# Is there any reason why small images don't have thumbnails?

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-there-any-reason-why-small-images-dont-have-thumbnails/61806>\
**Category:** UX\
**Created:** [28. April 2017 um 23:22 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-there-any-reason-why-small-images-dont-have-thumbnails/61806 "2017-04-28T23:22:58Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/sam/32/102149_2.png) [@sam](https://meta.discourse.org/u/sam)\
**Post date:** [23. Mai 2017 um 01:11 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-there-any-reason-why-small-images-dont-have-thumbnails/61806/11 "2017-05-23T01:11:01Z")

</div>

Inline image clearly should not have the onebox treatment in my opinion

 ![](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/meta/original/3X/4/1/41f79ceb68542bcfb7a653d02aa98ad83a9637ab.png) but… there are a lot of complicating factors around thresholds for on-a-line-by-itself images.

For example, this image, will never get a lightbox treatment:

 ![](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/meta/original/3X/4/1/41f79ceb68542bcfb7a653d02aa98ad83a9637ab.png)

Even if I hardcode it down to 100x100

 ![](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/meta/original/3X/4/1/41f79ceb68542bcfb7a653d02aa98ad83a9637ab.png)

Personally, I think it is fine to show lightbox for any image over 200x200 that is **not inline** , with a site setting to adjust threshold.

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-there-any-reason-why-small-images-dont-have-thumbnails/61806)._