please empty your brain below
that is a great photo at either size. I can't work out where you took it from though!(I know Waltham reasonablly well)

Peewit | Homepage | 22.05.14 - 7:14 a.m. | #

I prefer the larger thumbnails. I usually read with a desktop browser, or on a tablet, so the image size is not a problem.

Tom H | 22.05.14 - 7:15 a.m. | #

I don't really mind. It makes sense for a picture with a lot of detail to be larger, but others need not be and I do like how the text flows around them.

Dave | 22.05.14 - 7:26 a.m. | #

I prefer the larger thumbnails. I also like it if you have also made the thumbnail a link to the photo source, so clicking on it will give the full size version.

John | 22.05.14 - 7:55 a.m. | #

Larger thumbnails every time for me.

| 22.05.14 - 8:15 a.m. | #

The small thumbnails are fine, with my new touchscreen I can make them bigger myself if necessary. Most people will be migrating to touchscreen technology in the future.

Dave | 22.05.14 - 8:29 a.m. | #

I prefer larger thumbnails but they can be a problem on my mobile - although as I read by RSS that's not an issue for me.

There is a small piece of CSS code you can use which will automatically resize images to fit the space available - I use it on my own website. You can set a standard max size, and then if the screen is smaller then it reduces the height and width proportionally.

Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 22.05.14 - 9:10 a.m. | #

Smaller ones are fine with me-I usually view your blog on my 16:9 PC screen.

HoosierSands | Homepage | 22.05.14 - 9:59 a.m. | #

Agree with Hoosier. You can always click on the thumbnail, and meanwhile the text reads easier.

Temp | 22.05.14 - 10:11 a.m. | #

Smaller is better for me. I prefer the flow of the text around it and the extra 100 pixels makes no difference to if I enlarge or not.

bpbill | 22.05.14 - 11:28 a.m. | #

I prefer the pictures within the text with the option to view it larger via a link. Saying that, if the blog is specifically about a picture (or one/two pictures make up the most important part) a larger picture is better.

Flare | 22.05.14 - 11:54 a.m. | #

Sorry, but I'm likely to skip over the image, whatever size it is, and I am more interested in reading the words. Occasionally I'll go back and look at an image properly if the text refers to it, and occasionally I'll click through to Flickr if an image is particularly good or the text refers to a image series that sounds interesting.

Andrew | 22.05.14 - 11:57 a.m. | #

The 400 pixel size is good on my smartphone which is what I usually use reading your posts when on the bus to work.

Pete | 22.05.14 - 12:00 p.m. | #

I prefer the text to wrap around, so given your reasoning I prefer the smaller photos. I can always click through to a bigger version.

Tim | 22.05.14 - 12:19 p.m. | #

I prefer the larger one (and best if it is also a link to flickr).

Jon Combe | 22.05.14 - 12:35 p.m. | #

I like the larger photo, in general, especially when it's a complicated scenery picture. I view on a 19-inch monitor.

If it is a simple pic, say, a shopkeeper's sign or road sign, then the smaller version would be adequate.

This beautiful pic you've used as an example is definitely better as large as possible, because it's so complex. It would be worthy of a magazine cover.

| 22.05.14 - 1:10 p.m. | #

I agree with the above comment, it depends on the picture.
I prefer to have the writing wrap around the picture, but some photos, like the one you've highlighted, deserve to be a stand alone in order to show it off.

CornishCockney | 22.05.14 - 1:32 p.m. | #

As others have said, I find the smaller version useful only as a visual hook to click through to the Flickr version - by itself it's too small to be of any use in itself.

Could you wrap text around the larger version? I like the wraparound layout for 'small' images (including your 400px version - this is still fairly small as images go), although I appreciate this might bugger up layouts on smaller screens with larger images. I read your posts as an RSS on feedly, clicking through to the actual page on graphics-heavy posts (whereas for a simple prose blogpost I'll usually just stick with feedly), and I generally read you on a proper computer rather than my smartphone, so I have less experience of how your layouts work on small devices.

Rich Thomas | 22.05.14 - 2:10 p.m. | #

If you're going to not wrap text around larger images, I'd prefer them to be centred. Having them arranged on the left with a big blank textless space to the right makes it look like something's gone wrong, and an intended wraparound text didn't work.

Rich Thomas | 22.05.14 - 2:12 p.m. | #

Larger is better. They're still not big by modern standards, but nicer to look at.

Tuuli | 22.05.14 - 2:29 p.m. | #

I prefer the smaller one to be honest - especially if you're using it as one of many illustrations in a few paragraphs as text. Too many then get in the way of the words. That said, if the whole blog post is about one particular picture, then the larger one works best.

Brad | 22.05.14 - 4:49 p.m. | #

Larger thumbnails for me too DG - keep up the good work

Dave B | 22.05.14 - 5:48 p.m. | #

I like the larger photos. I get an RSS feed of your page, then read it in my browser

sciencefish | Homepage | 22.05.14 - 5:52 p.m. | #

Never paid much attention to the thumbnail size. Usually I mouse over them to see if there's a link to fullsize.

Jackal | 22.05.14 - 7:46 p.m. | #

Larger is easier to see; but links to larger pictures means that I can choose to see larger still. So it is all good.

Herbof | 22.05.14 - 10:18 p.m. | #

I prefer the larger photos so I can see them better.

FotoMarg | Homepage | 22.05.14 - 10:22 p.m. | #

I'm not really all that fussed on the size of thumbnails ... I'll probably be going to the Flickr image anyway

Caroline | 22.05.14 - 11:15 p.m. | #

Smaller - the blank space beside a larger one is slightly off-putting.

Bob Lindsay-Smith | 22.05.14 - 11:24 p.m. | #

I only use a desktop computer so whatever size is fine with me.

Garth | 23.05.14 - 12:04 a.m. | #

I'd prefer even larger pictures.

Any non-medieveal computer screen would make atleast 800 pixels usable. 300 or 400 pixels wide pictures looks a bit like we're still partying like its 1999 :)

The best would of course be something that autoamtically detects the viewing devices display size and select the apropriate size from flickr. I don't know if something like that exists for blogger.

MiaM | Homepage | 23.05.14 - 6:05 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy