Picture Size Standards Still An Issue?
 

Is picture size still a factor? I recieved a submission today where some of the pictures were huge as fuck and over 320KB...I know a lot of linklist rules such as link-o-rama say 100kb max and a few of my freesites have been accepted with one or two 110 kb or so sized images...I assume the 100kb rules was super important when everyone was on dial up, but now with dsl and cable and lightning fast internet, is this a super sticking point anymore? Even on my cable, the 320 kb picture took a few moments to load...any input?

Well, I just personally think thats a huge waste of BW...I mean geezuz. I just think that many LL and TGP owners might be thinking of saving the WM some $$ for allowing such huge files to be downloaded repeatedly.

You can compress your files and still get almost the same looking pictures. theres no point in wasting bandwidth especially if you have to pay for it.
Just to be honest i had a few free sites that i submitted before i knew how to make them decently that had pics over 150kb and they still got accepted. So i dont know

That rule is new to me :D

but i will say that 100KB or so it probably the max you should use on a free site (there are still people on dial-up & crappy DSL)

And Time Warner Cable. |angry|

The image quality today is astounding, so I think we all let the kb limit slip higher and higher as time goes by. The true key is page load speed. As long as the images look good and there's no obvious lag, the reviewer probably won't give your images a second thought. When he or she has to watch the image roll in, that's when you're in trouble.

I don't know where I got that greenie...sorry for the mistaken id |potleaf||potleaf| and then some more |potleaf|