| Archive for The Unofficial Mamod and Other Steam Forum The Original Unofficial Toy Steam Forum Established 2006 The biggest, most popular steam forum around! Accept NO imitations! We have a growing community of regular posting members who chat about all aspects of toy and model steam. |
| Reid |
retitle: install the PB -player code- or reid snits
Please, unless there is some reason to the contrary, if folks would choose the PB -embed code- and paste that to the forms instead of the link code. It takes a full minute, sometimes, and sometimes longer when the PB link code is chosen, for then a new browser has to open and then we have to wait wait wait for PB to fill the page with advertisments and then load the video. On the other hand, a PB embedded video plays right away, relatively speaking. EMBED CODE rules, imo. So I shout for that much. Thanks! |
||
| johnreid |
You need to switch to Firefox. A new tab opens and the PB video runs in it fine. Far better than the Monster sized Embed that makes the thread unreadable. | ||
| Reid |
BTW for many years I've used nothing but Firefox. This has nothing to do with browsers. It has nothing to do with custom player sizes. PB embed code is not "Monster sized". You're thinking of my habit of enlarging players. I did not say to enlarge players. Below are the two ways to apply PB video. Rhetorical question to all readers: Which way is more direct, faster for all of us? Image Link Code (slowwww, indirect) 
HTML Code (plays right away, right here) |
||
| Reid |
For me, it took over one minute before the new-browser version would play.
I closed that and then clicked the embedded player. I had video in ten seconds. And when it was done I had no superfluous browser copy to shut down from the tab bar. It's an easy choice I think. I made this thread because most of us don't know about the "html" code offering an on-page player. I only found it by chance myself, not being expert on these matters. |
||
| johnreid |
Sorry, they both were instantaneous for me. Maybe it is your Internet connection. For me, I click and the linked one opens a new tab and only the player shows up, not a bunch of other stuff. Could it be your browser settings? | ||
| johnreid |
I just tried it with IE and a whole new window opens and it seems to take forever to load, dont know what to say. Must be browser settings. | ||
| Reid |
My browser settings:
Do you think that makes a difference? Every time, always, when going to PB to load images, or to look at someone's link code (non-embed), PB makes me wait wait wait for half a minute or longer. Not so with Imageshack or youtube or any of the other services. So I don't think it's any fault of my 700kbs dsl speed--- I suppose it's that PB servers are slow to respond (always so slow!) and also fat with larding adverts which, if we embed, are not called forth. Yep, everything else is fast enough, but PB is always pokey to start for me, other than when it's directly embedded as image or video on the page. |
||
| Nick |
I prefer embedded, plays it right in the thread. You can also do it with youtube. | ||
| Les Marsh |
Either way is fine with me, at least I can watch them. 
|
||
| Stilldrillin |
I`m using Firefox.......
No adverts. They`re both the same to me! 
|
||
| johnreid |
I am thinking that it must be a server that your connection must be going through. Imageshack is always a bit slow here.
I first got an Internet Connection when it was 9600 baud dial up and to be honest even a slow connection these days is lightning fast compared to back then. A one megabyte file meant a long download time back then, we are spoiled with the Instant Gratification that we get on the web these days. |
||
| Reid |
You mean for a lateral indirect example, that your PB home page does not do this? 
What PB video -links- cause me here, is a lonnnng wait before the video will play. I probably misspoke to say that the video player -page- also presented adverts; it's the load page that is fat with advertising. Pardon me for that? [---- John, good point. PB here -always- takes a minimum of half a minute to open. I hope it's truly faster for others. That screenshot above does not show the moving images in the ADVERTS. Imageshack does the same dog and pony show, but for me, imageshack's load page opens and loads so fast that by the time PH even opens its load page, I could have loaded to imageshack and already gotten the code back! Imageshack is spartan compared to PB. I'm not a registered user of imageshack either, as I am at PB. |
||
| Reid |
content available on the net requires broadband. I can get so much more information, and I mean books for reading too, not just video, for having minimal broadband. For us to avoid large files because some folks still have (so to speak), hand cranked telephone-quality dial-up, is to deny and delay the progress of information retrieval. Some folks cannot yet get fast access. I was in that boat until last spring when the phone company finally offered DSL to this street's residents. So I got it and I'm not holding back from using it. I first was online in 1983 with Viewtron. Then years later in 1994 or the year before, with a 2400kbs Hayes modem. It was so sucky in the nineties for getting even small jpegs in any quantity... |
||
| johnreid |
You will have the ads as the service is a free service and they have to pay for Hosting fees and bandwidth. It has to be servers, Imageshack is still slower here and Photobucket is lightning fast.
Who knows? |
||
| Reid |
Viewtron! We were the first to have it here in town.
This was the first image and text "web" for regular people! It worked! It was amazing! It was an economic loss and so they soon pulled the plug. But wow, we still have the Scepter terminal and keyboard here. I don't miss the old days at all! http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/CARLSON/history/viewtron.htm
|
||
| Reid |
Still, there is no benefit and no reason for knowing people here to not choose the HTML PB code, and put the damned player right on the page. It's just the better way, can anyone say otherwise? 
prickly now! 
|
||
| mc_mc |
Firefox (free download) + Ad Block Plus extension (free download) = No internet ads + much faster loading pages.
It also gives you the ability to block anything annoying on a web page e.g. The snow effect that was installed on here last Christmas was easily blocked.
|
||
| Mamodevon |
Why when I have tried to embed html code for a video link in either YT or PB on this forum have I ended up with just the code appearing and not the video. It only seems to work if I add the img code instead, and then that links out to the host site.
MD |
||
| johnreid |
I am trying to embed all of such links, now Reid can try to limit the size of his embeds to 800 pixels wide
I can now read the photo intense threads with a bit of inconvenience using a Firefox extension called Image Zoom but it doesnt work on the Video embeds so when I click on a thread with the huge embedded Videos, I cant even enjoy reading the text of the thread. We can cooperate, compromise and hopefully keep all of us out of the snit. |
||
| Nick |
With Reid's HUGE videos, I just double click the image and it takes me to youtube, where I can see a smaller version. 
|
||
| Mister Occlusion |
Err... I use Adblock Plus in firefox and ever since they set it up to use a subscription to a blacklisting service I rarely ever see an ad, and it's been even longer since I've had to manually blacklist anything.
The forum going ad-free was a non-event for me, and likewise photobucket is clean, though still slow as hell. That's what makes it a rhetorical (Reidtorical?) question (or at least a moot point): PB is so bloody slow that no matter which way it's done I have to pause the video and let it load completely to be sure of skip-free play. Embeds are nice for when I'm feeling lazy. I also like links because I'll often browse someone's album or channel at the same time or, in the case of youtube, end up on a diverting excursion off into the weeds for a half hour or so as I chase Related Video links. If you're using firefox but not adblock plus, the very pertinent question that you must answer is "why not?" |
||
| johnreid |
The HUGE videos make it very difficult to read the text in a thread. After all the text is the most important part most often. | ||
| Mister Occlusion |
True. You can easily set for full screen at youtube as well. I don't find that blowing up the size of the video makes them any easier to view, since they just get fuzzy when run out of native resolution (we don't have those fancy programs like they have on the CSI shows that can create pixels out of nothing and are thus able to define a person's nose hair from a traffic camera photo taken at 200 feet distance...) | ||
| Nick |
I still have good eyesight, and I actually make them smaller once I get to youtube for clarity. | ||
| johnreid |
Well, what needs to happen is that we start working together to make things easy for the other guy. I am sure that I missed out on some informative threads because the scrolling was giving me a headache.
I will embed, so please reciprocate.
|
||
| Mister Occlusion |
No problem. I am lazy, so I will use the default html code and include links.
|
||
| Reid |
My goodness, this was started as a semi-humorous suggestion to embed players into the posts instead of pokey indirect links.
I made sure page 2 had a funny-at-my-expense tone to it too. And John, you insist to ignore the premise and paint me red for something completely not related to the thread topic. None of this has anything to do with player embed size. I don't mind getting nudged on topic but hey, gimme a break please? It's called a red herring. "Gee, it's a nice day today!" "Yeah, I sure hope you'll quit with the big video embeds." 
|
||
| Reid |
About "scrolling". John is on VGA resolution*. I'm on the only resolution my monitor supports,
its native resolution of 1400x1050 my cheap monitor http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/20-21inch-2_2.html Pages are wide for me. At least I make my lines no longer than my image inserts. I find it uncomfortable to read John's posts (as an example). It's not John, it's the long lines stringing left to right. I have to scroll and scroll my eyeballs. Then they hurt! (lol) As an example, and not as criticism, just to note the reality of different viewing resolutions, for me this line is all on one line and it's a pain to read: I find it easier to read short lines than to read long lines that spread across, what for me on my monitor is all the way far right........and still on my monitor this is all the same line of text -- *I am kidding of course. John is not on VGA resolution. He's a step above that. Uh, half step!
|
||
| johnreid |
at 1400x1050 everything is too small, I have vision problems with Fuchs Corneal dystrophy and Macular Degeneration, I need larger print. | ||
| Reid |
^^
I have macular degeneration too, pardner, not the nasty kind you have, not yet, but my vision is dimming. For consolation I know at least that I'll be dead before I go blind. solution to the small print prob: ctrl and scroll ----
oops! I rolled the scroll wheel the wrong direction! 
|
||
| johnreid |
I will just continue to click through and not read Reid threads
|