Confused and disappointed...

[rpcrowe]

There is an old saying, "Don't fix it unless it is broke!" Unfortunately that truism is not taken into consideration when web site parameters are changed. Change gives the illusion of progress, but is often counter-productive...

Case in point: www.petfinder.com. This site is the premiere Internet site for posting rescue dogs and is one of the best ways to get attention (which equals prospective adopters) for rescue dogs.

The photos are displayed in two ways...

As a thumbnail along with other dogs within the search parameters. The thumbnail is in direct competition with other dogs in that grouping. If the thumbnail catches the fancy of a prospective adopter, just clicking on that thumbnail will bring up a full size image along with several other posted images and a narrative about the dog.

So, the thumbnail is a very important facet in getting attention for the dog. For many years, the site simply scaled down the primary photo, while constraining proportions, to use as a thumbnail. That worked great so, the site decided to "fix it"

The format has been changed as has the method of downsizing the image for thumbnail use... The program will now arbitrarily crop the image to use it as a thumbnail...

After the interested person sets the parameters for the search,



The arbitrarily cropped images are shown as thumbnails. These are the images that have the important job of directing attention to a specific dog...



To be honest, I had not looked at the petfinder site and did not realize that the thumbnails were being cropped like that. When I did look at the photos on the site, I was perplexed and searched for any sizing criteria on the site. There was none! I searched both the site's photo recommendations and the recommendations on Google. Sure I found lots of information on posing the pooches and lighting but, absolutely nothing on the posting size recommendations.

I had been submitting my images at 800 pixels wide, so I reduced the size of the posted image: 700 pixels wide and then 600 pixels wide. Nothing seemed to help. The image used as a thumbnail was still cropped.



The only thing that the reduced posting size accomplished was to get a smaller image when the thumbnail was selected. The thumbnails posted for the additional images were still arbitrarily cropped. However, once the prospective adopter has expressed interest in the dog, those awkward thumbnails are no problem.



Actually, my images were not too bad



but, some other groups have their images massacred in the thumbnail such as this one...



This is the photo from which that thumbnail was cropped. Not a great image but, certainly more attractive to a prospective adopter than the thumbnail...



I emailed Petfinder regarding the thumbnail problems and received this answer...

"For now, the photos’ dimensions are different for the search and for the pets’ profiles.

It seems like the search uses a width of 200 pixels, but the search ignores the height of the photo and only displays the upper 140 pixels of the photo. So to display the pet, please have the top of the image display the pet.

The profiles use a width of 800 pixels. It scales the height depending on the width."

I looked at some profiles submitted by other groups and petfinder had scaled them to 800 pixels wide WITHOUT CONSTRAINING PROPORTIONS. This resulted in photos of very tall skinny dogs or very short fat dogs....

This quite a conundrum and it impacts the lives of some rescue dogs. Some shelters and some rescue groups do not have the capability of sizing the images. This results in a lot of funny looking dogs on the site...

[IzzieK]

One of the organizations I had used/searched for when I was looking for Tucker was Petfinder. When did they change their crap?

[Colin Southern]

Richard,

Could it be an aspect ratio thing?

The thumbnails are horizontal and many of the shots appear to be vertical - so if they scale it so it still fits then they're doing to need to add some filler either side, which may be more difficult.

Is it worth experimenting with sending the images in a horizontal format to start with?

[rpcrowe]

I am going to experiment with different size postings and, as Colin suggests, try a horizontal format.

Isabel wrote: "One of the organizations I had used/searched for when I was looking for Tucker was Petfinder. When did they change their crap?"

Was that "crap" a Freudian slip I don't know when petfinder changed its format. I had never any problems with the old type format. I have not been monitoring the images on the site because, I have always been getting very good comments about those images.

I suspect that the format was probably changed to make it more friendly for mobile device access.

I wish that they would accept two sizes, one for the thumbnals and one for the profile pictures...

[NorthernFocus]

This sort of thing can be maddening. It's a shame that they aren't more sensitive to something that is so important in a general sense but also to the traffic on their site.

[xpatUSA]

As a thumbnail along with other dogs within the search parameters.

I just had to post this image. Inspired by Crocodile Dundee: "Thumbnails? Call them thumbnails?"

[Black Pearl]

As Colin stated it just looks like an aspect clash.

The thumbnail is horizontal and the posted examples that have 'cropped' are either square or portrait. Facebook uses a square thumbnail, as does an iPhone when you're viewing the camera roll and they do exactly the same thing. To be honest a huge proportion of websites/devices do exactly the same so all you need to do is change the aspect of your shots.
I realise this is a pain if it has just changed but it is a common occurrence.

[wilgk]

Hi Richard, I upload images for a BB website and there is a preview stage, where you can go in and move the thumbnail crop preview around, so it's showing the players face or whatever.
It is a step I can leave and sometimes the auto gets it right, sometimes not. It does take more time on the part of the uploader to check each one, I'm not sure if this website is the same?
Best of luck, from one who adopts dogs, rather than buys puppies.

[IzzieK]

Isabel wrote: "One of the organizations I had used/searched for when I was looking for Tucker was Petfinder. When did they change their crap?"

Was that "crap" a Freudian slip

Sorry...that was my French tongue slipping. I studied German but the German thingie did not suit.

[rpcrowe]

Kay... Nope, this site has none of that sophistication.

If you adopt dogs... check out the joy in this shot done today...
What's better than a warm puppy?