I'm not really disagreeing with you Dennis just pointing out a small difference that can make a big difference to someone on a very slow or metered connection. Here's what I'm saying. Post 1 is smaller than post 2, because the image in post 1 is attached and the image in post 2 is embedded in the body of the post. Post 1 gives you the option of loading the image or not. You can look at the attachment thumbnail and see that it's just another picture of ole DaveGunter and his hounds and you've probably seen a bunch of them already so you may choose not to click on it to view the full image. I do realize that in post 1, in order for you to see the full image you have to click on it and that causes you to have to load the full image and that can be slow, but at least you have the choice. When you are on a very slow connection and you click on a thread with a lot of images that are embedded (like post 2) it can take a very long time to load the thread as each of the posts in the thread are larger due to the images being embedded in the post. Here is what I usually do. If I'm posting in a thread that is about pictures like the "loaded truck" or if the picture is important to the context of the post then I embed the picture in the post. If I am posting a picture and it is just a "general interest" picture and not necessarily needed for the context of the post then I leave the image attached as a thumbnail. When I'm surfing FHC and I click on a thread that I know has a lot of images, I open the thread as a new tab in the background so that the machine can load all of the data for the images while I'm reading a different thread.
I can not say for the smart phones as I use only a desktop. But for sure the second post is the best and comes up just as fast as post 1. However, with post 1, I have to click on it to see it, and that does take time and resources away from the computer. So in my case, many times when I see attached pictures I don't even look at them, figuring that the poster really don't care if someone wants to see them or not. So all in all, maybe like all things there are differences in opinion on how best to do something and that most times is good.
DaveGunter is correct on that a thumbnail image requires less data than a full inline image. It's hard to wrap the mind around slow, data limited connections these days, but it does still apply to some. The attached images are probably the best/least resource intensive for those with slow/limited internet, the thumbnail is an "in-between", as a full inline image takes the most bandwidth to download and incorporate. It's not isually an issue on the computer or phone, but on the internet connection. Hope that makes sense. $.02
I guess we need some better description of what you and Dave are calling a thumbnail. When I think of thumbnail I am thinking about the "Thumbnail" button you click on to insert the thumbnail. But somehow I get the idea you are talking about an attached picture rather than the thumbnail in the post. But I get confused easy.
A thumbnail is just a smaller version of a picture, usually used as a way to organize or view a whole set of pictures all at once. The reduced size image of my picture in post 1 above is a thumbnail. When you click on it, you load the full size version. When you insert a picture into the body of a thread, you are given two options, "thumbnail" or "full size", I assume, if you choose thumbnail that the site software just inserts a smaller file version of your picture.
You are correct Dave. This is why I generally refer to either an attached file, a thumbnail or full image as we are given those 3 choices.
Yes and maybe this is where it gets confusing...the small image that represents the attached file is also a thumbnail.
