but why should I need to? At the very least DM are making me think to my self "do I really need to go to A.NET now?".

Again, and as I said to someone else, it depends on how much you want to see the content. I didn't install Ad Block Plus because of a.net - I was first class and wasn't seeing ads - I installed it because of other websites where I found the ads annoying. That it now works for me on a.net is a plus.

mariner

Pleased to see improvement,
againg some suggestion:

1-Top 5 take a lot of space in home page, agree with Thiago.
2-Photo's thumbnail again too big imho.
3-Info in photo's thumbnail are ok in list view but missed in the other display mode ( aircraft reg or s/n).
try to see below an example if is possible to add reg and sn ...



4-Info in list view take a lot of unused space.
5-Info in detail of one photo take too much unused space and you need to scroll a lot to see all.
6-I couldn't find the possibility to show my 5 "best" photo.
7-In add Photo form there is again a lot of unused space...
Thanks. bye

vikkyvik wrote:

That may very well be true, especially since there's no watermark preview on the uploading page. Which makes this:

airkas1 wrote:

It is 100% the photographer's 'fault'.

...not really fair.

That's why I put the " ' " around it. I couldn't think of a better way to say it at the time. But you're right of course.
In any case, the watermark changes have been implemented (no more dark watermark, light watermark max 70% opacity). So the main issue should be solved.

trevisan26 wrote:

A few things:

1) No offense, but I don't think this will change.
2) Yep, this is a known issue and on the list.
3) I'll suggest it.

ricox wrote:

againg some suggestion:

1) See my answer to Thiago.
2) It's alright for me. But if more people agree on this, then I'm willing to suggest a smaller thumbnail to the developers. We can never please eveyone though.
3) This is on the list. Thanks for the screenshot, I'll add it to the entry.
4) This is also on the list. Most likely some of the info will be hidden by default and clicking somewhere will enable the viewer to see all info.
5) The above should solve this.
6) https://www.airliners.net/user/ricox/profile/photos
7) Yeah, I realized that this morning as well when I checked out all pages for the new colors. I'll put this on the list.

For as far as concern my humble opinion,

I really like this new website layout, way much better than the previous update and I think that it's also better the the previous version of few months ago.

Great job,

Davide

Thanks Davide!

Can somebody explain me what is "new" in todays updated layout? I can however imagine that because blue background is back now a lot of people will be happy but again it's from old joke about rabbi and goat. Some dead space between lines are removed? That's all? Non 4:3 photos are still cropped on top page. Vertical photos looks crazy at thumbnails. There is still a lot of unused (now blue so seems it's OK for "good old Anet lovers") where can be easily put all this info we need to click and scroll dozen times to check (at least place, a/c and reg can be easily placed at white spaces around "thumbnails" of any photo on the main page. Photo page is still the same three screens long list of rare lines at empty (but now it's blue! hurray! we win!) space.

Sorry Kas, I understand that may be I'm sound harsh but I'm still unimpressed. Hope other praising "blue back victory" will cheer you up.

UPD: As I can see, wrong resizing on Photographer's corner are taking care of. What about other fixes promised with todays big update? A.net banner for new photos (which will eliminate a need for watermark for majority of uploaders)? Dead links? Photo upsizing at the main page (can't check as all top photos originals are large)?

UPD2: Ok, main page looks too "mobile" on big screens. IDK if DM has much more traffic from smartphones so it's their decision to left it this way not listening to photographers - it's their cow and their milk, not mine. But can we expect photographer's corner to be redesigned according to our suggestions? I don't think a lot of photographers edit and upload their shoots from 5" to 7" screens?

scbriml wrote:

Or, something like this (from ATDB) again, with a way to embed in a post

The embedding of thumbnails on the forum is still on our list. Unfortunately I don't have an ETA or any other info on that.
In my personal opinion, it would be nice if we can implement an embedding system that is similar to the old site.

kulverstukas wrote:

Older links like "http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/2/6/9/2796962.jpg" still are dead (404). Any update on them?

This was answered in the issues FAQ thread update of 08/07.

Remark:
"user reports links aren't working here: http://kulver-stukas.livejournal.com/
+
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 347702.jpg
Reply: "Hot Linking directly to the image wont work - new structure necessitated new cdn and image processing setup (links work correctly in example)."

kulverstukas wrote:

Can somebody explain me what is "new" in todays updated layout?

We have our blue colors back, sitewide.
With this big update almost behind us, the developers can hopefully focus on the photo/thumbnail issues now, as we requested.

kulverstukas wrote:

As I can see, wrong resizing on Photographer's corner are taking care of.

I hadn't noticed that yet, I will ask the developers to confirm this.

kulverstukas wrote:

What about other fixes promised with todays big update?

The proposed update is in the Issues FAQ thread. But it could be that they launched the blue colors first and that the other items mentioned in that update will follow later today/in the next few days.

kulverstukas wrote:

But can we expect photographer's corner to be redesigned according to our suggestions?

Suggestions such as? The edit button and statistics? Then yes. I think the edit button was on the shortlist, but I don't have info about the statistics page.

airkas1 wrote:

Reply: "Hot Linking directly to the image wont work - new structure necessitated new cdn and image processing setup (links work correctly in example)."

Can you clarify? I.e. direct image linking and embedding will now be impossible?

Also I checked and see that links to old pages (like "https://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Tupolev-Tu-95MS/2796962/L/") which stop working after 15/06, then was operating again now are dead (if it's what "(links work correctly in example)" is reffered to). What if I embed image like this"http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/2/8/3866825.jpg?v=v28a9d4ad2dd" and link to "https://www.airliners.net/photo/Kamov-Helicopters/Kamov-Ka-27PL/3866825" page? Will it work?

UPD: I checked and seems it shows photo but only in it's original size, i.e. property link for medium size photo is the same (resizing is done in page code, probably with "width" html tag). Now what developer means by "Hot Linking directly to the image wont work "?

airkas1 wrote:

kulverstukas wrote:

Can somebody explain me what is "new" in todays updated layout?

We have our blue colors back, sitewide.
With this big update almost behind us, the developers can hopefully focus on the photo/thumbnail issues now, as we requested.

LOL

airkas1 wrote:

kulverstukas wrote:

But can we expect photographer's corner to be redesigned according to our suggestions?

Suggestions such as? The edit button and statistics? Then yes. I think the edit button was on the shortlist, but I don't have info about the statistics page.

To make photographer's corner more desktop style? Especially upload page (and screening pages possibly). Less white space, more info at one screen, smaller input boxes and buttons (as I highly doubtful that majority of photographers use touchscreen as their main pointing device). Look, even Microsoft surrended and gives back "Start" button and normal mouse operated desktop (at win10) for this crazy customers who still produce content, not consume it...

And some bugs caught in 10 min on site:

- embedded photos in forum post open in the same tab and middle button or right click are disabled: (example)
- "you uploaded your a photo" at activity drop down shows dummy Anet logo not thumbnail (ps: i'm not native to English but "you uploaded your a photo" sounds strange to me).
- "my website" link field doesn't work at photographers' profile (and can't be edited)
- at "photos" tab of photographer profile it's only six rows of small thumbnails if your screen is wider than ~1200 px but you can scroll down almost ~4000 px with "top photos" and "forum now" tiles on the right and blue empty space in the middle If you make it less than ~1200 px wide it's OK, all screen is occupied and thumbnails get upsized to fill it...

I agree with Kulverstukas.
Whilst the blue display does look better that is a merely a cosmetic change and images are still displayed clipped and portrait images are still not displayed (are they even being screened yet?)
I am afraid that these changes, these improvements, are minor after five weeks.

Quoting him, 'Sorry Kas, I understand that may be I'm sound harsh but I'm still unimpressed. Hope other praising "blue back victory" will cheer you up.'

Exactly so

Mick Bajcar

kulverstukas wrote:

Can you clarify? I.e. direct image linking and embedding will now be impossible?
Also I checked and see that links to old pages (like "https://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Tupolev-Tu-95MS/2796962/L/") which stop working after 15/06, then was operating again now are dead (if it's what "(links work correctly in example)" is reffered to). What if I embed image like this"http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/2/8/3866825.jpg?v=v28a9d4ad2dd" and link to "https://www.airliners.net/photo/Kamov-Helicopters/Kamov-Ka-27PL/3866825" page? Will it work?

UPD: I checked and seems it shows photo but only in it's original size, i.e. property link for medium size photo is the same (resizing is done in page code, probably with "width" html tag). Now what developer means by "Hot Linking directly to the image wont work "?

I don't know.

kulverstukas wrote:

LOL

The blue is part of a larger update, some of which hasn't gone live yet. Which is why I said what I said.

kulverstukas wrote:

To make photographer's corner more desktop style? Especially upload page (and screening pages possibly). Less white space, more info at one screen, smaller input boxes and buttons

I've requested the developers to make the upload page more compact, so that less scrolling is needed.

kulverstukas wrote:

- embedded photos in forum post open in the same tab and middle button or right click are disabled: (example)
- "you uploaded your a photo" at activity drop down shows dummy Anet logo not thumbnail (ps: i'm not native to English but "you uploaded your a photo" sounds strange to me).
- "my website" link field doesn't work at photographers' profile (and can't be edited)
- at "photos" tab of photographer profile it's only six rows of small thumbnails if your screen is wider than ~1200 px but you can scroll down almost ~4000 px with "top photos" and "forum now" tiles on the right and blue empty space in the middle If you make it less than ~1200 px wide it's OK, all screen is occupied and thumbnails get upsized to fill it...

- I think he posted them in the original uploaded size. So it would make sense that you can't open them further if they're posted in the full size already.
- This is on the list.
- Works fine for me.
- I don't experience this / I don't get the problem.


---------------
I know and agree that the thumbnails look stupid, but I can't do much more than I'm already doing (and will continue to do until it's fixed). The developers were busy with this current update and I don't think they could incorporate fixing the thumbnail issue at the same time. That's why I've requested them to deal with the thumbnails/photo display features once they're done with their current update. I appreciate the feedback about thumbnails, but I can't speed it up more than I'm already trying to do.