Pixel notation in jpg url
A couple of years ago I was advised here to remove the pixel measurement notation from the image tags.
Having to re-post 200 images because of a failed blog transfer, this means a lot of extra work.
If it helps to make the image on the home page more ‘stable’ – as was said at the time – I’ll go through the procedure, but if it’s an urban legend, I’d rather not take the trouble…
So, is it an urban legend?
Don’t understand your question. Please re-wite it so that we can understand it.
If you mean the advice in this thread:
then the advice given to you was from Panos who is one of the most experienced volunteers on this forum. If you go to his blog you’ll also find a lot more info as he writes exclusively on how to use WordPress.com blogs:
I’ve only looked at one of your posts (out of the eight that are visible) and your images look fine to me.
As for editing them all. That’s up to you. But for what it’s worth, most bloggers do a lot of work on their blogs and yep, it’s time and energy consuming.
The “urban legend” is your own invention, because you have confused two independent bits of advice.
First one was this:
Probably a connection issue. I can see all the images in all three posts you linked to, but some of them load with a delay, because there’s too many of them. You should consider splitting the content:
When there are too many images on a single webpage and you have a fast connection, the images may take too long to load; if you don’t have a fast connection, or if you have a temporary connection problem, the browser may time out before loading all the images, and then in place of images you get blank spaces. So my suggestion was a correct suggestion that addressed the issue you were complaining about.
While we were at it, I threw in a bonus tip:
Since your images seem to be inserted in real size, I would suggest you switch the editor to html and delete the width and height commands after inserting. See here for more:
That was also a correct suggestion; but, as you can see from the title as well as the content of the post I had linked to, it was about image quality, not image “stability”. Sorry for failing to make it clear that it was an aside.
Thanks for unearthing the thread!
Yes, that’s the post I was looking ffor, but I didn’t see it. And I re-posted the images last night, so that’s why you can view them. I’ll take Panos advice, and remove the tag detail. Fortunately there are only 200 img’s to handle…sigh.
Justpi, I use the nextpage break, with a max of ten images per page section (and some text of course). I myself see them zoom into view! If the average image is, let’s say 400 wide (and usually one third higher or less hight),how many of them should I section off, then? I have no idea.
I assume you got huffed by the ‘urban legend’ remark? Sorry about that. Just a little joke.
I’ll keep to a maximum of 5, 6 images per reading section, must suffice.
Thanks for the help, folks.
Will you please enter the top of this thread and mark it “resolved”?
There’s still a question valuid, timethief. But I’ll close the topic
I saw this and thought the issue was resolved. sorry :(
Thanks for the help, folks.
• Removing the dimensions from the image code gives you better quality on the post, but the difference is very small; if I were you I might keep that in mind for future posts but wouldn’t bother changing already published ones.
• There’s no precise answer to your “how many” question. As far as images are concerned, loading time depends on three factors: number of images per page, file size, location of original. The fewer the better; the smaller the better; uploaded to your own blog better than stored in other sites. So you’re doing fine.
Point for you, timethief… (and as usual)
Too late, I already removed all image codes. I also broke down the posts in somewhat shorter segments. Better safe than sorry,
Thanks for the additional info, folks :)
The topic ‘Pixel notation in jpg url’ is closed to new replies.