Astro-image of the day poll

[mckitterick]

In my most recent "Astro-image of the day" post about Mars, I used a 600-pixel-wide image instead of 500, as I've used for months. This makes a larger, prettier image, but might mess up people's LJ Friends view. On the other hand, people might like even bigger images! So a poll:
[Poll #1101676]
To help you decide on your favorite image width, below are a variety of examples of this same image in different sizes.

500 pixels (my usual size for these posts):


600 pixels (the size I used today):


800 pixels:


1000 pixels:

Images courtesy of NASA.

Thanks for your feedback!
Chris

Comments

[queza7.livejournal.com]

My lj options apparently cut off anything past 500, so I only see a partial photo unless I click to see the whole post. For ease of viewing, 500 is good for me!

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I answered in contradictory terms, because I love seeing them but prefer to click through a cut-tag to see images (at whatever size they should be) rather than having them possibly mess up my friendspage for the entries around them.

[roya-spirit.livejournal.com]

Oh... here's a thing, chris.. why not post the instructions to place-holder URL in your next lj ?

[stuology.livejournal.com]

I don't hate seeing them at all, but an LJ-cut would be most appreciated.

[gmskarka.livejournal.com]

I don't hate them, but would prefer an LJ-cut, if only to save on loading time.

[chernobylred.livejournal.com]

I have my LJ set so all images are behind a cut, just for this reason. So it really doesn't matter to me.

I think it's really funny that you have the options:

1. The universe is a beautiful wonderful thing and I love to see it!
2. I hate the universe and think that anything associated with it should go behind a cut.

When most people seem to be of the opinion that they think the images are beautiful, but want them behind a cut.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

"Most" is currently half....

I, for one, am irritated about having to click to see behind a cut and usually don't do so; therefore, I didn't want to be one of those bloggers who forces people to click to see a photo. That's why I've been using 500 pixel-width, because that's the cutoff for people who use narrow LJ formats.

Hm, perhaps the question is unnecessary: If it's an option to set LJ to show images behind a cut, I don't need to change anything, because those who want an image behind a cut probably do it themselves!

[matgb]

I have placeholders on for most images as I prefer to click to see them—holdover from my dial up days but I'm still on a weird wireless most of the time.

Having said that, there is a plugin or option that will pull out the first image behind cuts if you want them to be, snapesbabe uses it, confuses me completely when I'm on her machine but it's good.

It's very much a YMMV thing, that's why I've clicked don't care, placeholdes do the job for me.

[secritcrush.livejournal.com]

With all due respect, I don't want all images behind cuts - it's only people who post images (or several) every day that I do.

[radcliffe.livejournal.com]

I like the descriptions particularly. I have images and video turned off on my LJ, so if there isn't a description I pass it right by.

[kalimeg.livejournal.com]

Looks like my browser can work with any of them. I think it depends on how many pixels your screen is set for.

[countrycousin.livejournal.com]

I have no opinion on the size, but vote for the LJ-cut, not because I don't want to see them, but because, as I wrote earlier, I have engaged a LJ setup option that tokenizes large pictures in my Friends view. This, however, disables the convenient links you place in your pictures. If you use a cut, the pictures appear in all their glory and the link is usable - if, of course, I click on the cut.

So - unless really pressed, or my net connection is temporarily glacial, I look at what you kindly offer us. But a cut would be convenient.

[sarahbrand.livejournal.com]

Your liberal agenda of promoting facts about science disturbs me.

Hee.

I think my Friends page just cuts off any image wider than 500 pixels, so I would miss some of the prettiness. As of right now, your pictures aren't tall enough to break my Friends page, and I have a good connection most of the time, so I don't mind that they aren't behind a cut. If you go for a larger size, though, a cut might be good.

[steve98052.livejournal.com]

You could try my trick, which is to post little teaser pictures (the thumbnails Photobucket generates automatically) in-line, and larger pictures behind a cut. Even my larger pictures are pretty small, but cute cats are cute even at lower resolution, while cool Mars pictures look cooler at higher resolution.

[roya-spirit.livejournal.com]

I like that solution best of all!

But, I use a place-holder for images over a certain size, so machts nichts really.

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

Normally I'd say use an lj-cut for large images. But I so appreciate having these images of awesome grandeur pop up unpredictably amongst the quips and essays on my friends page, that I'd rather you continued without the cut.

[rougewench.livejournal.com]

I am someone who would prefer a cut, but it's not because I "hate seeing them" as you suggest in your poll.


D.