 | | | | | | |
| |
|
I have not posted until now because there was too much uncertainty about
how (or if) this was going to work out.
Due to financial reasons, Brickshelf was no longer in a viable position to
continue operating. As our costs are billed monthly, any shutdown would occur
at the end of a calendar month. I decided that 15 days was enough time for
everyone to copy their files. Turning it off completely for a few days was
intended to send the message that this is serious and get everyones attention so
they could use the remaining time wisely. It also gave everyone an opportunity
to see what would break when it did finally shut down.
In hindsight I should have handled this differently but it's too late for that
now.
I had long ago written off various ides for charging recurring fees because
AFOLs and geeks in general expect everything on the web to be free.
What turned this around is the totally unexpected volume of email I received
from what appear to be regular people. Many of these people expressed an
interest in paying some modest fee to keep the site running, if only there was
a way to do that.
In addition, I had underestimated the extent to which things would break
on other sites with Brickshelf gone. It was clear after the "test" shutdown
that some long lasting solution would be needed to at least keep old content
available in some way or I would not be able to sleep at night.
So we are going to try something new and see if it works. The site will
continue to work as it does now for free users. Paying users will have
the opportunity to have greater visibility of their folders (that pass
moderation and are not junk/avatars). Of course paying users would
also not see ads nor have ads on their folders.
To those wondering why maj.com was unaffected: It has
a tiny fraction (< 10%) of the traffic that Brickshelf gets While many
of you are aware of it, many more brickshelf users are not and it is possible
for me to run that site out of pocket at it's current size. This is one
reason there were no instructions posted to simply move over there.
For those wondering if this was some elaborate stunt: I have a very
full time job and this distraction is the last thing I needed to deal
with right now. I did what I thought was necessary given the financial
circumstances. I am still taking a risk in continuing this but the
tremendous show of support has convinced me it is the right thing to do.
Final note:
It has come to my attention that some people have been impersonating me
on various forums. LUGNET is the only LEGO related forum I have ever posted
on (other than r.t.l in the old days) and it's user authentication system
should give you reasonable assurance that it really is me.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Thanks for posting and your concern!
God Bless,
Nathan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cool beans Kevin!
I while I enjoy things for free I also don't mind paying my share to keep
resources like Brickshelf up and running.
jt
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, James Trobaugh wrote:
> Cool beans Kevin!
>
> I while I enjoy things for free I also don't mind paying my share to keep
> resources like Brickshelf up and running.
>
> jt
I agree with JT. I am ready to pay my share. Five bucks a month seems like
peanuts for a service so useful.
I have never been a big user of Brickshelf, but I have used it for years without
contributing one nickel. Just the idea of not having Brickshelf was like losing
a trusted friend and was somewhat disheartening. It is good to have it back.
I have "Almost Given" as the latest TV commericals suggest, but this time I am
ready to pay and I will definitely do so. I don't expect special services in
return, but I guess a few enhancements would be welcome. To help compensate for
some of my past usage, I fully plan to pay much more than 60 dollars annually,
too.
Lastly, a sincere THANK YOU to Kevin Loch for creating and maintaining
Brickshelf all these years. It is a far more charitable thing than I would ever
do and you have my utmost respect.
Kevin Salm
LUCNY
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Kevin,
Our LUG (The Hungarian LUG) was still in the process of collecting signatures
for a Thank You note we wanted to send to zou to express our appreciation for
running BrickShelf. This is how we worded it:
"Dear Kevin,
Thank You for running www.brickshelf.com for so many years!
We learned a lot about LEGO through the site, we saw a lot of interesting things
there, we could get ideas and inspiration for MOC-s, and we could also show off
our stuff.
We all hope BrickShelf will reborn sometime!
Thank You for everything!
MALUG - The Hungarian LEGO Club:
Rob (28878), Tibicsoki (20078), Akos (20773), Zoli (20624), Schau (61724),
Muming (36290), GP (46432), tuskohopkins (52596), XXTRUCK (38492), legocska
(53704) and many others"
Of course it is a bit obsolete now, as you have already decided to let
BrickShelf live.
Thank You,
Akos
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch wrote:
> I had long ago written off various ides for charging recurring fees because
> AFOLs and geeks in general expect everything on the web to be free.
I think people are somewhat more open to paying for Internet content than they
used to be. While it's easy to shrug off requests for donations, $5/month is
pretty nominal.
> So we are going to try something new and see if it works. The site will
> continue to work as it does now for free users. Paying users will have
> the opportunity to have greater visibility of their folders (that pass
> moderation and are not junk/avatars). Of course paying users would
> also not see ads nor have ads on their folders.
Will paying users be able to customize their accounts? I posted a few ideas
here:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=54014
I don't know if allowing the site to continue to work as it does now for free
users is going to generate enough revenue. I think uploading should continue as
it does now, but restrictions should be placed on viewing and downloading for
free users. I would hate for this situation to arise 6 months from now. I can't
see $5/month is a burden on anyone.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Kevin, it's really good to hear from you, but please don't shock us like that
again.
Some thoughts and suggestions:
Remember you don't have to shoulder all the burden of running Brickshelf
yourself - if it's becoming difficult then send out a call for assistance and
hopefully it could be moved to another server with a larger admin team. There
are a lot of people out there willing to do what they can to help.
Brickshelf is goldmine of freely-given content - there must be some way other
than banner ads and a few paid registrations to turn that in to a profit. Ask
for suggestions - printed instructions of MOCs / t-shirts / whatever.
When a free user uploads a picture larger than 1024 pixels (wide or high) it
could be scaled down to 1024 pixels to save server space and bandwidth. There's
no need for pictures to be any bigger, and there do seem to be a lot of images
which are just uploaded straight from the camera at over 3000 pixels wide.
There must be more simple changes that could be made, but anyway, the main thing
is thanks for posting. James.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi Kevin
You certainly got your message through!
As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not
personally one of those people that clog up your badwidth, because I have way
too little time surfing for lego, and because I upload most of my pictures to my
own website.
However, on the way home in the train, I went through my webpage
and found 10 pages with links to at least 20 different mocs on brickshelf.
So basically I could look forward to a weekend of downloading pictures of these
mocs and my vast favorite lists (on two computers) to my hard-pressed harddisk,
as well as to several weeks of figuring out a way to host those pictures in a
satisfying manner, changing a large part of my webpage, while trying to organize
the rest of the loot, figure out what I’d missed so I could spend the next one
downloading more - and still miss unbearably many mocs.
And I wouldn’t even
begin to consider the 2000 posts I’ve made on various forums...
Now that you’ve decided to let Brickshelf live, I can do some of the things I’d
hoped to do before all this came up - that the community will benefit from -
like scanning concept art from some really cool comic books that are pretty
unknown in the US, uploading one of my newer mocs (october 22 2006 (!)),
photograph some new mocs for a contest, and having some quality building-time
for a change!
So many, many thanks for letting Brickshelf live so we can all spend our time on
things that bring new value to the community instead of falling over eachother
to save what can be saved.
With the very best wishes
Niels Bugge
PS: Regarding bandwidth, wouldn’t it help a lot if you simply banned
.bmp-files and files above certain dimensions (like 1600 or 1200xN)?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch wrote:
| |
I have not posted until now because there was too much uncertainty about
how (or if) this was going to work out.
Due to financial reasons, Brickshelf was no longer in a viable position to
continue operating. As our costs are billed monthly, any shutdown would occur
at the end of a calendar month. I decided that 15 days was enough time for
everyone to copy their files. Turning it off completely for a few days was
intended to send the message that this is serious and get everyones attention
so they could use the remaining time wisely. It also gave everyone an
opportunity to see what would break when it did finally shut down.
In hindsight I should have handled this differently but it’s too late for that
now.
I had long ago written off various ides for charging recurring fees because
AFOLs and geeks in general expect everything on the web to be free.
What turned this around is the totally unexpected volume of email I received
from what appear to be regular people. Many of these people expressed an
interest in paying some modest fee to keep the site running, if only there was
a way to do that.
In addition, I had underestimated the extent to which things would break
on other sites with Brickshelf gone. It was clear after the “test” shutdown
that some long lasting solution would be needed to at least keep old content
available in some way or I would not be able to sleep at night.
So we are going to try something new and see if it works. The site will
continue to work as it does now for free users. Paying users will have
the opportunity to have greater visibility of their folders (that pass
moderation and are not junk/avatars). Of course paying users would
also not see ads nor have ads on their folders.
To those wondering why maj.com was unaffected: It has
a tiny fraction (< 10%) of the traffic that Brickshelf gets While many
of you are aware of it, many more brickshelf users are not and it is possible
for me to run that site out of pocket at it’s current size. This is one
reason there were no instructions posted to simply move over there.
For those wondering if this was some elaborate stunt: I have a very
full time job and this distraction is the last thing I needed to deal
with right now. I did what I thought was necessary given the financial
circumstances. I am still taking a risk in continuing this but the
tremendous show of support has convinced me it is the right thing to do.
Final note:
It has come to my attention that some people have been impersonating me
on various forums. LUGNET is the only LEGO related forum I have ever posted
on (other than r.t.l in the old days) and it’s user authentication system
should give you reasonable assurance that it really is me.
|
Kevin:
I don’t know about other AFOLs, but right now I have very little trust in
Brickshelf’s continued viability, and certainly not enough to give you $60 a
year.
I don’t expect to get things for free - I just spent $25 to upgrade to a
Flickr Pro account. I do expect
that if I spend money on a service, that it will be there when I need it. How do
we know you aren’t going to shut Brickshelf down again without any
communication?
Marc Nelson Jr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Marc Nelson Jr. wrote:
| |
Kevin:
I don’t know about other AFOLs, but right now I have very little trust in
Brickshelf’s continued viability, and certainly not enough to give you $60 a
year.
|
I have faith in Brickshelf; enough to pay $60/year. So at least now you know
about one AFOL....
| |
I don’t expect to get things for free
|
Really? Looks to me like you never ever bothered to contribute to Brickshelf.
Why not? Maybe because it was free?
| |
I just spent $25 to upgrade to a • Flickr Pro account. I do expect
that if I spend money on a service, that it will be there when I need it. How
do we know you aren’t going to shut Brickshelf down again without any
communication?
|
Have fun with Flickr. I dare you to take down your BS account. But if you do,
have fun in MOC obscurity.
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
Have fun with Flickr. I dare you to take down your BS account. But if you
do, have fun in MOC obscurity.
JOHN
|
Is this helping or hurting?
Jude
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jude Beaudin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
Have fun with Flickr. I dare you to take down your BS account. But if you
do, have fun in MOC obscurity.
JOHN
|
Is this helping or hurting?
|
Okay, you’re right. I just got a little perturbed.
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Marc Nelson Jr. wrote:
| |
Kevin:
I don’t know about other AFOLs, but right now I have very little trust in
Brickshelf’s continued viability, and certainly not enough to give you $60 a
year.
|
I have faith in Brickshelf; enough to pay $60/year. So at least now you know
about one AFOL....
| |
I don’t expect to get things for free
|
Really? Looks to me like you never ever bothered to contribute to
Brickshelf. Why not? Maybe because it was free?
| |
I just spent $25 to upgrade to a Flickr Pro account. I do expect that if I spend money on a service, that it
will be there when I need it. How do we know you aren’t going to shut
Brickshelf down again without any communication?
|
Have fun with Flickr. I dare you to take down your BS account. But if you
do, have fun in MOC obscurity.
JOHN
|
Why haven’t I contributed to Brickshelf? The owner has threatened to shut it
down several times (this last time without any notice), does not respond to
emails or posts, and can shut it down again at any time without consulting
anyone. It just never seemed like a good use of my money.
I have donated to LUGNET, which is run by more than one person, and which has
always communicated with its users. The same goes for Flickr. True, both of
these services may shut down at any time, but I have faith that they would
consult with their users first. And I could have freeloaded on both of those
services, but I had faith in the products and their operators.
What, I should take my Brickshelf account down just to prove how valuable I am
to the world? Great idea, but someone just pulled the same stunt a couple days
ago...
Marc Nelson Jr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Marc Nelson Jr. wrote:
| |
| |
| |
I don’t expect to get things for free
|
|
|
| |
Why haven’t I contributed to Brickshelf? The owner has threatened to shut it
down several times (this last time without any notice), does not respond to
emails or posts, and can shut it down again at any time without consulting
anyone. It just never seemed like a good use of my money.
|
So, in fact, you do expect to get things for free.
| |
What, I should take my Brickshelf account down just to prove how valuable I
am to the world?
|
No, to be consistent with your “I don’t expect to get things for free”
statement.
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Marc,
John is right. I won't even look at MOCs on Flickr. Maybe I'm missing
something, but I don't think Flickr is very good for viewing and downloading
MOCs.
"Marc Nelson Jr." <marcnelsonjr@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JLHsvt.E4y@lugnet.com...
> > Have fun with Flickr. I dare you to take down your BS account. But if
> > you
> > do, have fun in MOC obscurity.
> >
> > [JOHN]
>
> Why haven't I contributed to Brickshelf? The owner has threatened to shut
> it
> down several times (this last time without any notice), does not respond
> to
> emails or posts, and can shut it down again at any time without consulting
> anyone. It just never seemed like a good use of my money.
>
> I have donated to LUGNET, which is run by more than one person, and which
> has
> always communicated with its users. The same goes for Flickr. True, both
> of
> these services may shut down at any time, but I have faith that they would
> consult with their users first. And I could have freeloaded on both of
> those
> services, but I had faith in the products and their operators.
>
> What, I should take my Brickshelf account down just to prove how valuable
> I am
> to the world? Great idea, but someone just pulled the same stunt a couple
> days
> ago...
>
> Marc Nelson Jr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Start here:
http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?w=all&q=lego&m=names
There have been several LEGO groups that are theme specific already set up
for browsing.
--Mike.
In lugnet.general, Tony Kilaras wrote:
> Marc,
>
> John is right. I won't even look at MOCs on Flickr. Maybe I'm missing
> something, but I don't think Flickr is very good for viewing and downloading
> MOCs.
>
> "Marc Nelson Jr." <marcnelsonjr@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:JLHsvt.E4y@lugnet.com...
>
> > > Have fun with Flickr. I dare you to take down your BS account. But if
> > > you
> > > do, have fun in MOC obscurity.
> > >
> > > [JOHN]
> >
> > Why haven't I contributed to Brickshelf? The owner has threatened to shut
> > it down [snip]
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Marc Nelson Jr. wrote:
| |
I don’t know about other AFOLs, but right now I have very little trust in
Brickshelf’s continued viability, and certainly not enough to give you $60 a
year.
|
I’m willing to give $60 to help keep Brickshelf going, not only do I enjoy using
it to host my images, I think of all the LUGNET post with links to Brickshelf
that I reference constantly while building my MOCs. The idea of such valuable
reference material being lost is worth trying to help keep BS going.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Marc Nelson Jr. wrote:
| |
I don’t know about other AFOLs, but right now I have very little trust in
Brickshelf’s continued viability, and certainly not enough to give you $60 a
year.
|
Maybe things could have been handled differently, and it’s hard not to have
similar concerns, but speaking personally, Brickshelf has been a big part of my
online life for a long time. Once I feel like I’ve made even a dent in paying
back for all the years that I’ve already been using it for free, maybe then I’ll
think about future viability.
I can’t really fault anybody if some people have drawn more value out of having
Brickshelf than others over the years; not everyone’s been around as long or
been active to the same degree, and how much you’ve appreciated that service in
the meantime is your own business. But in my case it’s hard to worry too much
about the way the future may or may not go, given all the value I’ve already
gotten out of having it around.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Mike Rayhawk wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Marc Nelson Jr. wrote:
| |
I don’t know about other AFOLs, but right now I have very little trust in
Brickshelf’s continued viability, and certainly not enough to give you $60 a
year.
|
Maybe things could have been handled differently, and it’s hard not to have
similar concerns, but speaking personally, Brickshelf has been a big part of
my online life for a long time. Once I feel like I’ve made even a dent in
paying back for all the years that I’ve already been using it for free, maybe
then I’ll think about future viability.
I can’t really fault anybody if some people have drawn more value out of
having Brickshelf than others over the years; not everyone’s been around as
long or been active to the same degree, and how much you’ve appreciated that
service in the meantime is your own business. But in my case it’s hard to
worry too much about the way the future may or may not go, given all the
value I’ve already gotten out of having it around.
|
Well said, Mike.
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I second that.
"John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:JLHvu6.97K@lugnet.com...
> > I can't really fault anybody if some people have drawn more value out of
> > having Brickshelf than others over the years; not everyone's been around
> > as
> > long or been active to the same degree, and how much you've appreciated
> > that
> > service in the meantime is your own business. But in my case it's hard
> > to
> > worry too much about the way the future may or may not go, given all the
> > value I've already gotten out of having it around.
>
> Well said, Mike.
>
> [JOHN]
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hey Kevin,
First up, thank you so much for Brickshelf, both for the last decade and for
it’s continuance. I don’t know if you hear enough how great a resource this is
for the whole community.
I’m really sorry if the massive downloads over the past few days have caused
problems. We all went into panic mode and I’ve downloaded my share of folders,
plus helped try to organize the effort. My sincere apologies for any part I
played in the spike in strain on your server this week.
I just wanted to add my voice to he others that some image size limit would be a
very positive thing, and also certain file types. Perhaps this should be
implemented for new uploads, leaving past content as is.
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch wrote:
> So we are going to try something new and see if it works.
(snip)
Awesome. Thanks Kevin for all your efforts!
I can barely imagine how much work or how much of a strain on resources running
a site that big might be. But you can count me in along with those who have
emailed you as one who will put his money where his mouth is. In addition to a
tiny fee like the one mentioned, I'd also be willing to make an occasional small
(additional) donation like can be done at Lugnet with the paypal button.
I look forward to the changes you mention and hope they succeed in allowing the
continued service you provide.
Thanks again!
-Hendo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Thanks for coming up, and for not shutting down our LEGO® image bank.
I wish you and BS the best.
Julián.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch wrote:
> I have not posted until now because there was too much uncertainty about
> how (or if) this was going to work out.
>
> Due to financial reasons, Brickshelf was no longer in a viable position to
> continue operating. As our costs are billed monthly, any shutdown would occur
> at the end of a calendar month. I decided that 15 days was enough time for
> everyone to copy their files. Turning it off completely for a few days was
> intended to send the message that this is serious and get everyones attention so
> they could use the remaining time wisely. It also gave everyone an opportunity
> to see what would break when it did finally shut down.
>
> In hindsight I should have handled this differently but it's too late for that
> now.
>
> I had long ago written off various ides for charging recurring fees because
> AFOLs and geeks in general expect everything on the web to be free.
>
> What turned this around is the totally unexpected volume of email I received
> from what appear to be regular people. Many of these people expressed an
> interest in paying some modest fee to keep the site running, if only there was
> a way to do that.
>
> In addition, I had underestimated the extent to which things would break
> on other sites with Brickshelf gone. It was clear after the "test" shutdown
> that some long lasting solution would be needed to at least keep old content
> available in some way or I would not be able to sleep at night.
>
> So we are going to try something new and see if it works. The site will
> continue to work as it does now for free users. Paying users will have
> the opportunity to have greater visibility of their folders (that pass
> moderation and are not junk/avatars). Of course paying users would
> also not see ads nor have ads on their folders.
>
> To those wondering why maj.com was unaffected: It has
> a tiny fraction (< 10%) of the traffic that Brickshelf gets While many
> of you are aware of it, many more brickshelf users are not and it is possible
> for me to run that site out of pocket at it's current size. This is one
> reason there were no instructions posted to simply move over there.
>
> For those wondering if this was some elaborate stunt: I have a very
> full time job and this distraction is the last thing I needed to deal
> with right now. I did what I thought was necessary given the financial
> circumstances. I am still taking a risk in continuing this but the
> tremendous show of support has convinced me it is the right thing to do.
>
> Final note:
> It has come to my attention that some people have been impersonating me
> on various forums. LUGNET is the only LEGO related forum I have ever posted
> on (other than r.t.l in the old days) and it's user authentication system
> should give you reasonable assurance that it really is me.
Kevin,
While I've forgotten my password (and thus, don't upload to my account), I do
not have a problem paying a bit to keep brickshelf up and running. I don't use
it extensively, but I think it's worth some money to keep it going.
Scott Lyttle
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch wrote:
...snipped...>
> So we are going to try something new and see if it works. The site will
> continue to work as it does now for free users. Paying users will have
> the opportunity to have greater visibility of their folders (that pass
> moderation and are not junk/avatars). Of course paying users would
> also not see ads nor have ads on their folders.
...snipped...
Kevin,
I will renew my offer to purchase Brickshelf from you again, this time publicly.
I'm concerned my initial offer may have been lost in the flood of email I'm sure
you received.
If you would consider this deal, please email me so that we may discuss the
details.
Aaron M. Sneary
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Aaron M. Sneary wrote:
> Kevin,
> I will renew my offer to purchase Brickshelf from you again, this time >publicly.
> I'm concerned my initial offer may have been lost in the flood of email I'm sure
> you received.
>
> If you would consider this deal, please email me so that we may discuss the
> details.
>
> Aaron M. Sneary
Not to ride on your back (well ; ) I also emailed to offer to buy out BS. I
think there is probably a group/at least a few individuals who would be
interested in restructuring BS for the long term if you don't want the burden
Kevin!
God Bless,
Nathan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Kevin,
Thank you, first and foremost. BrickShelf is a key part of the community.
I apologize for my part in the download spike from FBTB users. Is grabbing one
folder download per week excessive?
I would accept file/picture size limits. I would not miss video files, or if
those were limited to paying users.
Please tell the community before we reach this point again. I will do my part to
support BrickShelf.
Thank you,
Andy Cross
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Kevin
Thank you sincerely for your statement!
I translated yours into Japanese, and talk to J-FOL.
Also in Japan, many LEGO friends had been worried about BS-files, ideal
"Brickshelf", and you, Kevin.
I'm glad to hear your decision.
No mods?
No avatars?
No ads?
Hmmmm, it will be so sweeeeet space for paid users.
Thank you again.
earl-0(1423)
Kotaro Ono
HOW MANY STUDS TO LEGOLAND ?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Kevin,
Thanks for resonding publicly. I've enjoyed BS for many years now and in the
past year or two I have finally gotten around to posting my own MOCs there. I
certainly appreciate the service you've provided, and look forward to see what
benefits a paid membership would confer.
I'm not sure that pulling this little stunt of yours was the best way to gain
our attention; but now that you have it, I do hope you take the time to
communicate on a more active and consistent basis with the AFOL community. Come
hang out at a Wamalug meeting some time, I haven't seen you in years, and there
are plenty of long time members there who would be happy to catch up with you
and Denise again.
On the other hand, if real life is taking over, and running BS is simply more
hassle than it is rewarding for you, consider asking for help from the community
or perhaps passing it on or selling it. The community deserves a forum for our
MOCs that is run by someone we have a dialogue with. Please don't continue to
host BrickShelf if you deep down simply don't want to anymore - that isn't in
anyone's best interests.
take care
Magnus
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Magnus Lauglo wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> Thanks for resonding publicly. I've enjoyed BS for many years now and in the
> past year or two I have finally gotten around to posting my own MOCs there. I
> certainly appreciate the service you've provided, and look forward to see what
> benefits a paid membership would confer.
>
> I'm not sure that pulling this little stunt of yours was the best way to gain
> our attention; but now that you have it, I do hope you take the time to
> communicate on a more active and consistent basis with the AFOL community. Come
> hang out at a Wamalug meeting some time, I haven't seen you in years, and there
> are plenty of long time members there who would be happy to catch up with you
> and Denise again.
>
> On the other hand, if real life is taking over, and running BS is simply more
> hassle than it is rewarding for you, consider asking for help from the community
> or perhaps passing it on or selling it. The community deserves a forum for our
> MOCs that is run by someone we have a dialogue with. Please don't continue to
> host BrickShelf if you deep down simply don't want to anymore - that isn't in
> anyone's best interests.
>
> take care
>
> Magnus
Kevin's utter lack of communication with the community is unforgivable. It's
time to sell BS to someone who gives a damn.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I'm fairly sure the first part of this post has already been mentioned in this
discussion, but I'll echo it with different words.
Restricting images to non-.bmp formats will save a lot of space for starters, as
will pixel limits. I have images that are 2048x1536, and about 650k. If the
height/width are cut in half (1024x768) to a perfectly reasonable size, the
filesize is cut down to about quarter of it's original size, around 125k.
I'm no programmer, but if someone could write a simple program to scan the
entire Brickshelf system for bmps and images over a certain height/width, then
automatically send that user an e-mail, with a warning that their content will
be deleted in [X] days if they don't modify them, could work wonders. Just
before implementing that, adjust the upload system so that no bmps or other
large file types can be uploaded, and put a max on the dimensions of the pics.
As far as the pricing of $5/month, that doesn't seem too bad, considering people
pay $15/month for various online games, AFTER dropping $50 to buy the game at
the store. There would need to be nice features associated with the premium
accounts, though, to entice people away from free accounts. No ads and no
dimensions limitations would be a nice start.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch wrote:
> I have not posted until now because there was too much uncertainty about
> how (or if) this was going to work out.
snippp
>
> So we are going to try something new and see if it works. The site will
> continue to work as it does now for free users. Paying users will have
> the opportunity to have greater visibility of their folders (that pass
> moderation and are not junk/avatars). Of course paying users would
> also not see ads nor have ads on their folders.
>
>
i'm just wondering if there is any update on this. i'm curious to see the
features of this paid program and get to using it.
ondrew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
> In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch wrote:
> > I have not posted until now because there was too much uncertainty about
> > how (or if) this was going to work out.
> snippp
>
>
> i'm just wondering if there is any update on this. i'm curious to see the
> features of this paid program and get to using it.
>
> ondrew
6 days and no reply......... hummmmmm
ondrew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
> > In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch wrote:
> > > I have not posted until now because there was too much uncertainty about
> > > how (or if) this was going to work out.
> > snippp
> >
> >
> > i'm just wondering if there is any update on this. i'm curious to see the
> > features of this paid program and get to using it.
> >
> > ondrew
>
>
> 6 days and no reply......... hummmmmm
> ondrew
Maybe you could ask the Ambassadors to help.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Allister McLaren wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
> > > In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch wrote:
> > > > I have not posted until now because there was too much uncertainty about
> > > > how (or if) this was going to work out.
> > > snippp
> > >
> > >
> > > i'm just wondering if there is any update on this. i'm curious to see the
> > > features of this paid program and get to using it.
> > >
> > > ondrew
> >
> >
> > 6 days and no reply......... hummmmmm
> > ondrew
>
> Maybe you could ask the Ambassadors to help.
it's been well over a month now, what gives?
ondrew
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
| |
it’s been well over a month now, what gives?
ondrew
|
Well, there have been issues, and a
vacation in the between time....
Patience, grasshopper.
:-)
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
> it's been well over a month now, what gives?
> ondrew
What gives is that this is Kevin Loch we're talking about. Use Flickr.
Brickshelf is a waste of time and energy.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
| |
it’s been well over a month now, what gives?
ondrew
|
What gives is that this is Kevin Loch we’re talking about. Use Flickr.
Brickshelf is a waste of time and energy.
|
Show some respect and exercise some restraint. Sheesh.
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
| |
it’s been well over a month now, what gives?
ondrew
|
What gives is that this is Kevin Loch we’re talking about. Use Flickr.
Brickshelf is a waste of time and energy.
|
Show some respect and exercise some restraint. Sheesh.
JOHN
|
Respect, what for?
Kevin has disrespected the LEGO community for years. He rarely if ever replies
to any inquiries about the site, has not added any new features in years, and
then suddenly threatens to pull the plug this summer. Now he is suppsedly going
to launch a new subscription service, but there has been nary a peep for months.
Clearly he has no interest in actually making money off the site, or providing a
useful service to the LEGO community.
It is time to move on.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
Kevin has disrespected the LEGO community for years. He rarely if ever
replies to any inquiries about the site, has not added any new features in
years, and then suddenly threatens to pull the plug this summer. Now he is
suppsedly going to launch a new subscription service, but there has been nary
a peep for months.
|
Apparently you’re forgetting that all those years of providing free hosting have
somehow put him beyond any criticism in some people’s eyes. I wonder how they’ll
feel when they’re paying for more of the same.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
| |
it’s been well over a month now, what gives?
ondrew
|
What gives is that this is Kevin Loch we’re talking about. Use Flickr.
Brickshelf is a waste of time and energy.
|
Show some respect and exercise some restraint. Sheesh.
JOHN
|
Respect, what for?
|
“Whom”.
| |
Kevin has disrespected the LEGO community for years.
|
You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
| |
He rarely if ever
replies to any inquiries about the site, has not added any new features in
years, and then suddenly threatens to pull the plug this summer. Now he is
suppsedly going to launch a new subscription service, but there has been nary
a peep for months.
|
Get thee to a dictionary.
| |
Clearly he has no interest in actually making money off the site, or
providing a useful service to the LEGO community.
|
If anything is clear, it is that the whole situation is markedly unclear.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you Bill?
Then do it already. My question is: why the need to publicly dump your vitriol
on Kevin? It makes you sound petty and ungrateful.
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
| |
it’s been well over a month now, what gives?
ondrew
|
What gives is that this is Kevin Loch we’re talking about. Use Flickr.
Brickshelf is a waste of time and energy.
|
Show some respect and exercise some restraint. Sheesh.
JOHN
|
Respect, what for?
Kevin has disrespected the LEGO community for years. He rarely if ever
replies to any inquiries about the site, has not added any new features in
years, and then suddenly threatens to pull the plug this summer. Now he is
suppsedly going to launch a new subscription service, but there has been nary
a peep for months.
Clearly he has no interest in actually making money off the site, or
providing a useful service to the LEGO community.
|
No interest in providing a useful service?
...apart from the providing free image hosting, unlimited accounts, unlimited
access to images, unlimited directories, thumbnails, fast moderation,
unobtrusive moderation, deeplinks (even before moderation) and searching, what
useful service has Kevin ever provided for us?
Cheers
Richie Dulin
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
| |
it’s been well over a month now, what gives?
ondrew
|
What gives is that this is Kevin Loch we’re talking about. Use Flickr.
Brickshelf is a waste of time and energy.
|
Show some respect and exercise some restraint. Sheesh.
JOHN
|
Respect, what for?
Kevin has disrespected the LEGO community for years. He rarely if ever
replies to any inquiries about the site, has not added any new features in
years, and then suddenly threatens to pull the plug this summer. Now he is
suppsedly going to launch a new subscription service, but there has been
nary a peep for months.
Clearly he has no interest in actually making money off the site, or
providing a useful service to the LEGO community.
|
No interest in providing a useful service?
...apart from the providing free image hosting, unlimited accounts, unlimited
access to images, unlimited directories, thumbnails, fast moderation,
unobtrusive moderation, deeplinks (even before moderation) and searching,
what useful service has Kevin ever provided for us?
|
Once upon a time, it was a very special and unique thing to offer free image
hosting. Once upon a time Kevin was a regular participant on LUGNET and an
active member of the AFOL community. And once upon a time, Brickshelf was a
state of the art Web application.
Those days are long gone. There are tons of better sites where you can host
images, and Kevin posts once every few years, usually with bad news.
Several people have attempted to contact him to offer to help in various ways,
from helping with the software to buying him out, and he never responds.
I don’t think he’s evil, I honestly think he’s probably just procrastinating,
but in the meantime what was once a great service to the AFOL community has
become an embarrassment.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
| |
it’s been well over a month now, what gives?
ondrew
|
What gives is that this is Kevin Loch we’re talking about. Use Flickr.
Brickshelf is a waste of time and energy.
|
Show some respect and exercise some restraint. Sheesh.
JOHN
|
Respect, what for?
Kevin has disrespected the LEGO community for years. He rarely if ever
replies to any inquiries about the site, has not added any new features in
years, and then suddenly threatens to pull the plug this summer. Now he is
suppsedly going to launch a new subscription service, but there has been nary
a peep for months.
Clearly he has no interest in actually making money off the site, or
providing a useful service to the LEGO community.
|
No interest in providing a useful service?
...apart from the providing free image hosting, unlimited accounts, unlimited
access to images, unlimited directories, thumbnails, fast moderation,
unobtrusive moderation, deeplinks (even before moderation) and searching, what
useful service has Kevin ever provided for us?
Cheers
Richie Dulin
| | | | | | |
