Owners of fansites.

Would it hurt you to carry pictures I don’t need a magnifying glass to see?
A lot of people are on broadband connections now, and even those who are not are prepared to wait all of 1 minute for a decent sized picture to download.

And don’t say it’s because of how much webspace you’ve got. I have got 5MB on mine (relativelt feeble amount) and I worked out that I can fit about 50 1280x1024 pictures in there (with thumbnails)

One thing I like is how, when people try to create a thumbnail listing, simply adjust the size of the picture on the thumbnail page. So you have a pageful of 2 MB jpegs that are each 80 x 100 pixels, that takes some time to load and render, even on broadband.

“But when you click the thumbnail, the full-sized picture loads faster!” :rolleyes:

My page (recently updated, in the sig - or click www if you have sigs turned off) is a shining example of how a webpage should be!

Well maybe not, but at leas there’s no popups. And the pictures are a decent size, and the thumbnails are not just a resized link to the large picture (the thumbnails average at 10k each, main pictures 200k)

You really should put more scantily-clad women on your website.

Like any good man from the Balkans, I appreciate the picture of the 2 fine sheep (or are they some sort of wooly he-cows?), but why not some pictures of the women of Isle of Man?

My dad has the link.

And I don’t have the guts to take pictures of the women of the Isle of Man. (believe me - I would rather my site was ‘sexy women I’ve taken pictures of’, but that aint going to happen soon)