Timeline for Thumbnail Uploader
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:25 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:43 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:48 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.gardening.stackexchange.com/ with https://gardening.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:44 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.diy.stackexchange.com/ with https://diy.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 13, 2015 at 21:24 | comment | added | Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL | I totally respect that, and really appreciate you getting back to me so quickly! | |
| Jun 13, 2015 at 20:30 | history | edited | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 77 characters in body
|
| Jun 13, 2015 at 20:30 | comment | added | Manishearth | @Sue sorry, busy with other things so no plans to make this work with the new uploader dialog unless I feel like it later :/ | |
| Jun 13, 2015 at 17:04 | comment | added | Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL | Hi! I've been trying to use this on my laptop running Firefox 38.0.5 (updated yesterday). The script installs, and is visible in Greasemonkey, however, it behaves exactly as it did for @sdaau. I know it's been a while. Do you have any plans for a fix? It would be a great help! (I was able to install this with some help from Michaelpri, so my system seems to be working.) Do you need the error text? Thanks! | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 21:26 | history | edited | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 51 characters in body
|
| Feb 2, 2013 at 13:34 | history | edited | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 168 characters in body
|
| Feb 2, 2013 at 12:10 | answer | added | sdaau | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 1, 2012 at 19:04 | history | edited | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 77 characters in body
|
| Aug 4, 2012 at 12:19 | history | edited | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 185 characters in body
|
| Jul 1, 2012 at 9:59 | comment | added | Arjan | Be prepared for a link to I LOVE JPEG!! JPEG! JPEG! when posting screen captures then ;-) | |
| Jul 1, 2012 at 3:16 | comment | added | Manishearth |
@Arjan hmm, you wouldn't, really. Unless there's some issues with imgurs resizer for images with a very skewed aspect ratio for m and l as well (there is one for s, need to test the other two). And yeah, the "large" thing makes sense-- I'm not going to alias the "normal size" option with "large" (removes functionality), but I can add a note to this post. And maybe some tooltips or something. Interesting point, though--I'll try to use l for my images from now on :)
|
|
| Jun 30, 2012 at 23:20 | comment | added | Arjan |
I wonder if you really need to know the image size? If someone enters a width less than 320, then you can use the m thumbnail? But even then: it may still NOT be worth the effort, as you cannot do the same when someone enters a value for the height (unless, indeed, you would know the original dimensions, and hence the aspect ratio, to do some math). Another aside: given the fixed post width of about 600 pixels on the regular Stack Exchange sites, and much less on the mobile theme, I suddenly think we all could always use the l image? Too bad that's making PNGs into JPEGs then.
|
|
| Jun 30, 2012 at 14:14 | comment | added | Manishearth |
@Arjan doing the custom value thing requires me knowing the image size beforehand. Which can be done (in a roundabout way), but it will make the script much slower. Yep, I'd already though about this--along with a few other things requiring the image dimensions--I've planned them for later. I'll make the .jpg change Monday or something. Thanks for the feedback! :)
|
|
| Jun 30, 2012 at 14:02 | comment | added | Arjan |
And lunboks wrote that the resized images are always JPEG, which seems to be true. So, maybe change the extension too (just hardcode 'l.jpg' rather than 'l.$1')? It works with the original extension too, but it's just not 100.00% right. ;-) (In one test I saw some binary PNG data, not JPEG data, but I cannot reproduce that. Things might be different if there's no need to rescale?)
|
|
| Jun 30, 2012 at 13:53 | comment | added | Arjan |
lunboks wrote that l and m have no effect if the image is already less than 640 and 320 pixels wide, respectively. Would it make sense to add an l or m if someone adds a custom value for width? (I'm afraid it will only complicate things; it's just that using the original image with <img width=...> does not lower the bandwidth for those who're not interested in the actual image. But maybe you already thought about that.)
|
|
| Jun 30, 2012 at 12:55 | history | edited | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Jun 30, 2012 at 12:39 | history | edited | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 420 characters in body
|
| Jun 26, 2012 at 5:59 | history | edited | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 673 characters in body
|
| Jun 26, 2012 at 5:53 | history | asked | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
