Attachments and Inline Pictures

[LBussy]

I am an experienced forum user, but maybe I'm doing something wrong/not understanding the peculiarities of this forum software:

When I want to post a picture, I attach it to the post. Then I right-click on the attachment hyperlink, copy the link and use that with the "Insert Image" icon to put the picture inline. This seems kludgey ... is there a better way?

Related to that, I cannot seem to attach more than one pic. I am using Chrome version 63.0.3239.84. I can select multiple pics to upload but only the first one seems to attach. Likewise when I attach one and then try to attach a second after, it does not seem to attach. Is this an issue with how I am doing it, with Chrome, or maybe the forum software?

[LBussy]

Bueller?

<removed attachments>

[tyme]

Yeah, no, vbulletin doesn't AFAIK auto-embed images into the posts. Some of the time links are sufficient. Would you want all uploaded images to be automatically embedded in their posts and displayed for everyone, even those who didn't really care about viewing them?

Uploading multiple files works for me. You see three "Choose File" lines in the form, right?
And you select, say, 2 different images, so 2 of the 3 entries are filled, and then you click upload, and... what happens?

Perhaps you're at the uploaded file quota? In User CP, all the way at the bottom of the left nav menu, check your Attachments list.

[JohnKSa]

I've added two attachments to your post. You can edit the post and see how the Attach Files area looks with two attachments. You can add a third attachment to that post as long as it doesn't exceed the listed file sizes for the particular format of the attached file.

When you see how everything works, you can click on "Manage Attachments" and delete the two attachments so that they don't add to your overall attachment filesize limits.

[LBussy]

<removed attachments>

... hrm ... now it works. I wonder if I was running a bugged version of Chrome previously? You never know since it updates itself. I was on 63.0.3239.84, now on 63.0.3239.108.

Thanks for the replies. I hate when that happens. It's like when you bring your car to the mechanic.

Just a comment then: Isn't the user quota a little bit of a negative? While I understand the need to limit things somewhat (someone is paying for the hosting space) it fosters deleting images from threads which might have once had useful images. I guess you have to make compromises somewhere.

ETA: I also noticed there seems to be a timeout to editing posts. I went back to try to inline an image that was previously uploaded.

[LBussy]

Originally Posted by tyme

Yeah, no, vbulletin doesn't AFAIK auto-embed images into the posts. Some of the time links are sufficient. Would you want all uploaded images to be automatically embedded in their posts and displayed for everyone, even those who didn't really care about viewing them?

I've seen versions (perhaps hacks/customization) which had a button in the toolbar which inserted an image wherever the cursor happened to be. That seemed easier on some folks than the right click, copy link thing.

I'd assume since someone uploads an image that it's germane to the text and I'd want to see them, so yes, I guess given the choice I'd see all images that were uploaded. I can always scroll past them if they are of no interest.

[JohnKSa]

Users can edit posts for awhile to correct errors, but then they become permanent to preserve the integrity of the discussion.

Isn't the user quota a little bit of a negative? While I understand the need to limit things somewhat (someone is paying for the hosting space) it fosters deleting images from threads which might have once had useful images.

If a user is planning to use a lot of images, the best solution is to use an image hosting website. That also has the advantage of bypassing the file size limitations.

[LBussy]

I get it. If I was paying for the hosting I'd probably have that quota too.

Merry Christmas!

[Mal H]

Isn't the user quota a little bit of a negative?

Actually it's not a numerical attachment limit, it's a cumulative file size limit. Each user had 100 MB of attachment storage available. That limit was set quite a while ago when storage was indeed limited. These days, when storage is only pennies per gigabyte, that limit could be raised. So I've done that. It's never been a big problem, or even a little one, since no one has complained about the limitation. But now it's not a problem at all.

Administrator tyme has the last say on this since he's the one who knows how much storage we have, but, I'd wager he won't have a problem with the change.

For those who are curious, we have only one member who was approaching the old maximum file size limit. A few are about 3/4's of the way there.

[LBussy]

Thanks Mal - even if few were getting close to the quota it makes me feel better that it's been raised. I'd hate to go to an older thread with important pics only to see that they were deleted.