What is the purpose of category threads (like insects 2016)?

[Saorsa]

I think they sound nice in theory but whenever I click on one it seems to take forever to load the images once the thread gets very long.

would we not be better served with individual posts with perhaps using a flag in the title like

[insects] A butterfly
[insects] Big yellow bug
[insects] striped fly please help ID

[Mike Buckley]

A lot of people like to think of annual projects more so than projects based on just a particular subject. Examples are the thread you mentioned, photo-a-week projects, photo-a-day projects and the like. A lot of people also like to follow those threads and to participate in the discussion throughout the year. If photography projects of that sort are displayed in separate threads related only by title, the participants would lose the sense of continuity and progress throughout the year. They would also have to spend more time finding each new thread once it is published.

[Geoff F]

Posters to these special threads do limit the number of pages in each thread. For example, a new Insects thread gets started after 12 pages (possibly reduce the number to 8 or ten) and the Project 52 threads are split into 4 sections of 3 months.

Some people have always posted similar items individually but it tends to make them a bit more complicated to follow over the year. As Mike has mentioned.

Also, having a joint thread, or following weeks of images in one thread, makes it simpler for people to comment and give encouragement to each other.

Previously, the Insects thread grew to over 70 pages!

I have only 'normal' UK internet speeds but have never had any problems loading these items and quickly getting to the required area but we are aware that in some parts of the world speeds are even lower than in the UK.

[thetraveler]

Additionally it becomes difficult to browse the thread looking at images without lots of clicking.

[Mike Buckley]

Additionally it becomes difficult to browse the thread looking at images without lots of clicking.

I wonder if you know that you can click any image in the thread to display it at a larger size in the Lytebox. Once you've done so, you can use the forward and backward keys to automatically view all of the photos displayed on that page while bypassing the posts that contain only text. If you configure CiC to display the maximum number of posts in a page, which is 40 posts, you'll also be able to display more images without having to exit the current page to go to the next page.

[DanK]

I've never liked huge threads like these, and I have almost never posted one of my own bug shots on one of the ones here. I don't find it particularly easy to navigate, compared to a forum. My own opinion, for what little it is worth, is that we have enough interest here in macro in general and in bugs in particular that a separate macro forum would be a big plus. In a forum, it is easy to navigate to recent posts one wants to comment on (or get comments on) and to skip others. Also, in my experience, forums of that sort tend to attract people who have that interest. I suggested a macro forum a few years ago and got a negative response, so I assume it won't happen.

[Ziggy]

My own opinion, for what little it is worth, is that we have enough interest here in macro in general and in bugs in particular that a separate macro forum would be a big plus.

Agree Dan.

[Stagecoach]

What is the purpose of category threads (like insects 2016)?

Personally, it seems to me that one of its uses is to share images of insects with a greater emphasis for species recognition and recording them than photographic interest, achievement or learning.

This is not to say that there are not some excellent bug images amongst them but I suspect many do not see because of the inherent problems when you mix the two reasons for posting in such large threads.

[Dave Humphries]

Mike is correct in that what helps is having your preference set to display 40 posts per page - I have done so for years.

What doesn't help though; is when people then feel the need to quote including copies of all the previous images, so we know which post they are replying to (I can see the logic), but in LyteBox, you then see everyone's pictures twice (if not more) over, which gets confusing.

Also, I note Lew is, I think, the first member (ever) to put an image in their signature and this similarly gets in to the LyteBox series and can cause confusion - not that I can recall there's anything in the CiC rules that discourage him (or anyone) from doing so.

I'll do a bit of research on usage and whether the perceived benefits of a separate macro forum is now valid - what we've always found in the past (perhaps noted in other sites), is that this can fragment the community. Especially since if you do it once, immediately there will be calls for other niche forums.

I've always thought one of the reasons CiC is so friendly and tolerant is that we are effectively all in one place (OK, I know there are two places for critique really).

Some may remember that five months ago, I shot a few threads of "Baby Pics" of my first grand-daughter, which is the suggestion Brian is making in the first post. Mike tends to work this way too.

The benefit of the generic threads (such as Insects 2016) is that I believe it encourages a few of the shyer members to contribute pictures when they don't perhaps feel confident enough to start their own specific thread.

Bedtime beckons, signing out for tonight, Dave

[Mike Buckley]

Also, I note Lew is, I think, the first member (ever) to put an image in their signature and this similarly gets in to the LyteBox series and can cause confusion

Any image in the signature is also a huge distraction when viewing the thread even when not using the Lytebox. I could go into other reasons that the display of an image in the signature should be prevented but at least for now won't unless asked to do so. I would love it if that capability was disabled.

[Cantab]

I've never understood the objection to multi-page threads (even the original very long insects thread). Unless I'm missing something, it is the individual page that is downloaded, not the entire thread. If that's correct, downloading a page from a one page thread or from a 70 page thread should take exactly the same amount of time.

What I presume could affect download speed may be the average number of photos in each post on the page (and perhaps the resolution/quality of those photos?).

As Dave noted, CiC has a default number of posts which appear on each page of the thread. I believe this default number can be altered.

I'll now wait to be told I'm wrong!

[Saorsa]

I'm not objecting, just questioning the reason. I have been going through a month of shared bandwidth through holiday accomodation, At home, I can pull them up fine but with lower bandwidth I get a lot of images trying to share bandwidth as they upload. It can take a few seconds to load the page but the images look like they are coming out of an old fax machine, one line at a time.

[Dave Humphries]

I've never understood the objection to multi-page threads (even the original very long insects thread). Unless I'm missing something, it is the individual page that is downloaded, not the entire thread. If that's correct, downloading a page from a one page thread or from a 70 page thread should take exactly the same amount of time.

What I presume could affect download speed may be the average number of photos in each post on the page (and perhaps the resolution/quality of those photos?).

As Dave noted, CiC has a default number of posts which appear on each page of the thread. I believe this default number can be altered.

I'll now wait to be told I'm wrong!

The wait is over - but you are correct Bruce
It can be altered up or down from the default.


I guess if you are on low bandwidth connection (even temporarily, as in Brian's case), you could change your preference to a smaller page length to reduce load times. Particularly if you use Latest Threads, this will take you to the (now shorter and quicker to load) page with most recent post in a thread. If several posts have been added to a thread since you last looked, you could try scrolling to top of the page and using the View First Unread link to get you there.


How to change your posts per page setting

Click on Settings (extreme top of page)
Then General Settings, which is in the My Account section of My Settings (in the left hand panels)
Then scroll down until you get to Thread Display Options, as shown below:



FYI: The "Forum Default" is set as 20 Posts Per Page.

Cheers, Dave

[DanK]

I'll do a bit of research on usage and whether the perceived benefits of a separate macro forum is now valid - what we've always found in the past (perhaps noted in other sites), is that this can fragment the community. Especially since if you do it once, immediately there will be calls for other niche forums.

Point taken. But there are three choices, not two: topical forums, topical threads, and neither.

Sometimes, a topical thread makes sense (to me) because it has a fairly narrow focus, like taking baby pictures. The specific focus allows a real back-and-forth about the thread as a whole. I think the baby-photo thread was of that sort. The bug threads are not like that. They are focused on a genre, not an issue; after a short time, posts that are far back become irrelevant to the current one. I think they are inferior to a topical forum in several respects. It's harder to find old posts, and it is much harder to respond to them because lots of additional, unrelated posts will crop up in between. I think this format inhibits back-and-forth about a particular post or issue.

In the absence of a topical forum, I would rather see macro shots posted separately in the nature forum, like any other nature shots, unless there is a more specific topic that lends itself to the back-and-forth of a long thread. For example, I can imagine one of these on different ways of using flash to illuminate bugs. I'm not suggesting what others should do; if they like long threads of this sort, it's not for me to suggest otherwise. However, I don't post to them unless they are focused on a topic, not just a genre.

That's just my preference.

Re Mike's comment about photos in signature blocks: I agree, and for the same reason I don't like long bug threads. I think it is helpful to have all of the images in a thread related either to the original image or the topic of the OP. Having images in our signatures interferes with it. With only a single person doing it, it's not a big deal, but if it became common, I think it would get in the way. I'd rather have that functionality removed. We can put a link in our signatures so that people who want to see our images can find them easily.

[thetraveler]

My original remark about one topic threads was incited by the street photo mega threads in People shooting.
I find it cumbersome to move around and less convenient to read and the successive posts seem to get longer and longer because the originals are copied and the discussion ratehr disjointed. There is also a clique-ness that develops and tone of old-boy-ishness, we're in and you're out kind of thing.

In regards the image in the signature. The capability to do it is there. I looked and there wasn't anything in the forum rules and so.....
If the mods or admins want to say it isn't acceptable to have an image in the signature, of course I'll remove it.

[Dave Humphries]

In regards the image in the signature. The capability to do it is there. I looked and there wasn't anything in the forum rules and so.....
If the mods or admins want to say it isn't acceptable to have an image in the signature, of course I'll remove it.

Hi Lew,

Well, here's an example of how it disrupts usefulness - in this thread, there are two images; an original and an edited version (with something cloned out) which another member has provided.

Normally, since these are the only two posted images in the thread, we'd be able to switch between them easily in LyteBox to 'spot the difference' - unfortunately, two of your signature images sit between them and prevent this.

Lew, I appreciate this example was your thread anyway and you might not even appreciate the other picture, but that's not relevant to the point I'm making. I'm sure I could find another example if I look, but life's too short.

Yes; there's nothing in the rules about not doing this
Yes; it is possible (I've no idea if we can turn it off)

However, it isn't helpful, as I hope you can now see.

Therefore at this stage, I'd rather leave it for you to voluntarily remove it if you accept that it doesn't help the majority of members, in deference to them. You also/already have a link to your web site, which is all the rest of us do.

If we have to ask, I feel we're duty bound to try to remove the facility of adding images from the Edit Signature dialog, which may or may not be possible in the standard forum software, plus update the 'rules', which, as you may have seen, we try hard not to make too long or prescriptive.

All the best, Dave

[thetraveler]

Thank you for the civil and sensible reply, Dave.
I had never noticed that the Forum software included my signature photo in the Lytebox.
That seems to be what I would call a bug in the sofware and I do agree it is annoying.

Lew

[Mike Buckley]

Very classy of you, Lew.

[Cantab]

I commented earlier on a technical issue arounding the fact that, even in long threads, our computers download load only one page of the thread at a time.

I'll now comment on lengthy topic threads such as the ongoing insect 2016 thread. I like it. By subscribing to the thread I can be sure I'll see a large number of the macro insect threads and the interesting entomological discussion included in that thread. I don't have to hunt for new posts or threads.

The insect 2016 format appears to work well for those who use it. People also create new threads. I don't see category threads as being an issue. Those who like them can use them; those who don't like them can use discrete smaller threads.

[rudi]

... My own opinion, for what little it is worth, is that we have enough interest here in macro in general and in bugs in particular that a separate macro forum would be a big plus......

+1