Is it just me ....

[PanBiker]

I'm sure Doc will be able to advise but my theory of where the attachments go is probably Room 101 or something similar

[Doc]

I think all the attachments go into a big bucket in the /files subdirectory. Has far as I know the only way to classify them is through the individual users control panel

[Tizer]

In my first post in the new Winged Heroes thread I've now got the postcard image temporarily in as both a Gallery pic (first) and then as an attachment (second). The attachment pic has the very neat property of being clickable, bringing up a larger image and this seems to be available by default (no extra input from me). Should I be able to do this with the Gallery image too?

[Doc]

Yes Tiz

All images whether in the gallery or an attachment should have the magnifying glass appear when your mouse hovers over it. Let me know if it does not.

[PanBiker]

As attachments are not visible other than in the post, there is no opportunity or facility to comment on the photo or rate it for merit either. You can do both if placed in the Gallery.
This was something I was asked about last night by Angus (Gus) as he had not found the rating and comment functions available in the gallery.

[Tizer]

Doc, the mag glass doesn't appear on my Hurricane postcard when inserted via the gallery in the Winged Heroes thread here:
http://www.oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/view ... 318&t=1189
It's the first pic, the second is done as an attachment and the mouse brings up the mag glass on that one only. Perhaps I've done the Gallery one the wrong way. I went to my album via the Control Panel and clicked on the image to bring up the magnified version, then right click and Copy Image (in Firefox) to get the URL. Pasted it into the Winged Heroes Edit Post dialog box, highlighted the URL and clicked the Insert Image button.

[Whyperion]

I think its the default bb software being used. Think of the logic , pulling an attached image the system has a built in resize to standard 'attachment' size when first used in order to save bandwidth space and speed up loading time , giving the viewer the option to increase the size -+ mag glass brings up the next size with a small top icon menu to size up further to full size and move around the screen - possibly browser dependent too. With a link to the gallery its in the same server so comes up with a different default size , if you right click and copy image address , pasting that into your browser address bar brings up the direct address , which again dependent on browser may be a default max size and generates mag glass if you want to view said picture at a greater size (but no icon menu).
I think the programme writers knew what they were doing.

[Stanley]

Could be Tiz. There is so much I don't know! One thing is certain, the platform likes them to be in the gallery and as Ian says, it is far easier now and seems to be rock solid. Best way to get guaranteed exposure for pics is make sure they are easily accessible. Ergo....

[Stanley]

One thing I've realised over the last few days is how easy it is to post quite large texts on the site under the new platform. The only one that timed out was the Calf Hall Shed Co minutes, 750 pages! I split it into two parts and up it went, no trouble at all. I doubt if I could have done the reposts on the old platform, certainly not as quickly.

[Stanley]

Is it just me or are we seeing a subtle change in the way people look. I seem to see a sea of why-faced, moon shaped pudgy features every time I see pictures of politicians. Someone once told me that until you are forty you have the face you were born with and after that you got the one you deserved. Think of the rosy cheeked weather-beaten and sometimes care-worn faces of people we know. I've never understood this modern predilection, especially in cosmetic advertisements for 'wrinkle free' faces as being the ideal to aim for. It's the wrinkles that give a face character and often reflect much about the way the person attacks life. Laugh lines and crow's feet round the eyes. Dennis Skinner has a lived-in face and so do many other politicians of all parties. Could it be that the moon-face syndrome is because the inhabitants have never been exposed to the weather, have not suffered the effects of hard work, have never been deprived or hard up? I wonder what they will look like in thirty years? Will they have interesting faces?
All right, I have my own personal opinions about what makes an interesting face and rightly or wrongly read much information about them. Is it just me or do others read faces like this?