Premium Members only? Is pic posting limited to premium members only? I tried posting in a forum, couldn't. Tried posting a pic and previewing in this thread. It worked. Copied and pasted in another forum. No dice. ???
[ img ] did not work in the baby nats forum. I tried to post a link to a Freddy Adu picture and it showed up as the URL, instead.
Another way, Footix told me was to do this: <IMG SRC="http://www.livephotos.homestead.com/files/jj72_22-08-01__10_100dpi.jpg"> In other words, put the web address of the photo (right click on the picture, go to properties, and then copy and paste the web address in the middle) in between the quotation marks. Hope this helps . P.S. To see what you have to type, click on the quote box on this message. I couldn't get it to show you any other way.
Re: Premium Members only? if the above suggestions didn't work: sometimes in the user CP, edit options, you'll have it set to view link, rather that view picture. Show image attachments and code in Posts? Selecting no will show a hyperlink instead.
[_img_]complete adress (http://dgadskgfsd/.jpg)[_/img_] and PLEASE remove the undrelines..... always worked for me
My point is that using both Bigsoccer code and HTML, I am able to post pics...BUT ONLY TO THIS THREAD!!! When I test a pic on this thread, it appears as a picture. But when I try to post it on another board, (i.e. Arsenal), by copying and pasting THE EXACT SAME THING THAT WORKED ON THIS THREAD, all I get is a hyperlink (when using Bigsoccer code), or the url without the hyperlink (when using HTML). Let me know if you were succesful posting any pics in any forum/thread other than this one, and if so: 1) Which thread? 2) Which technique/code?
testin picture [_img_]http://www.soccerway.com/includes/getPhoto.php3?id=997102166&size=original [_/img_]
<small>This picture blatently ripped off from AndyMead's personal <strike>escort</strike> photo service which is called Yellow Journalism, a play on the newspaper tactics of the early 20th Century which resulted in the Spanish American war, which has nothing to do with Soccer, or "Footy" as Andy would have it. I think this picture was taken by Mr Wade Jackson, but that might be a pseudonym Andy uses, or maybe Andy is really Mike Lastort in drag - who can say for sure? Anyway, I just wanted to give credit where credit is due because Andy has this Law Firm that comes to your house and is mean to you in front of your dog if you rip off his photos without giving him his props and saying a few kind words about the filthy rag he "publishes" (meaning he gets to sniff each page as it comes off the mimeograph. Remember that? Man, that was great, except when the teacher did the "Take one and pass the rest back" thing I always ended up in a row behind guys like Segorves and Topper who'd sniff each page before they passed it back so when I got them they always had, like, goobers on them. Nasty.) Anyway, Andy, thanks for letting me post your picture. Give Andy a shout and subscribe to the <color=green><u>Emerald City Gazette</u></color> because it's the right thing to do. Thanks.</small> So how come html code posting works in THIS forum? I thought it was disabled everywhere. <marquee size=8><b>guess not</b></marquee>
While we're at it, does anyone know the allowable size limit of pics before BigSoccer automatically resizes them? Time was where there was no limit, and I know people complained about their browser windows getting "stretched" when huge images were posted. I also know it was a good while ago that it was changed to stop that happening, but I can't remember ever seeing what the was maximum set at. I ask because back before there was a limit, myself and another poster once produced a comic strip kind of thing using photoshop that scrolled downwards rather than across to prevent "screen stretch". Overall though, the 3 images we used in a single post were rather large, and much bigger than what is allowed now in terms of it's height rather than width. From time to time, we've talked about maybe doing it again but have never got round to it. Whilst there's nothing in the pipeline along those lines at the moment, I was wondering what sort of image size restrictions we'd have to play with if we ever did have a go at something like that again.
Sorry for the late response. I asked the tech team and we believe the limit is 425x425. Does that help?