Haha, first time I see a gif bug:

I don't know it was possible!

Yeah, that's a bug in a library PandaWhale uses. It's on my to do list to fix that. 

Adam, look at the source, there's a bug in gif displaying here. I've gifed the bug to make sure it's not my computer bugging.

The bug happens for some gifs that are more than 600 pixels wide. 

You know how into high quality gifs I am so this bug in particular gets my goat. 

Yep I guessed it, that's why I wanted to make sure you were aware of it.

Can you try to describe me the bug more in details?

The short answer is:

It's probably possible to resize gifs in a way that 1) doesn't product graininess and compression artifacts for compressions beyond (say) 2-3x, 2) resizes the diffs that take you from one frame to the next exactly the same way as the "base" background image in all cases, and 3) works reasonably quickly.

Trying to accomplish all of this using ImageMagick, (perhaps) the most popular and well-documented, full-featured open source image processing suite, could not satisfy all three simultaneously.

I can write a longer answer if you like. :)

a) About 1): Why don't you disable any resize for gifs until this problem is solved? At the moment, with the speed of our internets, and the restriction on uploaders (imgur gif < 5mb for free accounts), I think they are already small enough to be displayed as they have been created without fearing giant graphic mess.Except for some trolls like me that do 1920*1080 gis, hehe.

b) About the point 2), this compression is generally done by gif making softwares. For example, on gimp, you have a function "optimize for gif": combine the layers, so the pixels that don't move in the next frame, are not refreshed.If this is not done, gifs are at least 10 times heavier. So this leads to a) again: gif makers are already forced to optimize their gif because otherwise they can't even upload them on classic image uploaders like imgur.

So if you can't satisfy your 3 points simultaneously, I think you can skip, at least for now, the point 2) combination, because gif makers did it already.

And probably point 1 resizing too, because actual general web capacities force gif makers to create reasonably sized gif already. 

What do you think?

I think you make some excellent points.

Seriously considering doing this.

Let me think about it a little longer, but I think doing away with gif post-processing right now is a good, fast solution to the problem.

badmonkey recommended gifsicle: http://www.lcdf.org/gifsicle/

Looking into it.

Okay : )