# 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:** [4월 28, 2017, 11:22오후 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:** 12

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paully21](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/paully21/32/72673_2.png) [@paully21](https://meta.discourse.org/u/paully21)\
**Post date:** [6월 21, 2017, 4:25오후 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-there-any-reason-why-small-images-dont-have-thumbnails/61806/12 "2017-06-21T16:25:30Z")

</div>

> [@sam](#):
>
> 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.

This seems, to me, to be the right thing to do. Users are unaware of the rules regarding the oneboxing feature and it is sort of hard, as an administrator, to explain the nuances to users that struggle technologically.

---

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