John, lots of people are acknowledging precisely that. Almost everyone that contributes to this thread has said at one time or another that it's a lot better now. I have too, on several occasions.


I could go on - there are lots more, so I'm surprised your question even has to be asked, to be honest.


The sticking point now is the fact that we are being told how we need to be safeguarded from imaginary problems, and we're back to the same "we know best, you lot are luddites" attitude that we got for the first 15 pages of this thread.

Quite a number of people have supported the view that we don't need to be protected against non-existent trolls, and not a single person has said they prefer to have edits as restrictive as they now are.

So the overwhelming sense is of (mostly Peter, if I'm honest) simply not listening, and telling us how it should be.

It seems 1000px is the limit in the gallery (even in the 'big' display that you get if you click the small version).

Since people were so nice about my Red Arrows picture, I thought I'd upload a bigger copy of it to the gallery. So I carefully resized and sharpened a copy at 1100px, and uploaded it. However, it was resized to 1000px, and of course looked horrible, for reasons we've discussed at great length.

Damn and blast, I thought... so I deleted the one I'd uploaded, and carefully resized and sharpened a copy at 1000px, and uploaded that. Then I realised that I'd forgotten to convert to sRGB, so I deleted the picture again, and fixed that.

And then discovered that it's not "total number of images added to the gallery per day".

It counts adds and deletes, and apparently allows you two of each.

So I have to wait till tomorrow now, before having another go.



I then tried to link my subscription ID to my forum account.

Rather annoyingly, it makes you type in your whole address - for validation I suppose, which is fair enough - but it doesn't tell you which fields are mandatory, and when it tells you there's an error, it blanks out all the fields and makes you type the whole damn lot in again.

All a bit 20th century, really...

Until someone else has posted on it, I'd completely agree.

But I think that once someone else has posted, 'ownership' of the thread, as it were, becomes shared, and people would be justifiably a bit miffed if a thread they'd contributed to disappeared in its entirety.

Quake?

What's Crysis like on a high spec Mac?

Be careful not to fall foul of an elementary mistake I made when trying to photograph a lunar eclipse - motion blur.

During totality there won't be much light, so the temptation will be to use long exposures. Don't! The sun moves at the same speed as the moon, which is very quickly, in pixel terms.

I can reproduce this in IE7, but not Firefox.

By the way...

No, that's not why we threw it out of the pram, and your perception that this is the reason is a large part of the problem.

We threw it straight out of the pram because on day 1 it was crap.

And if we hadn't screamed and shouted, and done a lot of testing that you should have done, it would still be crap.

550 pixels on a photographic forum - my god, what were you thinking?

It is not crap now - it's a lot better. That's why people aren't complaining so much.

Not because, idiot luddite users that we all are, we're just getting used to the new look, but because the real problems that existed at the beginning are now less severe.

You just aren't listening, are you?

This is currently not a forum with 1500 people online. It is a smaller, well-functioning community, and at present, we don't need to lock up all the law-abiding members of that community just in case a bad person turns up.

If one troll turned up, the best way of dealing with that person would be to ban him, and allow the rest of us to continue using our freedoms responsibly.

If fifty trolls turned up, then I would agree with you that all sorts of restrictions would then become necessary - but those of us that like the sort of community that it has been, would probably no longer be here.

Then why haven't you addressed the point I've made several times now, that there is not even a risk of abuse if the post to be edited is the last one on the thread?

So in that case, there is no need, even in your world of imagined problems, to apply any time limit (or any 'edited by' message).

But that aside, enforcing these restrictions is based on paranoia that is currently unfounded.

In a year's time, it might be well-founded, but today it is not.

We had it several times when we were in Oz last year. I was a bit wary to start with, but it was delicious - really, really good. Not quite as good as a fantastic steak, but definitely up there.

Do they find it funnier if you tip them more?

Sadly, I fear that the only thing that motivates those in power to make the real world better is to live in it, and mostly they don't.

This is what annoys me about the bug reporting system - it's for their convenience (bug tracking, basically - knowing what's fixed and what isn't), not ours. Had I not cc'ed this thread with part of the exchange with the team on this issue, I wouldn't have known that Martin had raised exactly the same issue as I had, or that he was meeting the same resistance as I am.

If they used the forum themselves, and entered into proper debate with us about its usability, they might discover the irritations for themselves and make it less of a struggle for us to persuade them to fix them.