Facebook

[KeithT]

As a long time DCM website member and regular user I quit it mainly because some members became very personal with their attacks on another member. This may have been warranted, though I could never see it myself. However, it was the beginning of the end for the DCM website as it went from a terrific place to visit to a place that only a few felt comfortable logging in to. That was a shame, as the banter and comradeship when I first joined was second to none across the Internet and by the end everyone felt they were walking on eggshells and eventually found other places to go. It must have been a nightmare as moderation went from almost nothing to overzealousness and then slipped back again. Poor old Lukalot was fighting like crazy to keep things going and I raise my hat to him for that.

Why is Photo Radar failing? It is quite simple to pinpoint several areas where improvement could take place. For instance whoever designed this forum wants to ask themselves why - on my screen anyway - it is necessary to squeeze everything into the middle of the screen, leaving two ugly black empty spaces down both sides. It has to be the worst looking website I am a member of. Another point is forum galleries. One reason, apart from being user unfriendly, that I have never bothered uploading anything to them, is because of DCMs track record in changing websites - which indeed they are talking about now. Perhaps this will be addressed in the new website; however, the one thing you can never get back is the friendly active bunch that once patronised the original DCM website. It takes a long time to build an entertaining mix of personalities, and to let them loose in one place. It does mean that a certain level of moderation is needed, and that means a certain level of regular ownership participation perhaps, (and by that I mean participation on a membership level and not an ownership level).

I could go on and on, but a lot is best unsaid. Maybe it's time to think on! Good luck anyway!

[lesrhar]

Originally Posted by MattUK

This forum has 150,000 users Don. I'd estimate that around 50 post anything near regularly. To me that's quite a failing.

I can't speak for others, but one reason I don't post more often is because the site takes forever to load on my computer.

I'm in South Africa, and have what the ISPs and phone company call broadband internet - a 384 KB/sec connection.

This site loads terribly slowly, though the forums are marginally faster. The galleries are almost impossible to load. Uploading pictures is a nightmare (not because of technical difficulties, but because of the slow connections we endure).

I participate in forums on other websites, and they all load a LOT faster than these forums.

I just hope that integrating the forums and the galleries doesn't make this site so bandwidth hungry that users who don't have access to really fast connections are excluded.

Just my 2c...

[Lurkalot]

Originally Posted by KeithT

. Poor old Lukalot was fighting like crazy to keep things going and I raise my hat to him for that.

Believe it or not, and I know it doesn't sound like it sometimes, but I still am.

Originally Posted by lesrhar

I can't speak for others, but one reason I don't post more often is because the site takes forever to load on my computer.

I'm in South Africa, and have what the ISPs and phone company call broadband internet - a 384 KB/sec connection.

This site loads terribly slowly, though the forums are marginally faster. The galleries are almost impossible to load. Uploading pictures is a nightmare (not because of technical difficulties, but because of the slow connections we endure).

I participate in forums on other websites, and they all load a LOT faster than these forums.

I just hope that integrating the forums and the galleries doesn't make this site so bandwidth hungry that users who don't have access to really fast connections are excluded.

Just my 2c...

This is down to the team unfortunately, I've told them so many times they need to restrict the image and file sizes for web use, some, (or should I say most) of the images are massive, and unviewable at full size. File sizes are huge too. I'm by no means singling this person out, but here's an example,

http://www.photoradar.com/photos/147...ing-has-broken

Click the full size icon, and view the properties for this image, file size etc, and then try to find the close button for it. I have to scroll my mouse around my living room just so I can view this lovely image in four pieces.

This doesn't help when they post to the forums either. Just looking at the weekly comp thread as it stands ATM means you have to download about 3MB of data just to view one page.

They really will have to put some thought into this, otherwise the forum will bog down even more.

[Lurkalot]

Oh, and back on topic. I don't use Farcebook at all, but have now ventured into twitter. lol..

[donoreo]

Originally Posted by Lurkalot

Oh, and back on topic. I don't use Farcebook at all, but have now ventured into twitter. lol..

Facebook I understand, but I never got the concept of Twitter. Perhaps it is the whole 140 character limit. I tend to be quite verbose and often would be

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by Lurkalot

http://www.photoradar.com/photos/147...ing-has-broken

I only see this as a 1/2 MB image?

[Lurkalot]

Originally Posted by OldBoy

I only see this as a 1/2 MB image?

OB, I was refering to the image size, 2500 x 1875 Pixels

[lesrhar]

Lurkalot, thanks for taking the time to reply to my post. I understand that it's up to the team... was just hoping that some of them would take note of what we're saying

And thank you for all the work and effort you put into keeping the site active.

I forgot to make the connection to the topic - one of the reasons I no longer use Facebook is because it has become so bandwidth hungry. I do use Twitter, on occasion, though not at all regularly.

Regarding the size of images - I try to resize my pics to about 1536 x 1024 pixels... is that still too big, or is it manageable?

Les

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by Lurkalot

OB, I was refering to the image size, 2500 x 1875 Pixels

Sorry.

I noticed you said file size so was thinking you referred to that.

[dan123]

i find this site slow, i have mobile broadband from 3 therefore i have crap speed, probably no better than dial up, and a small download allowance and this site does eat up the data, id love to see this improved, this is why im not on a lot, i cant afford to keep going over the allowances and stuff,

and uploading is a ryt pain in the ****...