quote:Originally posted by Auctiva Tom T.:
If everyone concurs that 140 by X is a good size then I can ask about us eventually adding that. Is there anyone that wants other sizes? I've looked at a ton of sd listings and 140 width is what most everyone sets thing as.
Well maybe it's best I just pass this along to the engineers and maybe they can come up with a good generic solution. Maybe if we make them say 200 by X they'll be about 6k images rather than the 15k images that are 400 by 300 and it would be a good compromise between the 400x300 and the 96x96. Then even the 140x? people should be happy too.
If I'm not mistaken, the reason there are so many SD thumbnails at 140 width is because that's standard in the template, i.e. the unmodified source code in the template before the lister adds the specific image is like this:
<a href="http://www.sparedollar.com/viewpic.asp?imgurl=[#IMAGE1]">
<img src="http://members.sparedollar.com/resize.aspx?user=[#SDUSER]&img=[#IMAGENAME2]&size=140" hspace="1" vspace="4" border="0"></a>
Some of us would modify the size of the thumbnail on our templates by changing the "&size=140" to a different integer.
140 worked excellent for getting three abreast. Most of SD's standard templates were designed at 610px width, in the days of 640x480 resolution. Now everyone tends to design eBay listings with 800x600 in mind, so a corresponding 25% increase in thumbnail size would be in line, say 175px width. My gut feel is that 200px might be a little big just yet, I don't know. I yield to the majority on that one.
I wouldn't want to do away with the 400x300 with link-to-supersize, though. It's great for templates with one "main" pic, then several thumbnails. IMHO.
If we could modify the code on our custom templates as we did at SD, the whole issue would be moot.
Thanks - I'm heading for my bunk.
CB