Am i the only one who finds the images in articles too small in a lot of articles? The 365px wide pics just don't cut it imo - but i am liking the 800px linked versions in some articles very much. Is there a reason why some articles don't have a big version of the pics? edit: ok so most articles do have 800px versions... looks like i should visit bit-tech more often. So all the reviews (read: advertising for whoever donates the product for review) get big pics, and everything else (modding logs, etc) doesn't, with the exception of pictures that are too ridiculous to show in 365px like diagrams. I am really disappointed at how commercial bit-tech has gone. That little extra bandwidth surely can't kill you.
First off, thanks for making assumptions when you clearly do not have any idea why things are done in the way that they are. Bandwidth doesn't cost us any more or less whether we saturate our connections all day long or not, so that is not even a consideration for us. In the name of 'pages that load as quickly as possible' our images are kept small and for the most part image dimensions are consistent across all of our articles. We can get two across the page at the size we use, too. It's purely a design decision - please trust me when I say that it is absolutely not a commercial decision. Our servers are located in the US - the extra latency involved for our UK readership makes images laggier than we would ideally like.
I do not have a problem with the 365px versions (they are fine for a thumbnail view. nothing more, nothing less). I do have a problem when the 365px version is too small and there is no large version available. and... Articles with "Click to enlarge" http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/05/06/razer_protype_vs_enermax_crystal/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/05/03/foxconn_n68s7aa/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/02/23/kingston_ocz_ddr2_800_memory_review/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/05/07/spiderman_3_pc_and_wii/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/04/28/Sam_and_Max_episode_5/1 No large images http://www.bit-tech.net/modding/2007/05/22/intel_china_modding_expo/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/05/01/turn_up_the_joost/2 http://www.bit-tech.net/modding/2007/04/23/yuugou_by_greensabbath/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/modding/2007/04/25/project_log_update_10/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/modding/2007/05/08/BaDassumption_part_1/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/04/09/Linux_has_game/1 (really good example of what i mean. why have screenshots when you can't see a thing because the size of the pics, and theres no large version :S) I see a trend... but theres no point arguing since you won't admit it. I know how these sites work, i'm not stupid. Company sends you product, you make a good review with nice big pictures of said product and praise it, company send more products, repeat. Visitors visit site, ads make money. Happy RTT.
Actually, TMM, if you look, I'm the writer of each of those "no click to enlarge" articles...so this really falls on my shoulders, not Bit-tech as a whole. Since I don't do "review" work so much, that's why you see reviews with it and mine without. For some articles, I feel it is a downright necessity to have click to enlarge images. However, please keep in mind that many of my articles can contain 80-100 pictures, each of which would then require two versions. Granted, that's a little bit of a "lazy" explanation, but it's true. Mostly, it comes down to "time vs. value" If you figure that most people only like to look closely at the end result, does every pic truly NEED a "Click to enlarge"? For instance, do you feel that Yuugou lost out by only having the final pictures be that way, or did you not even notice because at the end you had some? I'm not trying to be argumentative, this is an honest question. Most people don't click them in the middle of articles (we have stats to back that up) - but the end pictures will get clicked a bunch. Therefore, why not focus on getting the article out to you better and sooner and save myself 70 images? When doing project log updates and the like, I WANT you to go visit the project log in question - maybe even participate in the community. It's meant to give you a teaser of what is in the log. As for China, well, I specified why - most of our originals were in RAW and honestly I'm not the photographer of all of them, so I don't want to leave them out there to get stolen, sliced and diced by cropping out our little logo on the bottom. That's why I offered to send larger versions to anyone who really wanted. You ARE right about the linux and joost articles, however - that was my fault. My writing is sometimes on a smaller screen (I use a 13" macbook) so the 365px versions don't look all that bad to me. Anyhow, I hope that clears things up. I will work harder on fixing that in the future - your comment did not fall on deaf ears.
Modding pics are often provided by modders. Modders frequently take very few GOOD pictures. Or they are in all shapes and sizes that can't be easily applied to the 365x274 guidelines. Also, due to the fact modders often take hundreds and hundreds of pics it takes a long time to do picture editing and whittling down. The SupCom robot DOES have click for large images though, because I spent two solid days sifting though, editing, whittling, and making click for wins. Note that the ones without 800pixels are Bretts and I'm gonna kick him in the nuts to do large images for you in future EDIT: LOL!! ^^ I understand you're a long time forum member, TMM, but I severely resent the implication about advertising in reviews. We have in-house professional photography facilities and whenever it's possible in the last 6 months, we've included click for wins. EDIT: Actually, I suppose it's a complement that our standard of photos are so high! The product we review is reviewed entirely on its merit as a product as it stands in the market and including large pictures means more detail for the person reading. Editorial is in an entirely separate office to sales. We are professionals, so we don't moan or whinge when we lose advertisers so you don't know about it. We make it absolutely clear that buying an advert on the site doesn't mean a product gets priority and certainly NOT a guarantee of a positive review. All reviews are done according to when we decide they need to be done and what needs to be covered on them. We're here to make interesting content for YOU. For example: ATIs HD2900 got an average score, yet ATI still advertise with us. Editorial integrity is an absolute in this business and we take it extremely seriously, because without it, the site and our careers are worthless.
^^ that is as true to the word as can be bindi. if you did the opposite the site would lose credability faster then you can say hardware upgrade.
You should learn how to use scripts, just resized (included making thumbs), watermarked and converted 80 images in 30 seconds... took longer to upload them (Da Dego is a witness)
I'd say it's a little more involved than that, though Glider. There's probably a lot of cropping to be done to save resolution of the original photo, that is then resized.
I take great personal offence to that statement, as I'm sure the other guys do on the editorial team. If only you knew how much went into bringing you content every day, you'd understand exactly why. I honestly expected something better from someone like you, TMM. You've got a lot of posts to your name, yet you are making completely misinformed accusations. For what it's worth, I am pushing for "click for big" images in all articles, but it's often impossible due to the images we're supplied with (particularly for modding articles). Hopefully this will change in the future with a guide we've got coming. If you go back 12 months (or more), almost none of the images in articles were click for big. So, to finish, we are moving to the model of larger images in articles, but sometimes it is almost completely out of our control.
On the matter of "click to enlarge" images, have you guys thought about using a LightBox script so there's no need to click the back button to continue reading the article. And if you have, could you tell me for what reasons have you decided not to use one at present?
You're entitled to your opinion. I'd love for you to come and visit our offices though, maybe you'd change your mind
I wonder what the Bit-tech staff did to piss TMM off like that... Remember, on this site you don't have to pay a members fee. But the world isn't for free, therefor there are ads to pay this. If Bit wanted more revenue, they could add more in article ads, enforce a "click an ad, then get content" policy, use popups... I think the balance between content and ads is about right (altough I dislike the in article ads if they mess up the layout). And the relation ad <===> review isn't as you put it forth. If it's a good product, it gets a good rating, if it sucks, then it doesn't, regardless of the ads. At least that's how I feel it.
Wait, if I badmouth you can I get a trip to bit HQ? I've got some pretty scathing accusations about the playboy mansion, while I'm at it...
I've seen many of the sponsors' products not get over the top "it's teh r0x0r! eff-tee-dubya!!11oneone" reviews so I can't see where TMM pulled his argument from. TBH I think you guys do a really fair job of it. I personally like the click for bigger links, but then I normally only look at them for bigger screenshots of games (which only a few have been missing lately) or for mods. I don't think I really need to see an 800pic of the laser diode on the bottom of a mouse in a review. I agree with Glider about the ads in the top right of an article though - it's the one thing different from the rest of the site and is slightly offputting (no please don't change the rest of the site to match). Overall though a good job guys. @quack: What browser/settings do you use? I use FF and have links set to open in a new tab. I can continue reading while the bigger images load. I never have to use the back button.
I also use Firefox and I'd actually prefer to have the images load in the current tab that have to keep swapping between them. My connection is fast enough to download the larger images without me having to wait.
This opinion is a debasement of all review sites and is totally wrong. In fact so wrong it's actually offensive. I'm sure some do follow this strategy but the ones I read often (including bit-tech) do not and that is why they are good review sites. Please do not talk about things you know nothing about, or maybe you do and you have had a bad experience with one of "those" sites?? EDIT: As far as images go Bit have it spot on - 365 is perfect for a thumb and most articles/reviews have click for win
lol... I sincerely hope you misquoted quack - because I don't understand why his query on whether we use a lightbox script is offensive and wrong? However, thanks for the additional support if it was meant to go against the original accusation. It's nice to know our hard work doesn't go unnoticed!