Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 57
  1. #11
    I actually like 4 out of the 6 left-side crops.

    Sorry.
    Last edited by coyttl; 12-27-2013 at 10:43 AM. Reason: slepping. I can't.

  2. #12
    1. Hi there! I would very much like to consider joining Weasyl - are the problems with the thumbnail system, as clearly stated in this thread, with examples, going to be resolved any time soon?

    2. The ambiguity of the examples shown in this thread, along with what's currently on front page of the site, are reasons against the usefulness.
    What are the reasons for this current system? Is there a plan to make it better?

    3. Right now, I don't have an account, so I can't rely on settings/tags/filtering. If all I have to go on is a thumbnail, and that thumbnail is not actually a thumbnail of the whole image, but a cropped depiction of some arbitrary portion - then what options do I have for knowingly viewing what I want to see? Am I missing a display option toggle somewhere?

    Thanks!

  3. #13
    I don't know if users commenting on this atm are taking into account that if you don't specify a thumbnail, the system will upload a small version of as much of the image as it can fit in the square.

    I mean, that said, large thumbnails like FA has would be really nice to see!

  4. #14
    The only reasons I have found "for" the current system is feature creep. "Look! We have a feature that FA doesn't have!". One could also say that about an ejection seat for the driver of a car if the driver rolls down the window lower than one inch from the bottom. "Look! It's a feature that Ford doesn't have!" "Feature" does not necessarily mean "Good" or "Wanted".

    And yes, if you don't specify a thumbnail, it will upload a square-cropped version (so highly-long images are OOL). Sadly, the upload process makes it FAR too easy for the amateur artist to make bad thumbnails and implies that people SHOULD make bad thumbnails. Even something as simple as changing the upload flow from mandatory thumbnail assignment to "Click here to modify the thumbnail" and take them to an out of the way, inconvenient page to do so, would make a major improvement in discouraging people who have no idea what they are doing from messing with the thumbnail.

    And as a "business" that has taken in a tremendous amount of money, Weasyl is doing a very shoddy job at fixing major design problems like this in a timely manner. No other good art site does it this way. That's not because they CAN'T or just didn't think of it. It's because it's a bad idea.

    They went from BBCode to Markdown, which affects text. But BBCode doesn't affect basic site usability. The thumbnail issue does. And the further they get without fixing it, the more reprocessing they have to do to fix it if/when they do.

    No offense to a massive number of talented folks out there, but this is a great example of the sort of thing that makes a person want to say "FFFFffffffff***ing furries". *Sigh* Stop giving the fandom a black eye guys. Sheesh.

  5.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #15
    Sentimental Machine Fiz's Avatar

    Weasyl
    Fiz
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,476
    Quote Originally Posted by KitFox View Post
    The only reasons I have found "for" the current system is feature creep. "Look! We have a feature that FA doesn't have!". One could also say that about an ejection seat for the driver of a car if the driver rolls down the window lower than one inch from the bottom. "Look! It's a feature that Ford doesn't have!" "Feature" does not necessarily mean "Good" or "Wanted".

    And yes, if you don't specify a thumbnail, it will upload a square-cropped version (so highly-long images are OOL). Sadly, the upload process makes it FAR too easy for the amateur artist to make bad thumbnails and implies that people SHOULD make bad thumbnails. Even something as simple as changing the upload flow from mandatory thumbnail assignment to "Click here to modify the thumbnail" and take them to an out of the way, inconvenient page to do so, would make a major improvement in discouraging people who have no idea what they are doing from messing with the thumbnail.

    And as a "business" that has taken in a tremendous amount of money, Weasyl is doing a very shoddy job at fixing major design problems like this in a timely manner. No other good art site does it this way. That's not because they CAN'T or just didn't think of it. It's because it's a bad idea.

    They went from BBCode to Markdown, which affects text. But BBCode doesn't affect basic site usability. The thumbnail issue does. And the further they get without fixing it, the more reprocessing they have to do to fix it if/when they do.

    No offense to a massive number of talented folks out there, but this is a great example of the sort of thing that makes a person want to say "FFFFffffffff***ing furries". *Sigh* Stop giving the fandom a black eye guys. Sheesh.
    I'm sorry but we have a lot more backend coders than we have UI coders (a total of one), which is why it's taking a while to get it fixed.

    So, believe me, we're aware the square small thumbnails piss everyone off. It's going to change, just be patient.

  6.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #16
    Technically Staff charmander's Avatar
    Weasyl
    charmander
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Kanto
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by KitFox View Post
    They went from BBCode to Markdown, which affects text. But BBCode doesn't affect basic site usability.
    Yes, it does.

  7. #17
    Junior FancyOwls's Avatar
    Weasyl
    FancyOwls
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Montréal
    Gender
    N/A
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziblie View Post
    I don't know if users commenting on this atm are taking into account that if you don't specify a thumbnail, the system will upload a small version of as much of the image as it can fit in the square.

    I mean, that said, large thumbnails like FA has would be really nice to see!
    I'm personally a fan of the square thumbnails. I quoted this because I wanted people to read this again, specifically, "if you don't specify a thumbnail, the system will upload a small version of as much of the image as it can fit in the square" which was already the suggestion. Artists are choosing to crop them in this close when they do it and they are choosing it because they like it. I'm not entirely sure what the browser to artist ratio is when it comes to complaining about this, but obviously if artists didn't like it they wouldn't choose to do it. Myself included.

    I like it because I am a fan of having a neat and tidy gallery and it gives me more control over what I am presenting. As an artist keeping a gallery, this is a thing I like having. I like that my gallery doesn't look like a disorganized cluster-fuck of shapes, I like that the squares don't waste precious space. While we're comparing Weasyl to FA in this matter, I would also like to remind people that FA ALSO gives you the option to make square, custom thumbs for your submissions. Which many artists do, especially for their adult work or for their lit submissions. The square thumbs make the site cleaner and easier to look at and I like that they are the way they are from a visual standpoint. Sites with a ton of wasted space to show hundreds of oddly proportioned images just don't look good. This is a thing artists like and are clearly using. This is a thing artists do with their portfolios and personal websites, it is a thing that professional use websites like cghub and conceptart.org do with their artist galleries. It's a feature we like. Otherwise they are free to let the site auto-crop the fuller version of their picture to show everything like in the first post. This is already a feature.

    All that said, I don't disagree with the problem from a casual browser's standpoint. I get that a "drive-by" viewer doesn't care about the artist's choices or presentation, that they want to be in and out as fast as possible with the least amount of effort, especially if they are here for porn. I think the easiest compromise would be to have a mini preview (say around 300, large thumb size on the longest dimension), appear upon mouse-over of a thumb. This is something a lot of shopping sites do and I think it works really well. The site gets to keep looking clean and artist get to maintain their galleries to look how they like, and browsers can easily hover and see if they give a shit or not without having to click on everything.

    edit: VIEW EXAMPLE OF THIS HERE
    Last edited by FancyOwls; 01-04-2014 at 05:01 AM.

  8. #18
    Regular Sax's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Sax
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    34
    A mini-preview would be a fair compromise for me too.

    Quote Originally Posted by FancyOwls View Post
    "if you don't specify a thumbnail, the system will upload a small version of as much of the image as it can fit in the square"[/B] which was already the suggestion. Artists are choosing to crop them in this close when they do it and they are choosing it because they like it.
    Not necessary. I use it now to do a better crop imo than what it would automatically do, not because I particularly like it.
    About half of my drawings can't fit easily in a square and so the system seems to center the thumbnail in the middle of the drawing. When I do a drawing too wide or tall, it then doesn't looks right for me.
    And for those drawings of mine that can somewhat fit in a square, they look ugly (still imo) with the drawing being chopped off a bit on the sides.

  9. #19
    Junior FancyOwls's Avatar
    Weasyl
    FancyOwls
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Montréal
    Gender
    N/A
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Sax View Post
    A mini-preview would be a fair compromise for me too.



    Not necessary. I use it now to do a better crop imo than what it would automatically do, not because I particularly like it.
    About half of my drawings can't fit easily in a square and so the system seems to center the thumbnail in the middle of the drawing. When I do a drawing too wide or tall, it then doesn't looks right for me.
    And for those drawings of mine that can somewhat fit in a square, they look ugly (still imo) with the drawing being chopped off a bit on the sides.
    Assuming you are the same artist by the same name on weasyl, I have noticed that you do the "zoom out" option, trying to fit as much of the image in the square as possible, NOT croping it to the shot of a character's face or eye or whatever else shows very little of the image's actual content. The OP's complaint is how the "zoom in" cropping isn't letting people see what images are about. I can tell very clearly from your standard "zoom out" cropping exactly what is in your image, even if small parts of the edges get cut off. It is functioning as a preview, even if it's not to your tastes. I am not dismissing the "I don't like squares" argument.

    I agree, the drawings do look weird zooming out as much as possible, which is why I, and many other artists choose not to use the "zoom out" option. We want to make nice thumbs and we choose to do it because we like nice looking things. You choose to crop yours by hand because you want it to be nicer than the default as well, even if you do it differently, we both like our cropped version more than what the site makes for us.

    I personally prefer the solution of being able to make nice square thumbs and have a really nice, pro looking gallery that allows quick hover over to show a full preview rather than making randomly sized images spattered throughout my gallery like a messy tumblr layout. You are free to disagree, as I am sure many others do as well.
    Last edited by FancyOwls; 01-04-2014 at 10:17 AM.

  10. #20
    Regular Sax's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Sax
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by FancyOwls View Post
    The OP's complaint is how the "zoom in" cropping isn't letting people see what images are about. I can tell very clearly from your standard "zoom out" cropping exactly what is in your image, even if small parts of the edges get cut off. It is functioning as a preview, even if it's not to your tastes. I am not dismissing the "I don't like squares" argument.
    Ooh I understand now what you are getting at! Thank you for having explained further.

    As a sidenote, I'm using for presenting my drawings in a neater way a tumblr blog with a theme (http://hasaportfolio.com/) which uses fixed size thumbnails, not squares but almost, and I do agree that I find this kind of look to be more professional.
    I still have the dilemma that I can't let people see the whole pic before clicking, but since I give my tumblr url to people who aren't usually used to see anthro porn pics, I kinda prefer they aren't shown a page full of dongs when they first visit it.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •