Bob Janes wrote:Becksvart wrote:Dyxum still has the mini-photo-size thing I guess? It can be a pretty nice forum elsewise.What is the mini-photo-size thing? We don't have any way of restricting size of photos at Dyxum that I'm aware of. We encourage people to post reduced size versions for two reasons:1. It makes stuff download quicker for other users who might not be on super-fast connections.2. Low-res versions are less prone to being stolen off the web.I'm referring to the "1024 pixels wide, or 960 pixels high" recommendation and the forum resizing anything larger down to a size like that, the effect is smaller-than-average (my impression of the internet) photos when scrolling through photo threads. It's the polar opposite of Fredmiranda's forums where people who aren't on capped internet connections and large, high res displays can see photos that take up a lot of the screen in the forum thread.  I can understand wanting to cater to people with capped internet connections who nevertheless want to see photos, it just isn't how I primarily like to enjoy photos. Aside from large prints I love photos that take up most of a 32" 4K display for instance.Anyway I hope dyxum as well as fm continue to exist.