Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Support larger file sizes by compressing them before transfer to the server

Post

Support larger file sizes by compressing them before transfer to the server

+2
−3

Many images and screenshots captured today, are larger than 2 MB, the max allowed size on Codidact. This means users will regularly run into a barrier when attempting to upload images to their posts (or profile). Just now, I wanted to create a new post, which would benefit from some screenshots, however, that process was more complicated than it should have to be, because I was denied uploading the screenshots, as they were too large. I can still upload them, but I'll have to go compress them first. This can be automated. Codidact should accept larger image file sizes client-side (10 MB?), compress them, and then upload them to the server.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

3 comment threads

Realism about compression (1 comment)
Server Side is MUCH Better (4 comments)
Implementation (1 comment)
Server Side is MUCH Better
manassehkatz‭ wrote 6 months ago

Client-side implementation has a lot of issues. What I think would work better is a server-side implementation. Something like a much larger limit - perhaps 20 MB. On upload, server code compresses on the fly down to the desired size (e.g., 2 MB) and only stores the compressed image. This is relatively easy to do in most languages. I actually created a small web site to do this for use Somewhere Else but obviously can't integrate it into that system, while I have hopes that someday I will be able to do that here (after learning Ruby, etc.). There are additional problems - a lot of casual users know how to take pictures with their phones and share them via email/WhatsApp/text/etc. but have no clue how to upload directly to a web site, so I have some ideas on fixing that as well by allowing directed emails - e.g., send to postid-image@codidact.com and it automagically is compressed and loaded into the post.

Andreas from the dark caverns‭ wrote 6 months ago · edited 6 months ago

manassehkatz‭ Well, I just assumed the purpose of having that low limit was to reduce server load, by requiring far less data transfer. As long as the server can handle such higher limits, and there's nothing to actually save by doing it client-side, then it's a possibility to do it server-side. Although, even if the server is fine with receiving such amounts of data, the client might not have such a good bandwidth. Not too many years ago, I lived with horrible data upload speeds, and I assume lots of people still do.

a lot of casual users know how to take pictures with their phones and share them via email/WhatsApp/text/etc. but have no clue how to upload directly to a web site, so I have some ideas on fixing that as well by allowing directed emails - e.g., send to postid-image@codidact.com and it automagically is compressed and loaded into the post.*

I honestly have no idea how that makes sense. Maybe I'm too used to computers. I just don't find that to be realistic. I'm aware certain people struggle with computers, and might already know how to send a file over e-mail, for instance, but under no circumstance does that seem simpler than tapping the image upload button in the editor. It's far more complicated.

manassehkatz‭ wrote 6 months ago

The issue isn't so much transfer time (it is a one-time thing if compression is done immediately after transfer) as it is storage space. Storage space is a lot cheaper than it used to be, but some limit is necessary for both economic and practical reasons. An awful lot of people take pictures on their phones and have no idea how to do anything with the pictures except what the phone makes it trivially easy to do. Typically that means: email, text, WhatsApp, etc. where the phone (Android or iOS) "knows" certain things to do and can feed a saved picture into another application. But the image upload button inside a web page works differently and for a lot of people figuring out how to browse/find their pictures is not so easy.