Quick note: Gallery and cloud faster
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
Hm, still pretty slow, but I've forgotten what they used to be like — probably so slow that I gave up looking at them.
Still takes several minutes, though, like jimroberts, I used to just give up.
On the other hand, I do have nearly 1300 author images in my gallery. I hate to think how long it will take if I ever find images of the other 1500 or so!
I'm finding Lilithcat takes about 1 second for the cloud at 4 seconds for the gallery. For the latter the images keep coming in for a while, but loading images after a page displays is standard. Are you seeing it actually take longer to show the page?
My gallery took over 20 seconds (453 with pictures | 808 without pictures | 1261 total) before it showed anything. My author cloud took only a few seconds.
Yeah. I need to look into it, but I think your browser is refusing to show any images until it has all images. Yours starts loading images faster than a second for me, and while it'll be faster on the database end since you just hit it, that won't account for the change.
Gallery (1418 with pictures | 1355 without pictures | 2773 total) still takes about 4 minutes to fully show for me. Problem might easily be on my side though - currently having to use an 'antique' computer.
Okay, I'm doing fixed-size images now. Tell me how fast it is for you?
I never looked at Gallery before, but when I tried it it a few minutes ago it took over 5 minutes, now, after your change it was seconds!
But why are some of the images cut the way they are? Some authors are seen without their heads! Lawrence Durrell, Karen Blixen, Guido Knopp, Kallifatides..
Again c. 4 minutes (remember my caveat in #10 though). Also some of them (poor old Marcus Aurelius for instance) now show decapitated.
By the way: what happened to the little stars on the pictures of authors you favourited?
P.s.: Also I now get a "Script: chrome://global/content/bindings/browser.xml:0" that isn't running.
The images are now all forced into squares. This allows me to predict the size of the final image, which apparently speeds up rendering the page at all on crappy browsers.
You want to make something of it?
(Steps behind Safari, running on the fastest Mac Apple currently makes, slavering without muzzle)
I'm tempted to yellow flag.
(But admits the MACHINE he's on is crappy).
My author gallery (686 with pictures | 243 without pictures | 929 total) loaded in about 5 seconds and took another 10-15 to load the photos into the blank squares.
FF / Max OS X
I love my Mac too... :)
I really like the look of the gallery with all the portraits uniformly square, but it looks kind of silly when it just shows someone's torso.
Perhaps an forced crop feature when uploading images would be something to think about in the future?
I'm late to the party, but I love this. I never thought 'forcing the squares' would make such a difference. Here's to conformity! (But only in this case!)
On a side note - Damn, I seem to have a lot of bearded authors. Also, who knew that Jack London was such a muffin? Not I.
The page starts showing almost immediately. It just takes quite a while for all the images to load. As I said, I have a lot of them!
What's impressive is that on my work computer the page is actually showing up within a few seconds, and that never happened before.
About 4 seconds. I do feel the need to point out that the forced squaring decapitates some of the authors.
Example: Marcus Aurelius
Now if the download for a book edit was that fast I would be in Heaven.
Win 98SE, short on memory, ADSL, in Sunny South Florida, wishing I was in Ohio.
Actually, Marcus Aurelius was a horse. They don't know who that guy is that was riding him.
It's said that Edward Steichen is rendered headless. Bad cropping always annoys photographers.
So, I'm trying to figure out whether the page ACTUALLY took a long time to load, or if only the images did. I converted to fixed-size images so as to make rendering faster.
Anyone help me out here?
A test: Tell me if there's a marked difference in how long these take to load. Please distinguish the page STARTING to appear from it ending.
nosquare=0 - About 4 seconds, with maybe 1 more second to completion.
nosquare=1 - Also about 4 seconds, but is instantly complete.
Both started almost instantaneously, but nosquare=1 took longer to complete.
(I like the latter better though, more of a family album feel to it).
nosquare=0, 15 sec to start, about 90 seconds to complete
nosquare=1, 11 sec to start, about 135 seconds to complete
I liked the look of 1 better, since it started filling from the top down. If I were merely browsing rather than counting (i.e., occasionally mousing over and otherwise enjoying the gallery), it loaded almost as fast as I was I was scrolling.
Okay, I've made two changes. One is that, for the square images, the image shows up as gray until it actually fills in. This isn't faster but I think it seems faster.
It's supposed to. It takes the middle of the image. If it's actually better we need to give people a way to select which part of the image should be cropped. I don't want to have to make an algorithm looking for pink parts, or whatever.
38> I have discovered a truly remarkable face recognition algorithm which this textbox is too small to contain.
I have discovered a remarkable face recognition algorithm and, oh my time for that duel!
I don't know if you've made more fiddles, Tim, but I just tried the two pages.
Nosquare=0 - From the header appearing to the first pictures appearing, 13 seconds; 8 pictures (the first row-and-a-bit), then very slow and random order filling in.
Nosquare=1 - From the header to the first pictures, 18 seconds...but all of the pictures appeared at the same time (or at least, by the time I scrolled down (which I did immediately), they were all filled in.
Nosquare=0 was still filling in pictures when 1 was finished.
ETA: BTW, the 'pictures' for Franklin Dixon and Carolyn Keene got a LOL from me!
>32 Now it is a lot slower to load the gallery again, even with the new squared pictures it took nearly 5 minutes to load.
When I first tried it, it took only seconds, which sort of compensated for all the decapitated authors.
Now, comparing with the old version the difference in loading time was minimal. Is it possible to choose version without going via this thread? If there is no gain in time to use the new version, I prefer the old one.
To load all pictures. And it was a stupid question, really: what I wanted to ask was if both versions are going to be available also later on.
This group does not accept members.
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.