That’s how I feel all-too often when I’m trying to write a post, edit, check comments, or whatever I do to spend so much of my time here, and the site slows down or comes to a halt. It’s about as much fun as a car doing that on the freeway. CC has had a tendency towards slowness from pretty early on, and there is a valid reason: we’re chock-full of big pictures. Large images take huge amount of memory and bandwidth, as our hosting service is always so eager to point out. Even google keeps telling me CC might be losing ad revenue as a result of it. So here’s the question: do you click on our pictures, in order to see them in their full size?
We’ve already limited image uploads to 1200 pixels,which is what the picture above has. If you (left) click on it, its full size will instantly burst up on your screen. That means that even though the (unclicked) pictures are much smaller on the regular page, the server has to load up the large pictures on your device every time the post is read, awaiting your click to pop it up instantly. That is a huge amount of info to be served, especially if it’s not being utilized (188.6 KB, in the case of this particular 1200 pixel picture. The exact amount varies, depending on the image content).
Here’s the same picture, reduced in size before uploading to 550 pixels, which is the correct sizing for the post as it appears on our pages. If it’s clicked, the same size appears. It has 58.9 KB, or less than a third of the digital info as the one above.
I have typically uploaded my images at 800 pixels, like this one. It does allow for a meaningful enlargement if clicked, but obviously not as big as the 1200 version. It takes 98.5 KB, just a bit over half of the 1200 pixel picture. That’s a substantial reduction in bandwidth-hogging, for a modest reduction in picture size.
So the big question is: how many folks actually click on our pictures? And if any do, how big is big enough? And if we didn’t offer any enlargement at all (middle picture), would that be a problem?
Our total file size is getting huge (Ed Stembridge has the exact number), and our only options to improving site loading are to pay for a higher level of hosting, or cut down on image files. What say you?
Update: paying for a higher level of hosting is not really that expensive or a problem; but it would be good to know that it’s worth it if folks are clicking the pics.
1961 Ford Starliner story here
The site is never slow for me, but once in a while it won’t come up at all. The only time I click to see an image larger is when I want to see a particular detail, or when the car is small in the photo rather than filling the frame — and even then, I only do this sometimes.
That’s because the site has timed out; can’t deliver what you’ve asked because of overload.
I think some of your “problem” is because you have a very popular site. For me it’s well worth the wait.
I have been noticing a bit of a slowdown lately. Is it helpful to say that I only click on the pictures of cars that I find interesting? Really, I only click on a few anyway. But every once in awhile, I click on something and just soak it in. I’m not helping here, am I. Doooh – I hate hard choices.
Slow sometimes, yes. Especially on a mobile device.
I almost never click on the photos, so the size they appear in the post is totally adequate for me.
Since you asked…worse than the load speed is that if you click in the white area next to the pictures, the picture opens and replaces the article. So when scrolling down or adjusting the text width, odds are pretty good you’ll open a picture by accident. Not sure what to do about this, though.
I never noticed that before; I don’t think there’s anything we can do about that, though. I guess I keep my cursor outside of the main page area.
I’ve had the same problem, enough times to come >< this close to writing in about it. When trying to find some neutral spot to click on to reselect the page, that white space beside the images is SO inviting…
Honestly, I click on the pictures all the time and I love how large they are.
Maybe you could do one big picture, and the rest smaller? Or if we email the author, they can send us the big picture?
Do what you need to from a financial perspective- I’ll survive.
It’s not that dire; just trying to get a sense of how valuable it is. I’m glad to know someone is doing it!
I click on images to enlarge for all passenger cars from the ’50s and ’60s. The 800 pixel images would be fine for me especially if the automobile mostly fills the photo.
I click on the photos to enlarge. I also notice the site lagging randomly, not necessarily when opening photos, but it’s nothing too terrible. If I had to pick between random slow downs, or more ads, I’d say the way it works right now is totally acceptable. The website is almost perfectly laid out IMHO, I wouldn’t change it.
Things have slowed down a bit in the past few months, but it’s worth the wait.
Truth be told, I could probably live without the full-size images, unless it’s something where a small detail or feature is described in the article.
At the desk I have a 26″ Widescreen HDMI monitor which makes high resolution pictures decadent for the eyes, so yes I click everything. I am used to it though in my line of work.
With that said, I do think a poll of the type of camera used to take most pics might be useful as well. I, like most people I can imagine, do not travel with a professional digital camera on me regularly, so many of my random finds are captured on my RIM 9700 which has a much lower resolution. In that regard, the pictures probably could and should be done in probably the easiest format available since the potential reduction in quality is low. However, once spring has sprung and I am more out and about in the car circuit, I will be travelling regularly with my trusty basic but high quality Nikon which is capable of very nice pictures for what is a small camera.
Most cars would be nice to have at least one good large high quality shot where available especially when the discussion revolves around styling or design where detail important to the conversation.
As far as website loading, I have not had any issues enough that are memorable. We have a fractional T-1 in the building + wireless. The desktop is hard wired so gets a direct signal. The laptop at the house is wireless but does not appear to be appreciably different.
Although I have only been a regular patron of this site for less than two months, I have become a regular poster and have no problem stepping up to offer whatever means necessary to ensure I participate in a high quality service, financial or otherwise.
I’m using an older Olympus 8.0 megapixel camera. In a few instances, I took pictures with a Blackberry Torch, but I avoided that as much as possible due to my not liking the grainy texture of the pictures.
The pictures in my last several CC posts (at least six, likely more) were at 850 pixels in lieu of the typical 1200 pixels used previously.
I had my computer reloaded so this and all other sites load quick I have no idea how to resiZe pics and I shot the camera battery flat at a vintage machinery show yesterday on some rare and Im told in some cases nearly unique items old trucks, tractors, stationary engines etc I’ll try to send the whole lot as my upload to flicka has overloaded.
The issue is not with the CC Cohort Flickr page; that’s a totally different thing. We don’t host that.
Who is the moderator for the CC Flickr page?
Nobody, yet. Interested?
What would be done as a moderator, Paul?
Let’s figure that out via e-mail.
The site is slow sometimes, but having nice, big pictures is great for clicking on, but also when viewing the site on a high-res computer or device. Have you looked into hosting your photos on S3? It’s easy and pretty cheap.
Not familiar with that. I’m not sure that would seamlessly integrate.
It would integrate, but not seamlessly. Authors would have to upload over there and paste the URL of the photo into the text-side editor; ugly.
No thanks.
No real issues with speed, and I’m using an ancient laptop. I also click on the photo’s to enlarge, but realize that you have to do what’s best for service
I click on the pictures, especially if there is a vintage advertisement for the subject car or something else I would like to view in a larger format. As far as being slow, it is not that big a problem for me – worth the wait as someone else said…
Mr. Bill
I tend to do the same. Mainly on old ads or brochures for more detail on certain cars. Tend to do it more on Laurence’s pictures, They are ones I just have to soak in.
“Tend to do it more on Lawrence’s pictures, they are the ones I have to soak in.”
Totally agree with you.
Update: I don’t want folks to think the situation is in any way dire, in terms of upgrading to a higher level of web hosting. The costs are still very reasonable. It would just be useful going forward to get a sense of whether the larger pics are being utilized.
its much better than it used to be with those rotating images on the home page – that was painful!
I have Fios so its usually pretty fast once the page loads. when I want to see the larger images I right-click and open them in a new window… just a habit.
I have Verizon FIOS. Never slow for me and I do click on photos occasionally when I want to see more detail. Works great!
I rarely click on the photo for enlargement
I have no problems with the speed of CC. I occasionally will click on an image to enlarge it if is compelling. That being said, I don’t enlarge 1976 Thunderbirds or similar cars since that can be a very scary experience.
One thing that will slow down your computer, especially a laptop, is to spill about 16 ounces of bourbon and coke on your keyboard. That’s a terminal OD, and a very expensive one as I have recently found out.
I shouldn’t have that problem…Only single malt in the house. Even the Aztek starts to look reasonable after a couple of snifters!
To kevin: My roommate’s dog knocked a wine-glass full of Jim Beam and ice onto my laptop a few months ago. Aced it. I had limited funds at the time, and was totally happy with my laptop, and I got lucky and found the exact model of laptop with a bad hard drive for cheap, so I bought it. Voila! Same old laptop.
Can’t really do that when you have fried the motherboard. My cat, the culprit, merely laughed at me when I said I would bring her up on charges. My wife still blames me.
It was easy for me: swap hard drives. My “new” laptop booted up the first time, re-configured drivers, and required one reboot. It’s now exactly like my “old” computer.
Don’t worry, I still blame your cat, so the verdict is a hung jury.
This has prevented me from commenting on CC for a couple of different multi-week stretches in the past!!
It is not the fastest site out there, but it seems generally better in the last few months.
I do click on some pictures – especially the car ads with text. I think the medium size is good for all other pics.
Also, I most often use the mobile site, which is nice to have.
I enlarge about 1/3 of the photos I look at, usually to get a closer look at some smaller detail. Occasionally (such as with the magnificent Ford that you’re using as the example) just to fill the screen with the image.
It isn’t the specific topic, but while we’re talking about pics, I REALLY REALLY HATE the pop-up image display apps becoming widespread on other sites. So if you ever find yourself ready to ask if we want that, you can file this as a preliminary “no” vote.
Never had a problem with load speed, but I do sometime experience the “time out” problem.
Not going there…
Occasionally, I will click on the photos (as long as like the photo, like the Fairlane photos from this morning). The site hasn’t been slow lately for me.
I click on the images often to see the finer details (especially interiors or outside trim) or reproduced ads. It’s very nice to have and would be missed.
I haven’t noticed the site slowing down. That’s probably because everything is slow out here in the boondocks on hughesnet. I enlarge enough pictures that I appreciate it. I didn’t realized it until you broke it down in this article but the 800 size fills the screen on the only computer I use. A laptop.
Thanks for all the work.
Slow: yes, especially last few weeks.
Click on pictures: rarely unless its a CC Clue and I optimistically think that enlarging it improves my chances of identifying it. Hasn’t worked yet …
One thing I forgot (happens frequently anymore). I am generally interested in what everyone has to say on the articles but increasingly find I have little to add. You have a really well informed group of commenters. I frequently go back and read the comments later but also frequently just forget.
A feature that would be appreciated is the chance to subscribe without commenting. I would probably use that far more often than giving a little bs comment just to be subscribed.
Not a big deal for me if the pics are lower-quality. I prefer good stories to pics.
While on the subject of overdoing things, I have some tips. Do not reflexively use JPEG for synthesized images like drawings, graphs, etc (as they so often do at my workplace), but lossless codecs like PNG instead, which is designed for them. JPEG is intended specifically for photographs & works best with these, exploiting aspects of human vision, but is inferior to PNG for simpler imagery. Also, if you’re scanning black & white, quality is retained for low-resolution if greyscale is used (reduces aliasing effects).
If any has different experience, I’m glad to hear it.
It’s also funny when people ZIP JPEGS. It does no good; double-compressing only works when the initial algorithm is substantially inferior to the final. But then, why not use the final one in the 1st place?
Excellent comment… however, one of our realities is that some CC authors may not know the difference or when to use which or even how to save as a PNG.
We did implement a plugin that automagically downsizes uploaded photos to the 1200 pixel maximum dimension (we were getting a lot uploaded at 3000+ pixel sizes, even by those that know better—sometimes you forget).
So what seems to work best is something that works automagically in the background, allowing the authors to focus on crafting a good story, not on worrying about whether they used the right compression algorithm.
I have no problems with speed, but I have to say that I almost never click on the images.
One possibility would be to use a system which automatically downsizes the images to the appropriate page size and turns them into a link to the hi-res image. This means that you still have to pay for storing the images (though that’s cheap these days) but it should reduce the bandwidth usage.
Let me know if you want more details. But generally I have no complaints about the site, either in performance or in content (except when the clue pic is immediately below a pic of the car it came from, which makes it blindingly obvious…).
I do sometimes click through to the bigger images to look at detail, but i’d say 800px versions would be enough for me for that.
Slightly OT I know but while we’re house keeping, does anyone else keep getting logged out by WordPress? It’s infuriating: I log in, click “remember me” and invariably the next time I go to write a comment the *&*&%&$%^$ thing has logged me out again – fixing that would be grand, if possible?
Sounds like you may have inadvertently set your browser to reject or erase cookies. Are you running any kind of add-on “privacy” or ad blocking aps?
For the most part, the only time I expand the pictures is when there is an image of an ad or something that has text in it and I want to read it.
Until July of this year, I use Google Reader. After July, it will be Feedly. I press CTRL+ to enlarge photos when needed.
Thanks for a great site overall.
Even if you say this isn’t an urgent dilemma, I hate to see anything mar CC’s profitability and/or opportunities for gaining more readers. And let’s be clear, the way the images are currently being handled is doing both.
To re-state what Paul first wrote, bolstered by my own cursory examination of the HTML source, what CC’s content management platform (WordPress) is doing is to serve up every web page with high-res images (1200 pixels wide, or whatever), downsized for their initial presentation via a WIDTH tag (say, 512). This is a very inefficient use of both the bandwidth CC pays for and the bandwidth a would-be reader has.
It’s not as bad as trying to maintain a set speed in a car by cramming one foot on the accelerator and one foot on the brake, but it’s a waste — and sure to be the cause of slow page load times on CC whenever they’re encountered. And, it especially doesn’t make sense for readers with phones or small tablets connected by cellular networks; their screens can’t show the images in high-res anyway, yet they’re forced by the site design to bear the delay and cost of downloading them.
It might not be what you want to hear, but what CC needs to do — and do it now, before things get worse — is the same thing web sites had to do back in the days of dial-up modems and hand-crafted HTML. Namely, create *two* versions of each graphic you use: One is a “small” version scaled for the width it will appear on a CC web page, and the other is the large version that only gets downloaded when and if a reader clicks on the small one.
Implementing that is elementary HTML (otherwise, I’d be too old to know how!) though of course I don’t know how hard it would be to make the change in your work flow and particular WordPress templates. But if you do it, it will save you plenty on bandwidth costs and — better still — give everyone faster page loads.
Oh, and maintaining dual images also means that you can keep as much detail in the large one as you want. One good site for demonstrating the advantages of *that* is Shorpy …
I believe that CC (or really, WordPress rather) defaults to a “Mobile” version if you access it from a phone. It only seems to work with certain phone browsers, though… and I found that version a little harder to use for reading or posting comments, so I switched back to viewing the regular version on my phone. It was noticeably faster, though. That’s the only time I experience CC being slow… at home it’s fine, on my phone it can be pretty rough. I can live with it, though – since when I’m checking CC from my cell phone I usually punch up an article (or multiple articles in different tabs), let it/them load while the phone is in my pocket, then I read it on my commute home.
Unfortunately, our host has a maximum *file count* on the server, and I’ve had to rejigger things several times over the past year to keep from going over. You’re absolutely right that using smaller sized proxy images on the home page (with the full-size image just a click away) would help things load faster and be less load on the server, but it would also double the number of image files we have for every post—the hosting rules make that a non-starter.
Paul – if you happen to read this, that would be a good question to ask our host with regard to upgrading the account – does the file count limit go away if we upgrade? If so, I can rework the WP back end to do this automagically whenever we upload photos for a new post. I would also have to run a procedure that would generate the smaller proxy images for every post we’ve ever done before—there’s some risk involved, but nothing a good backup or two wouldn’t mitigate.
Another possibility we’ve discussed is changing how many posts are displayed on the home page. Currently it’s ten. We could reduce that, but that also “hides” whatever number of posts we reduce by, as a click is required to see them. Of course, the fewer posts (and their images) on the home page, the quicker the site will load.
Lots of options, all with various tradeoffs. Kind of like buying a car!
I mentioned to Paul about the amount of posts on the front page. Since rolling into archives largely kills a storyline, we should avoid that as much as possible. I know all the stories are in chronological order, but, obviously, some stories generate huge amounts of post (like the Aztek/Rendezvous closing in on 300 comments between the two) while some might not even make it to 10. I am not sure what would be considered fair to move a slow story to archives earlier while leaving a popular story up for a bit longer.
I would probably limit the number of pictures in the teaser text to one and maybe make that a fairly low resolution. Interested people can open the story in full view and load the rest of the pics. I am for high resolution pics and rather see an investment in making that happen (and paying for it) than having to drop back. Its winter for most people and many older cars are not seen out and about as much, but I am sure in the next month or so as the weather warms they will come out of the woodwork and the pics will increase.
I am not a sophisticated HTMLer (although I easy adapt to technology when I put my mind to it), I admit that I default to JPEGs for most of my images. However, I can convert to TIFF which seems to be efficient. The little bit of reading that I have done on image file types seems to be a bit confusing. Since pics for this site probably do not have (and should not have) people in them I could try and save my images in PNG.
Also, I do not know if this has been discussed, if WP allows for HMTL tags to pull in images from external sites. A lot of people probably would not know how to do it but a good sized minority probably would, and some might learn, and that could be a way to relieve the hosting load. I can host my own pictures on my own corporate server, I think Flickr might even offer embedded HTML coding text.
One of the (many, in my opinion) downsides to offsite hosting is that if the offsite host goes down (or goes out of business), or if the person who posted the photos decides to remove them, the the post at CC suddenly goes imageless.
Perhaps you can summarize 2-3 key directions the site can take, the pros cons and costs and get feedback from the lot and some may step up to the plate to help defray costs then you Paul or whomever else is involved can pull the trigger.
Pay sites are usually a no go for most people since this is a casual user site but even then you will have people that will ‘throw something in the pot’ so to seek. I probably would keep that strictly on a voluntary donation basis besides the fact that many cannot contribute it can create unnecessary politics.
Some have expressed that they do not look at photos often but I tend to believe that photos are a key and important ingredient in the DNA of this site even if they are not accessed as often as might be said. Sort of like taking the hot dogs away from the baseball park, most people actually probably don’t eat the hot dogs but it is sort of part of the experience…
I agree with you about pay sites – I have signed up for exactly zero of these types of sites, regardless how good the content is.
Ultimately, it’s Paul’s baby to take in whatever direction he wants… I think that’s one of the reasons he asked the question above—to evaluate how people are using the site currently and whether we needed to “move the dial” towards improving site performance at the expense of lots of large photos.
Thanks for the clarifications, Ed. You’re obviously on top of all this insofar as your hosting provider allows. That’s really strange that they care about the number of files on your site, as opposed to aggregate disk space consumption. I wonder what the rationale can be?
No idea – it surprised me, too when I started helping out with the back end of the site. None of the hosting companies I’ve dealt with in the past ever had a requirement like that.
I think johnnyangel is on the right track here. The small image default will certainly speed up the site and enhance user experience in general. If you want the larger image you can still have it, it will just take a little longer to load.
You just need to eliminate the “file count” bottleneck. I think the best way to put this is who do you want to inconvenience more, the reader (us) or the provider (WP)?
The pictures are fairly good sized to begin with. I really wouldn’t miss the full size pictures…except for the brochures and such. Those I think could be a bit better resolution than they are today.
Not slow for me at all either on my galaxy s2 or my laptop. I usually click on the images but could do without the super high rez if it was easier on the bandwidt. Love this site please please dont make drastic changes. Its just starting to come into its own viewer wise.
I browse the site almost exclusively with my iPhone, several times every day. The photos are fine for me. My biggest problem is that on the iPhone, the comments are posted in chronological order by time. This is a problem when people reply to a comment- it does not end up right after the comment, it ends up at the bottom of the comments where it is not relevant and does not make sense. If you can fix that easily, I would appreciate it because I enjoy the comments section immensely!
Same problem on my android phone. Makes it really hard to post a reply from the phone, especially since the missing context requires typing in a lot of extra text using the second-worst possible keyboard.
I also have this problem on my Android EVO, although it isn’t just this site. Also, I can’t reply to a comment from my phone, the option isn’t even there.
Ditto with both my S3 and Galaxy Tab 10.1 (which infuriatingly loads mobile pages as the default, regardless of past settings.) Switching to the normal page view resolves the issue, allows me to comment, and doesn’t seem to add appreciably to the load time.
I post from a HTC Hero android. Slow, but it works fine.
The only thing I haven’t tried is to post a picture from the phone, which i will try now!
My 1976 Honda CB200T.
Yep, unfortunately, that’s a “feature” of the WP plugin we use. We can upgrade to the “Pro” version for $49 (Canadian dollars), which allows for chronological and threaded comments, just like on the full site.
If someone has $50 CAN just burning a hole in their pocket, hit the Donate button and make sure Paul knows it’s for the WPTouch Pro upgrade; I’ll make it happen!
What is the address for the mobile site? I get the full site no matter what device I use my desktop, laptop, Blackberry or iPad.
No special URL, it’s supposed to do it automagically based on the device you’re using. Try scrolling to the very bottom of the page on one one of your mobile devices and see if there’s a button labeled Mobile Theme…
I read in Google Reader (for now), but I click on the photos I’d like to see in more detail from there, so I like the bigger pictures. I also click over when I have time to read the comments on posts that interest me.
I have noticed some slowdowns. TTAC loads faster. I rarely click on the photos, so make them smaller if you like.
What I really want to see, however, is the login on the masthead, because even when I click the “keep me logged in” box, I still need to login, and scrolling down is a real pain. Clicking on “register” requires additional clicks to login.
That’s the only thing I can complain about, and sometimes I do get aggravated about stuff. Guess I’m starting to get old(er) after all…
We’ll “fix” that when I finally complete the new site theme code I’ve been nibbling at for the past few months.
+1 on a login tab. Devices logging themselves out is certainly a function of a device setting, not the website.
90% of my CC viewing is from mobile devices. My iPhone (4) with Safari automatically opens the mobile version, which opens and navigates fast. My Android opens the standard version (unless I tell it otherwise). Either works fine for me as long as I have WiFI available. The Android is slow on 3G, which I would expect.
I think this site works amazingly well, given the huge amount of content here.
I don’t click on the pictures all that often, but they are certainly very important to me in MY own submissions; at least the more “heavy” ones. Many of my photos are arranged for larger format viewing, so I’d hate to see the option disappear.
I like the above suggestion of having the hi-res picture only load when clicked in a new tab. Perhaps if that were implemented you could have a “click images for embiggening” line default appear under the first image in each post, so users are reminded of the option.
I have found that CC loads faster and and browses more quickly than almost any other website I visit regularly. Many others are really, really slow but from the “top site” screen on my imac I can always count on CC being faster to load than any other site including TTAC. CC comes up almost instantly every time. Have to say I rarely click on a photo to make it larger in the standard way anyhow. I do frequently do “command +” on the imac if something is particularly interesting to me and that instantly increases the size of the print and photos on the whole site. Repeated commands keep increasing the size as much as you want on the large screen imac. For these reasons as well as content, CC is usually the first site I visit everyday and often the last as well.
As your pictures are usually taken “on the go” and should only illustrate the content of the article – I think you can easily go down on their size.
If someone is truly interested in particular model – will find it thru Google elsewhere.
That’s my opinion as I prefer the content of the articles instead of pictures.
I click on pictures occasionally, no problem with my Mac laptop.
The site is much better than it used to be 🙂
As for clicking on pictures. I do. Accidentally most of the time. It seems that even the small pictures have a ‘click area’ that extends almost to the edge of the browser. I do expand (Crtl-+) the site to cover more of the browser/screen). And the accidental clicks are mostly annoying to me.
Occasionally, I’ve clicked on a picture to see it better, and often (usually?) it’s no larger. So how about this: Have a smaller image that loads inline with the page. If it’s clicked on (and PLEASE, just click on the picture, not just about anywhere next to the picture!) then load the larger pic. Yes, it’ll take a bit to load the larger picture, but at least, most of the time, your friendly clients (us!) won’t be loading them, anyway.
Oh, this is Firefox on WIn7, FWIW.
Oh, and now that I’ve started reading the 50+ comments, I’m not the first to suggest it. Sorry 🙂
But that whole clicking somewhere near the picture and it brings up the picture again is annoying. To me, anyway.
I click for larger images often, especially to read the text of old brochures. Slower load times are an acceptable trade off to me, though I really haven’t noticed that CC is appreciably slower than most sites. XP running Chrome.
Quote from “Rob Finfrock”:
“I click for larger images often, especially to read the text of old brochures.”
I concur with this statement and stance. I usually post pix here when I feel it’s appropriate to present a visual example of my message and/or ideas. I enjoy wallpaper-size images, and have several hundred auto pix on my PC. What I have been doing lately is indicating if an image is wallpaper-size in parentheses to inform the readers who do not wish to open a larger image. I’m such a kind, warm, loving, caring, thoughtful human being!! No really, I am!!
So, in summation, I say…more large images!!
1976 Cadillac Seville: (wallpaper)
The only pictures I click on to enlarge are the old car ads, which I enjoy reading. Is there anyway to enlarge those as some are too small to read? As far as a reduction in speed I haven’t noticed any and I’ve only had a few times when the site has timed out. Hope this helps 🙂
No problems with speed, but on the side menu I’ll see two stories that I would be interested in. I’d click on one, read it, then go back to read the other one, and it would be gone, replaced with another random story. That’s my only annoyance. Otherwise, great site with real cars for real people.
I’d say about 50-50 on clicking the pictures. Haven’t noticed any slowing, but perhaps that is because I’m usually on in the middle of the night, or early, early morning?
Generally don’t have many issues with loading speeds, but I don’t click on the pics very often either
I hardly ever had any problem with this site’s performance. And I’m viewing from half the world away (literally!). I did try to click the large picture above, and it opens instantly. Don’t have anything to complain about. I suppose it’s possible that because of the time zone difference, I tend to view the site when it’s relatively quiet / not busy.
The site always works great for me! It’s never slow, never jams, and never times out. Like Mr Whopee, I’m half a world away from America, so the site is probably fairly quiet when I’m reading it. Oh – I click on almost all the photos for an enlargement (I like to see details!).
I’m in the same boat with others, I haven’t noticed any speed issues with the site; if I did, I always thought it was local rather than site server issues.
I sometimes click on a pix to see it in greater detail and as others have mentioned, I like to read the old ads. If anything needed higher res, that would be it. But I don’t click on the pix with any regularity, and if necessary, I can almost always find the same ad with a search on Google Images.
What you guys are doing is just fine, but of course you need to do what makes sense for the site. I will be fine with whatever you decide.
thanks – George
My input: Yes, I love the pictures and click on them. I would click MORE if it didn’t slow down the return to the article using the “Back” button (Firefox).
AND, for what it’s worth, to me, this site screams for a more newspaper or book layout, wrapping the pertinent text to the left or right of the embedded pictures. I realize this is contrary to ad placement but, if there’s one thing I have learned it is you don’t get what you don’t ask for. I think.
Love the site. I’m here almost daily.
I gave that some thought in looking at updated theme designs for the site, but that would mean smaller photos on the front page. The plus would be faster loading, as we could use the automatically-generated thumbnail size that WP makes, but the downside is that the photo is small.
Personally, I think the large photos are a big part of the “content” of the site, and are the hook that gets you to read the article.
I enlarge the pictures when I want to read the copyright on some of the older automobile ads you post.
I normally view the site on my iPad. Sometimes it’s a bit slow to load up, but there’s no problems afterwards. The pictures go up to full size instantly, and navigation is quick as well. I don’t often click on the photos – with the iPad I can easily expand a part of the picture I want to view with more detail. I look at Curbside Classics every day – I’ve always loved old cars and the stories behind them, and I photograph them as well. Great site.
I generally don’t click on the pictures-having smaller sized images would be fine with me.
Have you considered using something like MaxCDN + WP total cache? That could quickly solve your issue once and for all.
That or moving off a hosting provider and onto a VPS. I love linode (.com) for that and have a work linode 1024 tuned to where it could support 200 concurrent users on one of the WordPress sites it hosts.
Yep, we already use both.
I, too, click on the pictures and ads. But the site is kinda slow, and I am on Verizon FIOS myself also. Smaller large images would be fine if it speeds it up. Just my $.02 worth….
I haven’t noticed any issues with loading speed.
Regarding photo sizing, the photos I post to Flikr that eventuallty make it here are all 1100 pixels max width. Any I attach to a reply post I keep to 800 pixels, and 800 for the article images would be fine with me. I click on photos to see the larger versions only about ten percent of the time; usually pix with distant details or brochure images with small-sized text.
No problem with the speed over here either.I see bigger most of the pictures to
check the details and I think it will be nice if they opened in a new tub so I wouldn’t
have to click back to the article.But the bottom line is you do what you have to keep
CC going for all of us.
The site is rarely slow for me and I really like the big images. If the images load slower they are worth the wait. I use Chrome, XP and a 42″ monitor. I don’t comment on many subjects I really enjoy because the users here have already said it better. A lot of car sites have blowhards and trolls. This site is like a grownups only car sanctuary.
Change the format if you must, run JC Whitney ads if that’s what it takes. But please keep the wonderful and varied content.
Pixel structure is only part of the “size” of a file; there is also the filesize itself. A 1200×800 .RAW image can be many megabytes, whereas the same image but in a more compressed .jpg/.png can be a tenth or so of that without any noticeable loss in detail. I always take time to compress my pictures in my stories so they can be full screen and rich in detail but light on server-load.
I have a speedy connection and newish devices, so have never had an issue with loading times.
The restriction on number of files allowed on the server is certainly odd, and I understand you have to deal with that, but proxy images in the article and even larger linked files would certainly be my preference. I click for full-size images regularly, and have a 2560x1440px display. So as far as I’m concerned, no image is too big!
I appreciate the site, the work that goes into it, and the request for input.
I never noticed the slow speed to be honest with you. As for clicking to enlarge the pictures I’ve done that a few times but they don’t get that much larger. If the large pics are slowing down the system for some folks or going to cost most money to keep I’d get rid of it. Suggest going with the largest fixed photos you can, if they will not be enlargeable. Sounds like that wouldn’t slow things down much. Great site Paul.
The site never felt slow for me and I really enjoy the big pictures! I click approximately 70% of them when I read an entry. Please stick with the full size.
I’m the classic lurker but now that I comment I just like to add I love this site. I discovered it a few months ago and now check it out on a daily basis.
Nils, Berlin, Germany
I never click on the photos to enlarge them. I am interested in the text rather than spending lots of time looking at the photos.
I’ve never experienced any problem with speed (on CC that is).
I rarely click on images but when I do I really appreciate big pictures that fill up the screen. Usually I open them in a new tab. I only visit CC from my home computer with big screen and good internet connection. I’m only here when I have plenty of time so I wouldn’t mind waiting for the full-sized picture to load.
Great site, keep it up!
Is there a reason why some comments have REPLY buttons next to them and some not? I know that has to be a small annoyance to some when trying to reply and matching your comments to the particular text you are commenting about.
Apparently there are limits to how many sub-threads WP can accommodate. Otherwise, the comments would get narrower and narrower.