I like to mess around with the sizes of images too. For instance, here is a photo of Weird Al Yankovich that you can print out and put in your wallet. Just tell your friends that he is a crazy uncle.
Most sites you can just upload from your desktop - so much easier. Images add a lot to the discussion.
I like to mess around with the sizes of images too. For instance, here is a photo of Weird Al Yankovich that you can print out and put in your wallet. Just tell your friends that he is a crazy uncle.
Agree. Most sites that allow image uploads will have multiple servers just to handle the storage and serving up of images in web posts.
Given some threads tend to be image heavy (especially the "Not Guilty!!" threads if you know what I mean ....) FR would require multiple servers to store and serve those images up in a speedy manner --- meaning without affecting our user experience.
Images suck up valuable bandwidth, and most browsers have a limit of the number of HTTP threads the browser can efficiently use to display information on the end users computer.
By spreading the IO of pictures out across multiple servers from a single location, it helps to speed up the page loading process, but hosting those images on FR itself would still suck up valuable bandwidth resources.
Loading those pictures from another source not located at FR for example, leaves FR's web server threads available to serve up the web page's html code efficiently, while letting some other site "eat" the bandwidth cost of downloading pictures on a thread every time a user opens up that thread.
So while some may bemoan FR's inability to host images, there is a big cost savings benefit to not hosting images in terms of bandwidth and servers required.
There is therefore, a certain genius behind not enabling FR to upload and serve up images that are not directly related to the day to day operations of FR itself.