| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RockitRon
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 7646
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:20 am Post subject: Presenters photos gone AWOL |
 |
|
(Putting this here because we can't post messages on the Announcements section)
I notice that all the presenters' photos (bar Simon Bates) have disappeared from the Index Page, marked "moved or deleted by photobucket" and the forum photobucket account itself appears to have disappeared as well.
Is this because it hasn't been used for a long time, John?
_________________
Ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's high time the pictures were updated anyway - maybe time for a complete overhaul of front page?
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SantaFefan
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 11258
Location: top of the cliffs in Norfolk
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd rather not see Wrighty's photo updated please..  
_________________
Johnnie Walker read out my message on Pirate Radio!  13/8/07
I have heard how radio should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RockitRon
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 7646
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John W
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 3367
Location: Warwickshire, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, I forgot that the announcements threads can't be posted on.
Not just the presenters' photos have disappeared, but the whole Photobucket, which had all our funny smileys, and maybe lots of R2 studio webcam photos that we used to post, and some folks' hobby photos that they shared, and maybe a few members had their avatars on there too?
Any member AND anyone reading the Announcemnt thread, could enter the account with the password and delete the whole thing
I guess it wasn't used much but I certainly still link to some of the smileys occasionally. I think some prankster is to blame.
I can restore the presenters photos on the front page as I should still have them on my PC somewhere and I can upload them to the r2ok website where they can't be deleted.
But they weren't great photos so I agree it's time to renew them. The frontpage doesn't NEED photos but looks boring without them, and I made them into links for easier click access to the forum sections.
Any ideas welcome. For the moment I'll go looking for photos or members can paste some on this thread.
I suppose I could check at Photobucket to see if the account and the photo files really are gone forever.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toggy
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 1239
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well I wonder who could have done such a thing  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Toggy wrote: | | Well I wonder who could have done such a thing |
Someone who can't get access to the forums by any other means, by any chance? Answers on a postcard and addressed to John.........
Anyway, the moral to the story is don't publish key login data into the public domain!!!!
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toggy
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 1239
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I can think of a couple of candidates, whoever it is needs to get life (FFS) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Toggy wrote: | | I can think of a couple of candidates, whoever it is needs to get life (FFS) |
Unfortunately the web is densely populated with users who are hell bent on bringing down as many websites as they can. It's impossible to stop them because they're always one step ahead of the game, but to give them the login data is asking for trouble. And when the prime suspect bears an obvious grudge for having been repeatedly excluded from participating (for all the right reasons, of course) then the sum of 2+2 can easily be arrived at.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toggy
Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 1239
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know, I just think it's sad though.
On the other hand I bet Batesey would be made up to see he was the only one whose photograph survived the blitz, especially given that he isn't even on Radio 2 at the moment |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John W
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 3367
Location: Warwickshire, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stage 1 of recovery: the old photos have been re-instated.
I'll replace them with new ones, maybe bigger ones? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John W wrote: | Stage 1 of recovery: the old photos have been re-instated.
I'll replace them with new ones, maybe bigger ones? |
The problem with bigger ones is that they'll force the fixed layout that phpBB2 determines and make it all look a bit awkward.
Don't forget, also, that it adds to load times for people using slower connections (eg: mobile devices). If I look in via the browser on my phone the big pictures that people post ensure that everything grinds to a halt, and this will also be the case for people on dial-up.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Helen May
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 19382
Location: Cheshire
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd just leave them as they are John.
H
_________________
88 - 91 FM this is Radio 2 from the BBC!
I said it live on air in the studio with Jeremy Vine on 10/3/2005 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John W
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 3367
Location: Warwickshire, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorted then 
John W |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Toggy wrote: | I know, I just think it's sad though.
On the other hand I bet Batesey would be made up to see he was the only one whose photograph survived the blitz, especially given that he isn't even on Radio 2 at the moment |
Yes, why is his photo on a Radio 2 website?
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: |
Don't forget, also, that it adds to load times for people using slower connections (eg: mobile devices). If I look in via the browser on my phone the big pictures that people post ensure that everything grinds to a halt, and this will also be the case for people on dial-up. |
Good luck downloading the latest episode of Dr Who on your mobile while you're on the train, if a few pictures grinds everything to a halt.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | | Good luck downloading the latest episode of Dr Who on your mobile while you're on the train, if a few pictures grinds everything to a halt. |
Putting the teensy-weensy hint of sarcasm aside, Rachel, I should say that with the type of compression used by the BBC (Adobe Flash, MPEG4, etc) it's actually quite easy to download a movie clip whose window size has been optimised for mobile - that's why the Beeb has spent a fortune getting all this stuff right. The upshot of it all is that it doesn't take long to download a movie in MPEG4 or 3GP.
However, when somebody posts a picture onto a web page that hasn't been properly optimised - such as a large picture (in terms of dimensions) coupled with a large filesize (in terms of Megabytes) - it can stall the mobile browser whilst the device waits for the whole picture file to come to it over the connection. It's precisely the same problem as faced by someone using a 56kbps dialup connection, as it happens, so it's not unique to mobiles or PDAs.
The difference between waiting for a movie, or music track or whatever, to download over a 3G connection is that you've requested it, you know it's coming and you're prepared to wait. When you click to view a webpage you don't necessarily know what's coming - and if there's a whopping great image in the middle of the page-load which then stalls everything until it's in place there's not a lot you can do about. Multiple images on a page can - and do - have the same effect. Why increase page-load times when it's not absolutely necessary?
It's actually a fundament of good web design - everything should be optimised for the final output medium. Hence my advice to John.
I hope that helps.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I thought that you might say that, and many thanks for your detailed answer but it doesn't help, well actually it does help. Now I understand the difference between requesting to wait a long time and being made to wait a long time. The difference is only in your mind.
When I go to see my GP on Wednesday .. I'll ask the receptionist to make me wait an hour before getting to see my Dr. That way I'll feel good about the wait- cos it's what I've asked for. Brilliant! You're a genius! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rachel, you are a gem
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | I thought that you might say that, and many thanks for your detailed answer but it doesn't help, well actually it does help. Now I understand the difference between requesting to wait a long time and being made to wait a long time. The difference is only in your mind.
When I go to see my GP on Wednesday .. I'll ask the receptionist to make me wait an hour before getting to see my Dr. That way I'll feel good about the wait- cos it's what I've asked for. Brilliant! You're a genius! |
Your penchant for sarcasm is admirable, Rachel. However, perhaps I ought to put it a different way.
Let's say you see a link to a web page which you think is worth visiting. You click the link. Then the page takes ages and ages and ages to load because the person contributing the content hasn't thought to prepare the content (let's say it's a picture taken with his/her digital camera) in such a way as to make it easy for you to download. You didn't know this was going to happem, but it's locked everything up and there's not much you can do about it. You're not happy.
Alternatively, there's a link to a page with an even bigger file but instead there's a note saying that as it's a big, unoptimised, picture or video clip or audio clip you should be aware that it might take a while to download. You have a choice.
So if I want to download a video clip to my mobile phone (as indeed many people do these days with their iPhones, etc) I know that it might take a while over a 3G connection. I'm prepared for that.
Do you see where I'm coming from.......?
So when you go to the doctor's surgery and, when checking in, are advised that the wait might be an hour, you might consider that you have a choice - stay or go home. Either way, you know roughtly what to expect. It would be worse if no waiting time indication had been made and you were clock-watching over the period of an hour.
Correct?
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not sure that I do see where you're coming from, Colby. Which planet are you from, just out of interest? Perhaps you could explain it all a third way, for the sake of completeness. Waiting just feels like waiting to me. Maybe 3G users should take a good book with them on the train, then they could do something useful while waiting for stuff to download. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | | Which planet are you from, just out of interest? |
My feet are firmly in contact with this one - honest. I've just looked and am able to confirm the fact. And I'm not alone, either. Lots of people access all sorts of info on their mobiles. Amazing, eh?I've heard that some people even carry compressed music around in a highly compressed digital form called MP3 on things called "iPods" or something silly like that. What planet are they on? Heaven knows....
| Rachel wrote: | | I'm not sure that I do see where you're coming from, Colby. Which planet are you from, just out of interest? Perhaps you could explain it all a third way, for the sake of completeness. Waiting just feels like waiting to me. Maybe 3G users should take a good book with them on the train, then they could do something useful while waiting for stuff to download. |
Why use the internet when you can write to people on paper with ink or use ye olde telephone? I'm surprised you're using this new-fangled interwebby stuff when the use of a quill to scribe ink on parchment would do the job just as well. I hear that semaphore is a good form of visual communication - as is the good old smoke-signal chain that enabled Drake to learn of the approaching Spanish Armada. See, it works!
The fact that increasing numbers of people use mobile devices to access the web wherever they are is because (a) innovative technologies allow them to, and (b) they choose to.
Just like you choose to communicate with others via a web forum.
This technology is wonderful, is it not?
When you're listening to your wireless set, ask yourself what planet Guglielmo Marconi must have been on when developing such new technology that put all those Semaphorists out of work.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.)
Last edited by colby on Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:06 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well again, and hate to say this, Colby, you're correct. You see, I use the interweb for its primary purpose, shopping! Now and again I use it to chat about things that interest me, with other people who have similar interests, in places just like this. I don't know those people personally, so I cannot write to, or phone them. On the other hand, if I want to watch telly, I'll watch telly, if I want to listen to the radio, I'll listen to a radio, if I want to go for a bike ride, then, I'll ride a bike. Try doing that on a 3G phone! If I'm on the train, I'm on the train- I take a book. My idea of fun isn't being glued to a 2" or 3" screen watching Dr Who on the train. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | | ...if I want to watch telly, I'll watch telly, if I want to listen to the radio, I'll listen to a radio, if I want to go for a bike ride, then, I'll ride a bike. Try doing that on a 3G phone! |
You can do all but the last on a 3G phone. You might choose not to, but that's up to you.
| Rachel wrote: | | If I'm on the train, I'm on the train- I take a book. |
I'm very pleased for you. We all choose what we do and what we don't.
| Rachel wrote: | | My idea of fun isn't being glued to a 2" or 3" screen watching Dr Who on the train. |
Nor is mine. I don't like Doctor Who. But that's not the point is it? The fact is that there's a whole load of stuff I might wish to access - and I do. Why? Because I might just have a need for the info that's available to me right there and then and - additionally - why shouldn't I if I so choose?
It doesn't get around the simple problem that if the information isn't properly optimised for the means by which the end user will receive it then it's not been done correctly.
That's where we started, remember.
And you can buy things on my mobile, too; ask my wife - she's has proved the theory!
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.)
Last edited by colby on Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rachel, you must know by now that Colby is ALWAYS right; resistance is useless.
Like you, If on a train I would rather enjoy the view, read a book or indulge in a little light banter with my companions than stare at a tiny screen. Are we so unusual?
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | | Rachel, you must know by now that Colby is ALWAYS right; resistance is useless. |
So you think the point I'm making about how we choose to use technology is wrong?
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | | Like you, If on a train I would rather enjoy the view, read a book or indulge in a little light banter with my companions than stare at a tiny screen. Are we so unusual? |
Of course not, that's silly. But we all have choice, and shouldn't deride others for choosing what they choose to do if it doesn't impede on others.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mmm how lovely to be called silly! Reminds me of my childhood. Thanks.
And by the way, what others choose to do on trains often DOES impede their fellow travellers: loud phone calls, annoying beeping games, etc etc!
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | | Mmm how lovely to be called silly! Reminds me of my childhood. Thanks. |
No - thank you!
| MadeinSurrey wrote: | | And by the way, what others choose to do on trains often DOES impede their fellow travellers: loud phone calls, annoying beeping games, etc etc! |
That's why I put in the words "if it doesn't.....".
If I choose to listen to music or watch a video sent to me by my kids on my phone whilst seated on a train or plane then providing it's not imposing on others in any way then that's my choice. If Rachel chooses to read a book without reading aloud to everyone else then that's her choice.
Meanwhile, if I choose to check out a few web pages (on any type of web connection anywhere) I expect them to load quite quickly with no surprise big files to get in the way.
And that's what we were talking about before Rachel threw in a few distractions resulting from her personal preferences. I read books on trains and planes as well, but I don't see what it has to do with anything!
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Expecting people to optimise websites and uploaded pictures for “phone usage” is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. The Internet is a massive data and information storage medium, if you choose to view it with inadequate “toy” equipment, that is not the fault of the website provider. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | | Expecting people to optimise websites and uploaded pictures for “phone usage” is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. |
I now realise you're just having a bit of fun Rachel. Please forgive me!
Have a look at any image on any page of the enormous BBC website and point me at any image (or video or audio) file that isn't optimised as either a small JPG, GIF, Flash 10, MPEG4 or 3GP file rather than the 2MB, 3MB or even 4MB file it might have started as. Go on....... I challenge you! (Go on, just for fun, please!).
| Rachel wrote: | | The Internet is a massive data and information storage medium, if you choose to view it with inadequate “toy” equipment, that is not the fault of the website provider. |
Now you really are having a laugh. Well done!
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the internet is just a little bigger than the BBC website, Colby... but don't quote me on that.
3G phones are just toys, just throw away nif-naf, nothing more. In a couple of years the rest of the World will be looking back and laughing at them. I'm just ahead of the game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | | I think the internet is just a little bigger than the BBC website, Colby... but don't quote me on that. |
The BBC website is one of the most popular on the whole of the interwebby thing and conforms to all the set guidelines laid out for display and accessibility*. The web is full of websites (now there's a revelation for you!!!) and the more they all conform to agreed standards the easier and quicker it is for you and me to navigate our way around. That's the way it works.
| Rachel wrote: | | 3G phones are just toys........ |
In your opinion. You're welcome to it.
| Rachel wrote: | | just throw away nif-naf, nothing more. In a couple of years the rest of the World will be looking back and laughing at them. I'm just ahead of the game. |
Indeed you are, Rachel. Indeed you are! 
* By the the W3C - World Wide Web Consortium. That's the Standards Body. In case you're intereswted. But you'll no doubt tell me you're not. I can bet on it!
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OMG!  Once a consortium is involved- it’s ruined.
You can never get anything agreed by a committee.
21G is where it’s at, Colby. Portable touch responsive, user definable, holographic GUI with infinite band parallel connectivity to a new style web, which isn’t a web at all-it’s an embedded data matrix sat-signal available just about everywhere, containing all data from the current web + all new data content as it's uploaded, available instantly to any user. No download time, no upload time. Instant. And you can carry it in your purse, you can make the screen as big or as small (for 3G addicts) as you like. No web servers, no clumsy hardware, no batteries required, no connections, and no contracts. It just works. It’ll be ready for the market in about 3 years. It’s as close as we’ll get to telepathy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gizza kiss, Rachel. You know you want to!!! 
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | Gizza kiss, Rachel. You know you want to!!! |
I have something with a little more puch in mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What, you mean "puch" as in "on yer bike" or something similar?
I'm disappointed!
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That would have been quite clever if I'd have thought of that but no , it was just a typo..... a missing "n"... punch... Doh!
Now I feel inadequate. See what you've done! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | That would have been quite clever if I'd have thought of that but no , it was just a typo..... a missing "n"... punch... Doh!
Now I feel inadequate. See what you've done! |
At the risk of a puch in the gob (or elsewhere) can I just say that you'll always be adequate for me, Rachel!
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John W
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 3367
Location: Warwickshire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oi!
Calm down, calm down it's only a forum front page!
The current images on the front page are 3kB yes just 3 measly kB that's 0.3 % of a Mb so I was just going to increase them to better photos of about 20kB each.
You have got a decent phone to view those eh Colby?
John W |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John W wrote: | Oi!
Calm down, calm down it's only a forum front page!
The current images on the front page are 3kB yes just 3 measly kB that's 0.3 % of a Mb so I was just going to increase them to better photos of about 20kB each.
You have got a decent phone to view those eh Colby? |
If the files are a measly 3kB then they've been well optimised John. That's excellent news!
At 20k, the new ones will be fine by me John so the plan has my blessing!
By the way, the forum looks quite good on my mobile - despite the need for scrolling around here and there - just don't tell Rachel or I'll get into trouble again!
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
