Bigger thumbnails - better or worse?

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I've changed the size of thumbnail images to be substantially larger than before. What do people think?

Paul.

 

[Michel Van]

much better, thanks

 

[lark]

Big improvement.
Thanks a lot.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Please vote so we can decide....

 

[JAZZ]

I'm on dial up so they are painfull!!!...that means often they don't even down load, and I wast a lot of time waiting for down loads I don't necessary want to see.

Problem I have, I can't afford broadband, and with family, job and other committments I do not have that sort of time it takes to down load and refresh pages.

I thought the size was fine, may be a little bigger, but not the size you have them. Otherwise it may be that you reduce the number of posts per page, so people don't have to down load a lot of stuff they have already seen (as a regular)

Cheers JAZZ

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Ok, put to 300 pixels, still twice the size of before but not as big as earlier today.

Good compromise?

 

[JAZZ]

Appriciated your response, how about 250 pixels???

 

[sferrin]

Just my two cents but I have broadband so if a thumbnail looks interesting I just click on it and see the full thing so the original thumbnails were just fine for me.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Sure, Scott, but the idea was to see what it is more easily without having to click to expand.

 

[Apophenia]

A minor point but having larger thumbnails makes it harder for a poster to judge whether a submission was of interest of not. What does it tell you if 100 people view the subject page and 2 click on the thumbnail.

Was the attached image simply of no interest or value? Or was it appreciated by viewers who got what they wanted from the large thumbnail and so saw no need to click? How would the poster know?

 

[JAZZ]

Good point Apophenia, I must admit thats they way I was begining to view them.

 

[Apophenia]

Me too JAZZ but I insist that everyone click on anything that I post!