I have 2 32" monitors and a laptop. Plus a mobile phone. It's different on each of them.
Nov. 2, 2023
141
-
Yes. Image is displayed at 100% or at some fixed resolution and depending on the monitor resolution it will be displayed differently. IMO the page should be setup to display image to fit a screen.
-
This often does not look good neither for vertical images on desktop nor for horisontal images on phone (portrait) - unless non-covered areas are filled with some other content.
Because images can be in either orientation (and they don't have fixed aspect ratios - it may change from 16:9 to 9:16, some crops may even be more extreme), then it is quite impossible to create single template, covering all images.I don't know about Alan software flexibility - if changing templates on the fly would be easy, then it could be possible design few templates for different acpect ratios and change them alongside with image. Well, it may be required to make different templates for light and dark images also...
-
It's not hard to change things, but the width of the monitor (actually, the width of the flex grid) is the issue - especially for portrait images on a landscape monitor. So, how about this home page now? download.dprevived.com/home.html - it can contain the last 5 winners of the competition. All the comp winners will be in the comeptition page, but recent ones shown on the home page.
Alan
-
I like it, looks good.
-
This is nice with several pictures, I guess getting around the format problems..
-
Thanks both. Yes, I actually prefer the multiple pictures. I may change the style a bit so it will be easier to update them, but it will do for now.
Alan
-
I've got another question, if you don't mind @AlanSh:
Is the site going to be called 'The Photo' or is dprevived going to stay? In case of the former, I think it would be very appropriate to create a new logo for the site and (if possible) also move everything to that domain. If not, I think it's highly confusing and should rather be avoided.
-
SJ, I don't know. I haven't talked to Bob (who owns DPRevived) yet. I bought it (actually got it free for a year) on a whim when someone mentioned "The photo" as a name and I noticed it was free. I guess it will come up in conversation soon. Maybe we could discuss it in our Zoom chat on the 3rd.
If anyone would like to create some sample logos (this is a community forum, after all), I'd be happy to post them on the landing site and see how they look.
Alan
-
Thanks for letting me know! I think it's important (in terms of easy recognition) to have one consistent name, look and message. I like the idea of 'The Photo' if it's used to emphasize the importance of the image and it would go well with Bobs motivation to build the best backend-system for sharing images.
I have a simple logo idea for that, which I can share:
-
I do not see a problem with DPRevived. It's not like you're saying Digital Photography Review Revived. That would have been DPRRevived. I think y'all spend too much time mired in the mud over trivial things and not concentrating on raising the participation up from 25-30 per day. Changing the name from DPRevived to The Photo or any other name is not going to change the participation level.
And on your comment "SJ, I don't know. I haven't talked to Bob (who owns DPRevived)..." that was my point in the very beginning. It's Bob's forum. Which kinda got refuted back then. Just sayin'
-
I doubt very much that anybody searching for a photography related website, either camera review or picture sharing, will use word "revived". Name has to be searchable. I tried to search for "digital photography" and "photograhy". DPRevived did not show up in either. Digital Photography Review showed up in both.
-
Bob owns the URL dprevived.com. The forum was started by him but modified and maintained by myself (front end) and Martin (back end) with Arvo doing CSS tweaks (still to be incorporated in the production version).
Alan
-
Has little to do with the name. Comes down to search engine optimization. DPReview over time got optimized organically, and there's a lot at play on a site with that much traffic and has been up so long.
I sold a business five years ago in Toronto. My original website had a short, kinda catchy name but didn't describe the business. But through both organic and focused search engine optimization, the site ranked #1 on just about any relevant search term you could come up with. I had also registered and parked website urls that was the company name in both .com and .ca Part of the name was what the business did. The new owner used the .com one and put up a new website. I had to talk them into leaving up the old one which has never been updated since. My old one is still number one. They're at best 7th
And about the last thing I'd search for a camera forum would be photo. The first thing I'd search would be "camera forum" It's all in the optimization.
-
Have you read the latest Bob's posts about direction he wants to take this website?
-
With all respect, content is still king. SEO may be essential when you have a low content site, typically selling something. A large forum has content and keywords aplenty in the forum posts. An if the site is any good it will also be linked to which is important. I'm not saying SEO is total crap, but for a site with lots of content, and hopefully good content, it's of minor importance.
It's not the 90s anymore when a good title and few meta tags got you indexed. SEs are smart today.
-
Totally agree. It is really incredible how long it takes to make some easy mods.
For instance, this landing page is OK, but this should have been the index page of this website(dprevived.com/), under while for months, not another URL (download.dprevived.com/home.html) where NOBODY will ever "land" when googling a photo discussion site.
To remake the index page like the landing page is a piece of cake for any normal forum software or any amateur software user...
The above criticism is meant to help, not to blame anyone, because I would be happy if this site continues...Kindest regards,
Stany -
Stany and David,
Your criticism doesn't actually help - but I don't know where you come from or what your native language is, so maybe it looks OK to you.
Some facts:
Bob owns "dprevived.com" and is the only one who can change where that points to. He has been off ill for a few months, nothing has changed. I have purchased two new domain names "thephoto.uk" and "dprenewed.com" to get round this in the short term. Both have been mentioned here - did you see them?
The landing site was only proposed a few weeks ago and within a few days I had something up and ready for discussions. Have you contributed to making it look better?
Because there are only 4 of us on the team and 3 of the others have been busy with real work and/or ill, it's been down to me to keep this site.forum going. I don not have access to the domain records or the back end servers. All I can do is what I have done as the front end admin.I am glad you would be happy if this site continues - so would I. But things take time when none of us are being paid for doing this and we all have day jobs.
And if it all falls over due to lack of members, then so be it. I am doing everything I can to keep it going.
Alan
