Open jbrayton opened 4 years ago
The main consideration for thumbnails is that they are visually interesting. I think this case perfectly illustrates this. I prefer Feedbin's choice (left) over using the og:image (right).
I'm not interested in having per-site settings. However, there is an argument to be made for always using the og:image if it's present. I'll have to think about that and see how it looks.
Thanks! I appreciate that there are a lot of trade-offs involved. And I am otherwise very happy with Feedbin's thumbnail selection.
This is a ticket motivated by this Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/squaredpx/status/1267453178871713793
Articles for feeds from underconsideration.com seem to have recommended thumbnails that appear surprising. For example:
The recommended thumbnail is a JPEG that is in the article, but the first image on in the article is a 2000x832 PNG. The 2000x832 PNG is also the og:image for the webpage. Looking briefly at the code for the Feedbin image processing service, it looks like Feedbin might not be considering PNG images for thumbnail. At least that's my hunch based on this line of code:
I can see why PNG images might not be considered thumbnails, but I wonder if it makes sense to consider a PNG if it is also the og:image for the page.