Q, we just increased the size of the thumbnails to 400x400 at your request... so why have you started image-tagging your attachments? Most people can see the images just fine at 400x400. (In fact, the 400x400 image in your post looks better than the big one IMO, because they're so low-def.)
Okay, I've fixed the post. If you really want to know why I "image-tag" my attachments, I usually find that the positioning of a picture within a post can say as much as the picture itself. It's a bit frustrating to have a picture you'd like to display FIRST at the bottom (as I wanted to do in the post above).
As to the image attachment thumbnail size being changed at my request, that's news to me. I well remember the thread in which we discussed that, but I'm far from being the only one to credit (or to blame) for that particular change. If I were actually that powerful, I'd make all BEA women spontaneously grow 12 cup sizes, but as they say: wish in one hand, sh*t in the other, and see which fills first.
Q-"
But thanks nonetheless"-BE
EDIT: Perhaps this discussion and this edited comment should go in the
Site Issues thread covering this topic, however, I noticed that images that are below 400x400 in resolution default to an even smaller thumbnail size, such as
my recent post of a Nanny McPhee pic in Word Association, and additionally, the picture no longer becomes a clickable link to the pop-up picture window of we all have become so fond. Just some thoughts on this perennially-frustrating code monster we call a forum.
EDITx2: I will post this post also in that thread in order to facilitate discussion there.