Instead of using the "loading" graphic, why don't you slice the images into smaller pieces?
Printable View
Instead of using the "loading" graphic, why don't you slice the images into smaller pieces?
Greetings:
Because that actually takes up more bandwidth in the long run, and it also slows down the page load for the user.Quote:
Originally posted by Xstr8guy
Instead of using the "loading" graphic, why don't you slice the images into smaller pieces?
Instead of the user's browser having to make 1 or 2 requests for a graphic, it has to make several. And, since XP limits total simultaneous connections to a server to begin with, you're doing nothing more than create additional bottlenecking.
Slicing up images like that defeats the purpose IMHO.
yeah, but surfers know what to expect when they see the graphics loading...
Um... who told you that?Quote:
Originally posted by JustMe
Because that actually takes up more bandwidth in the long run, and it also slows down the page load for the user.
A 100 meg image sliced into 10 x 10 meg images still only uses 100 megs.
As for slowing down the load time, it is going to depend on whether the surfer is on dialup or not.
Personally, i feel it is better to have a bunch of smaller images loading on a page instead of one larger image, at least that way the surfer doesnt have to wait until the entire image loads to see the graphics.
Regards,
Lee
Greetings:
True, the filesize itself is the same. However, you're forgetting about the network transport overhead for each file that's being requested and received, which adds up to more bandwidth.Quote:
Originally posted by Lee
Um... who told you that?
A 100 meg image sliced into 10 x 10 meg images still only uses 100 megs.
But that figure is so negligable it isnt worth being concerned about.Quote:
Originally posted by JustMe
True, the filesize itself is the same. However, you're forgetting about the network transport overhead for each file that's being requested and received, which adds up to more bandwidth.
On a 100meg file you are probably talking an addition .1 of a meg of transfer at most.
Regards,
Lee
Did you mean 100k file... not 100 meg?Quote:
Originally posted by Lee
But that figure is so negligable it isnt worth being concerned about.
On a 100meg file you are probably talking an addition .1 of a meg of transfer at most.
Regards,
Lee
And besides, wouldn't the difference be about the size of the background "loading" file?
This is what I get with norton enabled
I get the same results using IE
JustMe
This is tangential to your graphics question, but when I saw TakeMyTaco's screen capture it lept right out at me. Your page's TITLE html tag is totally goofy. Your use in the TITLE tag of the word "twinks" eight times does more harm than good.
I wouldn't repeat that word more than three times. Try something like
Boy Alley - Gay twinks love to lurk on this street.
or
Boy Alley Website - Gay twinks find twink love (sexy pics)
Steve
are you using any anti hotlinking code?
I fallowed some instructions found
here http://www.bananaguide.com/norton.htm
And It worked.
Greetings:
Ah, good man! Thanks for helping to solve this mystery. As an FYI for the rest of you:Quote:
Originally posted by Takemytaco
are you using any anti hotlinking code?
Basically the problem is that Norton Firewall, and I'm sure others, have the option for users to turn off referer information. I hadn't considered a scenario where a request would be made for a graphic without referrer information being passed. However, users with this type of firewall are apparently just that sort of situation. You might want to be sure you have the following line in your .htaccess files under the ruleset you have for anti-hotlinking of images:
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$
Basically allowing requests for images if there is no referrer data sent. Keep in mind, this does open you up to some hotlinking possibilities, because if an offending site links to yours with javascript or the like, this conditional would allow the hotlink to exist.
However, given the risk/reward involved, I'm adding it to mine.
Thanks again!
everything just seems so dark to me for the nature of the site. I didn't read everyone's replies but this is what would turn me off of it
i still don't care for it - the boys aren't way cute, but if it sells, that's what counts.
I love basschick. When she sees a stone at the bottom of a pond you can't get her to call it anything except a stone at the bottom of the pond. Her blunt comments and critiques have helped me a lot.
:thumbsup:
Are you going to Vegas, basschick?
Dzinerbear