# Flooding



## Dragoneer (Jan 22, 2009)

In an effort to solicit feedback on the AUP changes, as well as better answer questions, we have created this forum for each individual clause of the AUP. We will modify and/or improve AUP clarity based on suggestions and feedback.
 
- - - - - - - -

*Flooding*
Uploading may be considered flooding when more than three images focusing on the same focal point (e.g. character, fursuit) are uploaded in a continuous session or within a short time of each other, with only minor variations between the images. Flooding is not permitted. Whenever possible, we highly suggest users compile multiple images/photos into a collage.


----------



## Shokuji (Jan 22, 2009)

If highly suggesting users to compile multiple images/photos into a collage, why have such a, in my opinion, restrictive size cap? 1280x1280 AND under a certain data size (~200KB)?

I'm running on a 10 Mega-pixel camera and it kind of sucks resizing down to almost 25% of the original size. So much details lost, and with pictures it's the details that makes all the difference.

I'd love to post some large nearly-lossless pics that people can use for backgrounds. Lots of people are running much higher resolutions than 1280x960 (or whatever).

I'd suggest raising the size cap to 3000 pixels and data cap to 500KB (or more).


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 22, 2009)

Shokuji said:


> I'm running on a 10 Mega-pixel camera and it kind of sucks resizing down to almost 25% of the original size. So much details lost, and with pictures it's the details that makes all the difference.
> 
> ...
> 
> I'd suggest raising the size cap to 3000 pixels and data cap to 500KB (or more).


Because people do not run monitors that can process that information. Even on a 24" 1920x1200 image monitor on a 1280x1280 image I generally still have to scroll. The average user is running on 1024x768 and/or 1280x1024. There comes a point when there's "large" and "too large".

The rule exists to make browse generally friendly for the average user.

If you really want people to have a higher resolution copy my suggestion would be to, at this time, post it Imageshack/Photobucket and provide a link for people to download a higher resolution copy.


----------



## kawayama (Jan 22, 2009)

could we at leat raise the size cap to 1920x1280? it would be cool if we could post wallpaper-sized (1920x1200) images.


----------



## dmfalk (Jan 22, 2009)

Suggestion: Simply limit number of submissions per day? I would advise 10. (Yerf used to have 5.) As for resolution, I agree with the above suggestion, but would like to make it the following: the EQUIVALENT in pixels- 2,457,600px- regardless of dimension. Filesize limit, otherwise, should stay with all submissions- 10MB.

d.m.f.


----------



## yak (Jan 22, 2009)

Be prepared to see 2,457,599x1 images appearing on FA if we did that.

We are not against allowing for higher res images. We are just still considering better way to do that.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jan 22, 2009)

dmfalk said:


> Suggestion: *Simply limit number of submissions per day? I would advise 10. (Yerf used to have 5.)*
> 
> d.m.f.


For a friend of mines who doesnt have a computer he tends to build up on arts and then dump them in great quantities when he does get a chance to use a computer.


----------



## rabbitdude (Jan 22, 2009)

kawayama said:


> could we at leat raise the size cap to 1920x1280? it would be cool if we could post wallpaper-sized (1920x1200) images.



If you even take a look, 1280x1280 is even good for printing on standard letter paper, _which is what everyone prints on._

The size limit could be raised, however, FA has limited space.  If everyone uploads any huge images, there could be less HD space, and more restrictions.  On top of that, FA would run SLOW from the many connections.  You have to remember, not everyone has 1MB connections.  Some have 256kb connections, not to mention FA probably has limited bandwidth.


----------



## wildrider (Jan 22, 2009)

dmfalk said:


> Suggestion: Simply limit number of submissions per day? I would advise 10. (Yerf used to have 5.) As for resolution, I agree with the above suggestion, but would like to make it the following: the EQUIVALENT in pixels- 2,457,600px- regardless of dimension. Filesize limit, otherwise, should stay with all submissions- 10MB.
> 
> d.m.f.



Flooding, as it is said to be in the policy, is not about the amount of art.  There's nothing wrong with posting a 15 page comic you commissioned or drew.  

What it refers to is the amount of the same picture or item I believe.  Like it's not cool to put up 5 pictures of your cat laying in a chair cause you think he is cute.  He may be adorable, but the best thing to do there is to take the picture and fit them into a collage if it also adheres to the photography rules.  The same would go for someone showing off a Second Life avatar.  Even if you made it, you don't want to post 5 pictures of the same character, but the camera circling around it.  Just need to make sure to keep it to one or two pictures or do a collage with multiple angles in it.


----------



## cassandrarising (Jan 22, 2009)

Please do NOT increase the max size - those of us that run on smaller monitors, or on lower res will thank you.

Also, this sort of bridges the photography/flooding sections: can we please have something about photographs of the user?  A couple of photos is fine - but we've all seen the "myspace" accounts out there.  Could it be explicitly spelled out that this is unacceptable?


----------



## kawayama (Jan 22, 2009)

rabbitdude said:


> 1280x1280 is even good for printing on standard letter paper, _which is what everyone prints on._


this is obviously not true.
letter size paper is mostly used in the US. internationally, people often use A4 paper. there are also larger printers, e.g. at work i have access to an A3 printer. also, for good quality prints 1280x1280 is pretty dismal even for letter paper, 2500x3300 would be better.


> FA has limited space.


i didn't at any point say that the file size limit should be raised. even 1920x1200 images can be saved under 200 kB. it wouldn't look very good for a detailed picture, but a wallpaper with few details (and really, a wallpaper shouldn't be overly complex) can look very good even at 200 kB.

it's just that many people have large screens these days, if not 1920x1200 then 1680x1050.


----------



## Eevee (Jan 22, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Because people do not run monitors that can process that information. Even on a 24" 1920x1200 image monitor on a 1280x1280 image I generally still have to scroll. The average user is running on 1024x768 and/or 1280x1024. There comes a point when there's "large" and "too large".
> 
> The rule exists to make browse generally friendly for the average user.





cassandrarising said:


> Please do NOT increase the max size - those of us that run on smaller monitors, or on lower res will thank you.


This is absurd.  *That's why we have half views.*  If your monitor is too small, don't look at the full size.  Or use the download link and let your browser scale it to fit the window.  I don't see why artists with a legitimate need for more space should be restricted based on the lowest common denominator -- especially when everyone has the tools to deal with it anyway.


----------



## Tobias Amaranth (Jan 22, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Because people do not run monitors that can process that information. Even on a 24" 1920x1200 image monitor on a 1280x1280 image I generally still have to scroll. The average user is running on 1024x768 and/or 1280x1024. There comes a point when there's "large" and "too large".
> 
> The rule exists to make browse generally friendly for the average user.
> 
> If you really want people to have a higher resolution copy my suggestion would be to, at this time, post it Imageshack/Photobucket and provide a link for people to download a higher resolution copy.



Wow, have we really finally graduated to widescreen, atleast for computers?

In any case, on the last part, exactly. I host my full-sizes at my website, in a temp folder. I just make a journal and go "here, have some pictures." Granted, it doesn't get very much exposure, but it's given to those who want to see them anyway.

Just make a collage of the better pics (4 of them or something), and then put the rest into a folder on a small personal website, or just use one of the (ugh, I personally hate them) photosharing sites. Another option is Savefile a zip containing all of the pictures.


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 22, 2009)

Eevee said:


> This is absurd.  *That's why we have half views.*  If your monitor is too small, don't look at the full size.  Or use the download link and let your browser scale it to fit the window.  I don't see why artists with a legitimate need for more space should be restricted based on the lowest common denominator -- especially when everyone has the tools to deal with it anyway.



FA also would like to share the available bandwidth and memory allocations for more than just a few users that feel the desire to upload ridiculously high-res images. 1280x resolution monitors STILL cannot display a full 1280x image because of the browser itself, and the sidebar that FA has.

I'm fine for 1280x1024 max images for wallpaper purpose, but why are people wanting print-quality sizes of images? If you want, send it to the few people who want to print your stuff, via e-mail... or sell prints yourself?

Asside from that, I remind people that FA is a Free Website for it's users. Bandwidth and Memory must be shared. Right now, FA is a pretty damn good deal.

On top of that, I submit that for people that want to post bandwidth and memory sucking images, that maybe FA instate a premium pay-service that would allow such images.

However, If people can keep super-large images (1280x1024 +) below a certain size, and maybe limit the number of uploads for super large images per day, maybe that can be worked out.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with FA deciding how they want to allocate the bandwidth and memory they are letting people use for FREE.


----------



## T3HPK (Jan 22, 2009)

I think the image size limit is exceptionally fair. Anything beyond that size is ridiculous to look at if you have a smaller screen resolution than the image. Half-views offer little detail, and the full views will be overwhelming. I can't recall the number of times I've seen people post images(on another site) that are 2000x2500 pixels or sometimes bigger. My screen's not that big. I think it's perfect where the limit currently is. As stated by other posters, if you really need to post ridiculously large photographs or images, link to an offsite URL. I do it all of the time. It really doesn't hurt you at all, and it doesn't hurt the viewer either.  Anyone who wants to see it up close and personal can just click the link and see the full image.


----------



## Aden (Jan 22, 2009)

Just want to say that the 1280sq limit really would suck for a tutorial or long vertical comic.

I hate to say this, but... why not look at dA's example here? You can upload a fairly large image as a submission...but then you can pick a smaller scale of that size to use as your "full view" size. The full image can then be accessed via the "download" link.


----------



## T3HPK (Jan 22, 2009)

I agree with the previous post. That's a very neat feature that dA has implemented. It addresses everyone's concerns and should make everyone happy. Though, I'm sure bandwidth or memory or some-such comes in to play.


----------



## ravewulf (Jan 22, 2009)

I also agree with the previous posts. Keep the full-size page restrictions in place and allow the download button to be connected to the origonal uploaded image if a resize was required.


----------



## TehLemming (Jan 22, 2009)

I dont post often, but feel the need to throw in my support

nothing sucks more than an image that was made to be full screen for me and then has to cut off half the work


I guess my rule of thumb, you can always scale lower, but you cant always scale lower


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 22, 2009)

TehLemming said:


> I dont post often, but feel the need to throw in my support
> 
> nothing sucks more than an image that was made to be full screen for me and then has to cut off half the work
> 
> ...



I'd like to know who has a screen BIGGER than 1280x960...it HAS to the minority. If most people online are using 1024x... and still yet there are people with 800x600.

Asside from that, I just noticed that the max upload size was 10 MB.... holy crap! that's huge!

Also, the smaller images are *not* "half views". Smaller yes, but half, they are not.


OH! I got an idea!

What about, offering a different size to view before the fullsize? Instead of the current one, what about allowing people to select "Display Normal size as a Max 1024x", as an alternate display size? that way it's a decent size to display within the browser of a 1280x sized screen (with the sidebar and browser considered), without crazy scrolling. Detail can be fairly shown at this size too, and it would cut down on people clicking to view the bigger size. 

I mean, people can already select if they even want the image to show up as a smaller image, or go right to a full view... why not just add a new option to display a bigger-than-normal, non-full image? 

It would make some people happy, and still regulate bandwidth, and keep viewing sanity.

Anyway, that's just a spur of the moment thought....


----------



## ravewulf (Jan 23, 2009)

ravewulf said:


> I also agree with the previous posts. Keep the full-size page restrictions in place and allow the download button to be connected to the origonal uploaded image if a resize was required.


 
Another (more complicated) option that would make everyone happy is auto-scaling dynamic veiw of sorts that scales to the full browser window width/height as the new "thumbnail" or "small" view and when you click it it re-scales to the full origonal size. Yiffstar.com (NSFW, obviously) has a working version of this and displays "This image has been scaled down. Please click on the image to view it in full size." if an image is too big for the browser window.


On a side note, my desktop has a 1680x1050 20" monitor and my laptop has a 1280x800 12" pen/touch screen on it.


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 23, 2009)

ravewulf said:


> Another (more complicated) option that would make everyone happy is auto-scaling dynamic veiw of sorts that scales to the full browser window width/height as the new "thumbnail" or "small" view and when you click it it re-scales to the full origonal size. Yiffstar.com (NSFW, obviously) has a working version of this and displays "This image has been scaled down. Please click on the image to view it in full size." if an image is too big for the browser window.
> 
> 
> On a side note, my desktop has a 1680x1050 20" monitor and my laptop has a 1280x800 12" pen/touch screen on it.



The thing about auto-scaling is that it tends to simply re-scale the original image. This does absolutely nothing to help bandwidth since it goes right to the original image file, instead of using a pre-made, smaller image.

Now, however, since the filesize is what really affects bandwidth and memory, image dimensions are merely aesthetic and user-side affective.... so really, any resolution should not have much any affect, being that filesize limit is constant for all dimensions. a 10 MB 500x500 image will use as much bandwidth as a 10MB 3000x3000 image. Display is all user-side.

Considering 1280x is most likely the next standard for Screen Resolution, 1024x would be the max that would fit nicely into the browser with the sidebar and browser window. For a 1024x Screen, 800x would most likely be the widest for maximum viewing comfort within the browser.

The current "smaller view" is at 300.... I personally think that this could be refigured to at least 600, if not 800... at least for a selectable option when submitting new art.... or an automatic new "small version" for images that are over 1024x.

Since most people are going to click the small 300x sample image for the larger detailed stuff anyway (thus calling on the server for more often). A larger sample image may even save bandwidth in some case....

I, however, have no data to back any of this up, and the FA server workers would know better than me if this would work.


----------



## ravewulf (Jan 23, 2009)

Fesworks said:


> The thing about auto-scaling is that it tends to simply re-scale the original image. This does absolutely nothing to help bandwidth since it goes right to the original image file, instead of using a pre-made, smaller image.
> 
> Now, however, since the filesize is what really affects bandwidth and memory, image dimensions are merely aesthetic and user-side affective.... so really, any resolution should not have much any affect, being that filesize limit is constant for all dimensions. a 10 MB 500x500 image will use as much bandwidth as a 10MB 3000x3000 image. Display is all user-side.
> 
> ...


 
Although a possible solution, it also creates multiple versions of the same file, adds to the server usage cost for resizing, and, especially if the small size is increased, ends up using more server space per submission. Also, users end up using more bandwidth if they want to request additional sizes.

My first suggestion (keep current restrictions for webpage display, but allow full sized download, like on deviantART) is probably the easiest to do and could please most people.

The second suggestion is a bit harder to do, but has the benefit of a limited number of versions per image (gallery thumbnail and full submission) and only one request/transfer. The down side is that the data flow is constant instead of being reduced for those that want smaller sizes.

Basically it comes down to will most people want the full size (regardless if it's for viewing or saving) or will a significant amount of people (in terms of bandwidth savings) desire the smaller images for browser viewing only (and not additionally downloading the full size/quality for saving).


----------



## Fesworks (Jan 23, 2009)

ravewulf said:


> My first suggestion (keep current restrictions for webpage display, but allow full sized download, like on deviantART) is probably the easiest to do and could please most people.
> 
> ....
> 
> ... desire the smaller images for browser viewing only (and not additionally downloading the full size/quality for saving).



Ah! Now I understand what you mean. This would mean that 4 total image files would be made (thumb, gallery, max-display-image, full-for-download-only) instead of the 3 that are currently made (thumb, gallery, full).

I guess I wasn't getting it before.


----------



## ravewulf (Jan 23, 2009)

Fesworks said:


> Ah! Now I understand what you mean. This would mean that 4 total image files would be made (thumb, gallery, max-display-image, full-for-download-only) instead of the 3 that are currently made (thumb, gallery, full).
> 
> I guess I wasn't getting it before.


 

No, I think you got it (unless I'm confused now, lol). It's just that I had made a suggestion in my first post on the page (not the one you replied to, the one before it). I had made two suggestions total in two separate posts, then compared the two in the last post I made (the third one, this being the forth).


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

Flooding covers any issues with Stock_Krytal being a solid block of 10 submissions where the only change is camera angles and a little wrist action at her privates. 

Since we have this, can we please remove the silly upload limit of three per subject on the rendering AUP? It is redundant, and silly that I'd have to create new models / characters if I wanted to make a long running comic out of renders, the current wording of that AUP makes it seem like that even if it isn't intended this way. 

This AUP already has the power to be used to remove and bar people from stock render floods as it is worded now.


----------



## krisCrash (Feb 1, 2009)

Cilis; If you compose it into comic pages with several frames I'm sure it wont look "flooding", also you won't be posting more than 3 in a row within an hour? I think?

Seems like a lot of people obsess in rule details and do not understand the purpose/spirit, or do not want to :/ To me a flooding rule says: _be kind to whoever else need a bit of frontpage space_, and _put effort into your posts_.

For those interested in "long" resolutions, maybe upload it somewhere else and give viewers a link? How much is private hosting these day, not much for small bandwidths, and there's Photobucket too. There's also some easy to use scripts that build thumbnails and pages.

I personally generally support a size limit (because I see people posting 4000 x 6000 files to other sites) though I understand it gets irritating with certain compositions.


----------



## Stratelier (Feb 2, 2009)

Cilis said:


> Since we have this, can we please remove the silly upload limit of three per subject on the rendering AUP?


That is true, the three-per-subject rule is more or less superseded by the Flooding policy.


----------

