Re-revisited: photos per thread limit?

[hr][size=16pt]July 9, 2007: please see the new photo posting guidelines [/size]
[hr]
May trip reports brought a variety of "violations" of the three posted photos per thread limit, along with some apparent protest behavior. Being the admin and primary "enforcer" of the forum rules (along with the two moderators - thanks!), I take these developments as signs that it might be time to have another discussion about the photo posting limit. We had a previous discussion of this issue in February 2006, which led to the development of the current policy of three posted photos per thread. This discussion is worth reading because it illustrates the considerations which went into deciding on the policy and range of opinions on this issue, many of which probably haven't changed.

Just to be sure that everyone understands this issue the same way, when I say "photo posting" I'm referring to causing photos to be displayed in a post. Other ways of describing this are "displayed photos", "hotlinked photos", "direct linked photos", "embedded photos", or "inline photos". When photos are made to be displayed in a post, it takes time for the browser to load the photo(s) and thus display them. The time required to load the photos depends on a number of factors, but the main ones are probably internet connection speed and computer speed. When a page contains a large number of photos it can take quite a while for a browser to render the page, and during this rendering process the display of the page's contents can jump around (check out just about any myspace page for good examples of this).

A number of posters display their three photos, and then to provide viewers the choice of seeing more photos, add either links to additional photos or a link to a complete photo gallery. Links are text and do not significantly add to page loading times.

A concise history: this Trip Reports forum started off primarily as a place to share info on backcountry skiing and snowboarding conditions. The design of the forum and the rules for posting were chosen to make access to this information - the trip reports - as direct and speedy as possible. Each month was given its own board so that current trip reports didn't get mixed in with out of date (older) reports. Every post in a monthly trip report board was required to start with a primary trip report so that everyone would know exactly where to find the conditions info - right at the top - and not have to hunt through a thread trying to find it. If a visitor only wanted the conditions info, they could read the first post of each thread and skip the rest (the replies). There was a one displayed photo per thread limit to ensure that trip report threads would load quickly even for those with dial-up access.

As a result of last year's discussion (link above) the limit on displayed photos was expanded from one to three and the maximum width allowed for displayed photos was increased to 800 pixels (sorry, 800x600 monitor users).

There originally was not a concern about TAY server bandwidth usage because the original forum software did not allow photo uploading to the TAY server. In 2006 two significant changes were made: TAY moved to a new web host, and this forum was migrated to a more modern bulletin board software system. Although the new software now allows photos to be hosted on (uploaded to) the TAY server, bandwidth usage is still not a concern because of the very generous bandwidth allowance of the current web host.

Here are some of the arguements for and against a photo posting limit, distilled from the Feb. 2006 discussion (which concerned increasing the limit from one to three per thread):

For a photo limit:
- keeps page loading speed down;
- keeps thread length down;
- reduces clutter;
- forces the poster to cull their photos to the best/most informative ones;
- can help posters write better trip reports;
- people can still post links to all X hundred photos from a trip;
- rules like this might contribute to positive atmosphere and good signal:noise ratio;

Against a photo limit:
- some people won't post here with low limit;
- each viewer has the option of setting their browser to not display photos;
- multiple links to external (non-displayed) photos aren't fun to push and disrupt the flow of the report - best to have all photos on one page included with the writing;
- don't hold everyone to the standards of the slowest connection;
- pictures transcend hyperbole, critiques of style and safety that rely heavily on interpretation, and inadequacies in the author's vocabulary;
- don't agree that more photos --> worse writing;
- dubious as to how much the one-photo rule has helped this forum's signal:noise ratio;

So...the question is: should the current limit of three displayed photos per thread be liberalized, or kept as it is? The floor is open...

I would like to have more. Not 20, but more. Something like nwhikers.net does when they shrink the photos is nice and can help make a tr keep its flow.

Anyhow, my vote, between 6-10 photos would be better. I mostly like the size limit of 800x600 more than anything.

I actually talked with Tom (the admin at NWhikers) about the photos on his page when we skied BigSnow a week or two ago. He said he used to have a hard time limiting people and that the new setup, thumbnails that are hosted somewhere else like flickr was working really well for him. I will let him know about this post if you want more info from him Charles.

I haven't looked at NWhikers much before, but I like the way the trip reports look. The thumbnail photos maintain a reasonable balance between images and text. But the small photos certainly don't have the impact that a big 800 pixel image does.

I see two main issues.

First is to encourage trip reports that contain useful information, which means a balance between images and text.

Second is to be cautious about changes that could weaken the TAY "culture," which is generally positive and informative.

I think there may be several ways to accomplish these things while allowing more photos. A modest increase in the number of large photos might be one way. Switching to a thumbnail format (or supplementing the current system with thumbnails) might be another way.

But whatever we come up with--and here's where I may be controversial--I think we should still have rules. Rules help preserve culture, because they require members to think about what they do within an established framework. They prevent "anything goes" thinking, which is what leads to the deterioration of so many on-line groups. I can't explain why it happens exactly, but I'm convinced that rules make a difference.

True, if people can only post three pictures it does cut down on the amount of scenes of where they parked their car, a cute thing their dog did, etc. and the smaller size of the thumbnails isn't as pleasing as the ones on this page.
I personally think 3 is plenty, but occaisionally, especially with some of the really good photographers we have here, it is nice to see more. Or if it is a route I am curious about conditions on it would be cool to see more shots.

I feel the three photo limit should be kept. By limiting the photo number I feel it encourage writers to choose the highest quality photos and to write a higher quality report instead of relying on photo quantity as a crutch. Quality over quantity please.