| |
Before anyone gets too excited about this, no money changed hands in this
transaction. This is a necessary part of the conversion from a "hobby" site
to a commercial site. While it would have been nice to run it as a hobby site
forever, the immense trafic has made that impossible. While this has been in
progress for some time, it was accellerated by the fact that I lost my job
yesterday. Brickshelf must now support itself, as I am unable to. Brickshelf
will soon be selling Brickshelf branded merchandise, as well as other products
of interest to it's visitors. It will also soon have banner ads (ugh),
although I will try to do that in a tasteful (yet effective) manner.
A related concequence is that the Instruction and Catalog scan library had to
be taken offline. This was necessary because the Company had not yet received
permission from LEGO to use them on a commercial site, and to reduce bandwidth
costs. I sincerely hope that a workable business solution can be found for
those two issues.
Kevin M Loch
Manager,
Brickshelf L.L.C.
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> Brickshelf L.L.C.
> Telephone: (703) 961-1408
> http://www.brickshelf.com/
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 22, 2002
>
> Brickshelf L.L.C., a Virginia Limited Liability Company
> has aquired the Brickshelf.com website from it's founder,
> Kevin M. Loch. Brickshelf.com is a popular online community
> where young and old LEGO(R) enthusiasts share their
> creations and experiences. Mr. Loch will continue to
> run the website as Manager of Brickshelf L.L.C.
>
> Brickshelf(tm) is a trademark of Brickshelf L.L.C.
> LEGO(R) is a registered trademark of the LEGO Company which
> does not sponsor, authorize or endorse Brickshelf.com.
>
>
> ######
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> While this has been in progress for some time, it was
> accellerated by the fact that I lost my job yesterday.
I'm sorry to hear that. Good luck finding a new one.
> Brickshelf must now support itself, as I am unable to. Brickshelf
> will soon be selling Brickshelf branded merchandise, as well as other products
> of interest to it's visitors. It will also soon have banner ads (ugh),
> although I will try to do that in a tasteful (yet effective) manner.
Tasteful, IMO, is as small as possible (1x1 pixel!), but I know that isn't an
option. I'm sure you'll figure something out...just don't use pop-ups.
> Kevin M Loch
> Manager,
> Brickshelf L.L.C.
So, um, how many people are "employed" by Brickshelf L.L.C.? Two? :)
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht
bram@cwru.edu
www.bldesign.org
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> ...This is a necessary part of the conversion from a "hobby" site
> to a commercial site. While it would have been nice to run it as a hobby site
> forever, the immense trafic has made that impossible. While this has been in
> progress for some time, it was accellerated by the fact that I lost my job
> yesterday.
I'm terribly sorry to hear that. I have been facing a similar plight for
about a month now. Best wishes for future success and thanks for all your
work on the site.
Regards
Mike
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> Before anyone gets too excited about this, no money changed hands in this
> transaction. This is a necessary part of the conversion from a "hobby" site
> to a commercial site. While it would have been nice to run it as a hobby site
> forever, the immense trafic has made that impossible. While this has been in
> progress for some time, it was accellerated by the fact that I lost my job
> yesterday.
Wow...sorry to hear that Kevin. :(
> Brickshelf must now support itself, as I am unable to. Brickshelf
> will soon be selling Brickshelf branded merchandise, as well as other products
> of interest to it's visitors.
Sounds cool!!
> It will also soon have banner ads (ugh),
> although I will try to do that in a tasteful (yet effective) manner.
Eww... I'm sure you hate having to do this. Have you considered other
options, like subscriptions to upload images to the member gallery? From
what I understand, banners don't pay that much, if you had something like a
$5/mo subscription for each gallery member, your active membership might
drop a bit, but you might be able to pay for it without needing banners.
> A related concequence is that the Instruction and Catalog scan library had to
> be taken offline. This was necessary because the Company had not yet received
> permission from LEGO to use them on a commercial site, and to reduce bandwidth
> costs.
Have you considered splitting the site into free features and paid features,
and leaving the instruction catalog in the free features area? That way you
aren't selling access to the scans, which I think LEGO would require to
begin with. Charge for other, more advanced features, and features like
uploading to the gallery.
Or... ask for donations :-)
> I sincerely hope that a workable business solution can be found for
> those two issues.
Same here. Thanks Kevin for your dedicated work on keeping Brickshelf the
best resource for sharing images of LEGO creations and checking out
instructions on the net. Keep it up!!
-Tim
|
|
| |
Tim Courtney writes:
> Eww... I'm sure you hate having to do this. Have you
> considered other options, like subscriptions to upload images
> to the member gallery? From what I understand, banners don't
> pay that much, if you had something like a $5/mo subscription
> for each gallery member, your active membership might drop a
> bit, but you might be able to pay for it without needing banners.
IMO, the main great thing about Brickshelf is that it is free. It
allows just about anyone to share their LEGO pictures. But, if
membership fees are necessary to support the site, then perhaps you
could use membership to turn off banner ads, or for those people who
need over a set limit of disk space...although that hurts the people who
post movies.
$5/month is very high though...I pay $30/yr for a full web host with 50
MB, 3 GB transfer, PHP, MYSQL, subdomains, etc.
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht
bram@cwru.edu
www.bldesign.org
|
|
| |
This is like going back to the dark ages !
Your website is on my top5 list of websites. I stop by nearly every day to
see what great new MOCs people have build. Your webdesign and the
webinterface for uploading galleries are simply great. I hope LEGO reacts
quick and gives you the permission to continue the Instuction and Catalog
scan library.
In fact your work is excellent advertising for LEGO. For example: I ordered
the "Super Chief" at S@H because I saw it on brickshelf.com ! LEGO should
therefore:
a) Give you the permission to continue this excellent service
b) Give you all the webspace needed for ALL galleries
c) Give you a JOB !!! (and tons of LEGOs ;)
Anyway, good luck for finding a new job ! Also good luck as the Manager of
Brickshelf L.L.C. ! I´d gladly pay a monthly or anual fee for this great
site. Please let us know how we can support you.
->dö
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> Before anyone gets too excited about this, no money changed hands in this
> transaction. This is a necessary part of the conversion from a "hobby" site
> to a commercial site. While it would have been nice to run it as a hobby site
> forever, the immense trafic has made that impossible. While this has been in
> progress for some time, it was accellerated by the fact that I lost my job
> yesterday. Brickshelf must now support itself, as I am unable to. Brickshelf
> will soon be selling Brickshelf branded merchandise, as well as other products
> of interest to it's visitors. It will also soon have banner ads (ugh),
> although I will try to do that in a tasteful (yet effective) manner.
>
> A related concequence is that the Instruction and Catalog scan library had to
> be taken offline. This was necessary because the Company had not yet received
> permission from LEGO to use them on a commercial site, and to reduce bandwidth
> costs. I sincerely hope that a workable business solution can be found for
> those two issues.
>
> Kevin M Loch
> Manager,
> Brickshelf L.L.C.
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
[...]
> A related concequence is that the Instruction and Catalog scan library had to
> be taken offline. This was necessary because the Company had not yet received
> permission from LEGO to use them on a commercial site, and to reduce bandwidth
> costs. I sincerely hope that a workable business solution can be found for
> those two issues.
That's a great shame. However, please confirm you are not actually planning
on charging fees for downloading scans provided by many Lego fans around the
world? The suggestion that people pay for their galleries is quite a
feasible one, though, I guess.
> Kevin M Loch
> Manager,
> Brickshelf L.L.C.
So I suppose this is not a paid job, or did your joblessness last exactly
one evening only?
Regards,
Torsten
|
|
| |
I'm sorry to hear this. I wish you good luck in finding a new job soon, Kevin.
Brickshelf is an invaluable resource in the online Lego fan community. I'd
hate to see the instruction and catalog scans gone forever.
You have my total support for charging a fee for use of the galleries and
scans. I know it sucks to have to do this, but if it's necessary to keep
Brickshelf up and running, then please do it. Just let us know where to send
the check ;-)
I encourage everyone to take the new survey on Brickshelf's front page. It
will help Kevin gauge how often people use the instruction and catalog scans.
TJ
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> Before anyone gets too excited about this, no money changed hands in this
> transaction. This is a necessary part of the conversion from a "hobby" site
> to a commercial site. While it would have been nice to run it as a hobby site
> forever, the immense trafic has made that impossible. While this has been in
> progress for some time, it was accellerated by the fact that I lost my job
> yesterday. Brickshelf must now support itself, as I am unable to. Brickshelf
> will soon be selling Brickshelf branded merchandise, as well as other products
> of interest to it's visitors. It will also soon have banner ads (ugh),
> although I will try to do that in a tasteful (yet effective) manner.
>
> A related concequence is that the Instruction and Catalog scan library had to
> be taken offline. This was necessary because the Company had not yet received
> permission from LEGO to use them on a commercial site, and to reduce bandwidth
> costs. I sincerely hope that a workable business solution can be found for
> those two issues.
>
> Kevin M Loch
> Manager,
> Brickshelf L.L.C.
|
|
| |
Kevin & All,
> Before anyone gets too excited about this, no money changed hands in this
> transaction. This is a necessary part of the conversion from a "hobby" site
> to a commercial site. While it would have been nice to run it as a hobby site
> forever, the immense trafic has made that impossible. While this has been in
> progress for some time, it was accellerated by the fact that I lost my job
> yesterday.
That is too bad, I have been through it a few times myself. : / Good luck on
your future employment endeavors.
> Brickshelf must now support itself, as I am unable to. Brickshelf
> will soon be selling Brickshelf branded merchandise, as well as other products
> of interest to it's visitors. It will also soon have banner ads (ugh),
> although I will try to do that in a tasteful (yet effective) manner.
Although I know most people seem to *hate* advertising, I understand this,
and hopefully if there are products I like, I will purchase them. I wondered
hwo long Brickshelf could go on the way it was, a totally free site, etc.
> A related concequence is that the Instruction and Catalog scan library had to
> be taken offline. This was necessary because the Company had not yet received
> permission from LEGO to use them on a commercial site, and to reduce bandwidth
> costs. I sincerely hope that a workable business solution can be found for
> those two issues.
I wonder if TLC would be willing to do something there, maybe take over the
hosting, since it is there stuff, anyway, in a sense. I would contribute
something if the scans can be moved somewhere, or if someone is willing to
host that part.
Kevin, is there was a way to structure a fee situation, such as Yahoo /
Geocities, where you pay a certain amount for certain MB, no ads if you pay,
and you pay more the more MB you use, I think that would be a great way to
offset some of the costs. I am certainly willing to pay. If you are going to
restructure the site, is there a possibility of FTP uploading as well? I am
not programming expert, but that would be helpful from a users standpoint.
I am thankful for the great site, and for what offers our community, and I
hope that this will work out for you. Thanks for everything!
Sincerely,
Scott S.
--
Member, MichLUG - www.michlug.org
Website - http://www.scottesanburn.org
LEGO Site - http://www.scottesanburn.org/legoindex.html
|
|
| |
"Kevin Loch" <kloch@opnsys.com> wrote in message
news:Grx8Mr.vv@lugnet.com...
> Before anyone gets too excited about this, no money changed hands in this
> transaction. This is a necessary part of the conversion from a "hobby" • site
> to a commercial site. While it would have been nice to run it as a hobby • site
> forever, the immense trafic has made that impossible. While this has been • in
> progress for some time, it was accellerated by the fact that I lost my job
> yesterday.
Sorry about the loss of your job Kevin.
> Brickshelf must now support itself, as I am unable to. Brickshelf
> will soon be selling Brickshelf branded merchandise, as well as other • products
> of interest to it's visitors. It will also soon have banner ads (ugh),
> although I will try to do that in a tasteful (yet effective) manner.
I would rather pay a subscription fee that have popup ads. If you must have
ads
what about ones like on Geocities?
> A related concequence is that the Instruction and Catalog scan library had • to
> be taken offline. This was necessary because the Company had not yet • received
> permission from LEGO to use them on a commercial site, and to reduce • bandwidth
> costs. I sincerely hope that a workable business solution can be found • for
> those two issues.
Oh no, Duane and I really love the instuction scans.
--
Nicole~
|
|
| |
Let me say I hope that running this as a business pays off for you. As a
small business owner myself I know the delight and aggravation of ownership.
I will start by putting my money where my mouth is by adding to my
contribution to Lugnet funds. Many of us have been taking this site for
granted for far too long. I looked at the "above and beyond" donor list and
it was pathetic. I will also buy a shirt that I will wear with pride at work
in my comic shop as I try to steer new people your way. Good Luck
Jim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> Before anyone gets too excited about this, no money changed hands in this
> transaction. This is a necessary part of the conversion from a "hobby" site
> to a commercial site. While it would have been nice to run it as a hobby site
> forever, the immense trafic has made that impossible. While this has been in
> progress for some time, it was accellerated by the fact that I lost my job
> yesterday.
Too bad. I hope you can find a (paying) job soon.
> Brickshelf must now support itself, as I am unable to. Brickshelf
> will soon be selling Brickshelf branded merchandise, as well as other products
> of interest to it's visitors. It will also soon have banner ads (ugh),
> although I will try to do that in a tasteful (yet effective) manner.
Banners? Uh-oh... as long as you don't do pop-ups.
> A related concequence is that the Instruction and Catalog scan library had to
> be taken offline. This was necessary because the Company had not yet received
> permission from LEGO to use them on a commercial site, and to reduce bandwidth
> costs. I sincerely hope that a workable business solution can be found for
> those two issues.
I hope you can work something out as A) we need those scans and B) Phone
operators from TLC have been directing customers to your site for scans. So
in a sence, they will HAVE to give you permission.
> Kevin M Loch
> Manager,
> Brickshelf L.L.C.
>
> In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> > Brickshelf L.L.C.
> > Telephone: (703) 961-1408
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/
> >
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 22, 2002
> >
> > Brickshelf L.L.C., a Virginia Limited Liability Company
> > has aquired the Brickshelf.com website from it's founder,
> > Kevin M. Loch. Brickshelf.com is a popular online community
> > where young and old LEGO(R) enthusiasts share their
> > creations and experiences. Mr. Loch will continue to
> > run the website as Manager of Brickshelf L.L.C.
> >
> > Brickshelf(tm) is a trademark of Brickshelf L.L.C.
> > LEGO(R) is a registered trademark of the LEGO Company which
> > does not sponsor, authorize or endorse Brickshelf.com.
> >
> >
> > ######
And if you need some kind of membership-fees like LUGnet, that's okay. I'll
gladly pay for such a great site. One that I visit at least once a day.
Mark -going there now- de Kock
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> Before anyone gets too excited about this, no money changed hands in this
> transaction. This is a necessary part of the conversion from a "hobby" site
> to a commercial site. While it would have been nice to run it as a hobby site
> forever, the immense trafic has made that impossible. While this has been in
> progress for some time, it was accellerated by the fact that I lost my job
> yesterday. Brickshelf must now support itself, as I am unable to. Brickshelf
> will soon be selling Brickshelf branded merchandise, as well as other products
> of interest to it's visitors. It will also soon have banner ads (ugh),
> although I will try to do that in a tasteful (yet effective) manner.
I am sorry to hear that, but hopefully normality will be resumed in a short
while. I wish you the best finding a new job!
If the changes will keep the site alive in this time of difficulty, bring'em on.
> A related concequence is that the Instruction and Catalog scan library had to
> be taken offline. This was necessary because the Company had not yet received
> permission from LEGO to use them on a commercial site, and to reduce bandwidth
> costs. I sincerely hope that a workable business solution can be found for
> those two issues.
Given the Fact that LEGO itself sent people to Brickshelf when looking for
scans, it would only be fair that they gave their permission for free.
Ultimately, they are beneficiaries of the site'e activity. And they don't
lose anything by granting you the permission.
Have they said anything about it so far?
Pedro
|
|
| |
Kevin,
I'm sorry to hear you have lost your job. I hope this new venture works well
for you. You have been a great service to the AFOL community, and I'm sure
that that is one thing that won't change.
Good luck
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> > It will also soon have banner ads (ugh),
> > although I will try to do that in a tasteful (yet effective) manner.
>
> Eww... I'm sure you hate having to do this. Have you considered other
> options, like subscriptions to upload images to the member gallery? From
> what I understand, banners don't pay that much, if you had something like a
> $5/mo subscription for each gallery member, your active membership might
> drop a bit, but you might be able to pay for it without needing banners.
What is wrong with banners, per se? I've got a banner ad that I'm going to
be running in various places, are you saying that you'd have an issue with
that banner being seen on BrickShelf if Kevin and I came to terms on pricing
and impressions?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Torsten Fresemann writes:
> In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> [...]
> > A related concequence is that the Instruction and Catalog scan library had to
> > be taken offline. This was necessary because the Company had not yet received
> > permission from LEGO to use them on a commercial site, and to reduce bandwidth
> > costs. I sincerely hope that a workable business solution can be found for
> > those two issues.
> That's a great shame. However, please confirm you are not actually planning
> on charging fees for downloading scans provided by many Lego fans around the
> world?
Contrast with GPL. The fee charged would not be for the information itself,
but rather for the access to it ("duplication cost")...
> The suggestion that people pay for their galleries is quite a
> feasible one, though, I guess.
Not at 5 a month each it isn't, I don't think. That may be a bit high for
the market.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
>
> > > It will also soon have banner ads (ugh),
> > > although I will try to do that in a tasteful (yet effective) manner.
> >
> > Eww... I'm sure you hate having to do this. Have you considered other
> > options, like subscriptions to upload images to the member gallery? From
> > what I understand, banners don't pay that much, if you had something like a
> > $5/mo subscription for each gallery member, your active membership might
> > drop a bit, but you might be able to pay for it without needing banners.
>
> What is wrong with banners, per se? I've got a banner ad that I'm going to
> be running in various places, are you saying that you'd have an issue with
> that banner being seen on BrickShelf if Kevin and I came to terms on pricing
> and impressions?
I have no problem with banner ads myself. I've even accomodated myself to
the MASSIVE ads that Yahoo has put in place. The reason that I don't mind is
because I can tune them out. Having a fast connection helps bcause the time
wasted (sorry, advertisers and advertiser-sellers) is usually pretty
insignificant. So I hope that they work out for everybody.
Subscriptions to view Brickshelf would put a damper on things, no doubt.
Hosting fees make sense to me. Flat rates are the easiest to implement.
$20/lifetime would be a no-brainer. What would I consider a good deal?
$20/year seems not inappropriate. $35/year feels like it might be too much
(for me). $5/month is right out.
File-size limits and throughput quotas make sense fairness-wise, but would
have potential administrative headaches built in. By introducing a pay
structure, I'm not sure how Brickshelf can distinguish itself from being a
web-hosting service. Maybe that's an evolution: Brickshelf-style web-hosting
for Lego-related content.
Has outside linking been a problem? Geocities has an effective method (which
I have never really researched, but I'm pretty sure is merely router-based
rule-sets) of keeping outside pages from linking to Geocities-hosted
resources. This forces the creation of Geocities pages that then carry the
Geocities banners. (It's hard to complain about the Geocities banner: it
gives you the ability to minimize it. A well-behaved banner!)
Thanks to for all the great work so far. (As a fellow member of the
unemployed hordes, I share your pain. As a fellow tech worker (I assume),
it's a little scary for me that you, Kevin Loch, clearly energetic, creative
and smart, can be laid off. What hope is there for poor me?)
Good luck!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> Before anyone gets too excited about this, no money changed hands in this
> transaction. This is a necessary part of the conversion from a "hobby" site
> to a commercial site. While it would have been nice to run it as a hobby site
> forever, the immense trafic has made that impossible. While this has been in
> progress for some time, it was accellerated by the fact that I lost my job
> yesterday. Brickshelf must now support itself, as I am unable to. Brickshelf
> will soon be selling Brickshelf branded merchandise, as well as other products
> of interest to it's visitors. It will also soon have banner ads (ugh),
> although I will try to do that in a tasteful (yet effective) manner.
What type of merchendice? Bags and clothes, Lego(R) related item?
Also, what other types of action will be taken? Will we have to pay to use
Brickshelf(tm)? What type of company is this, anyway?
John Henry Kruer
|
|
| |
Kevin, I hope your employment issue finds a fast and good resolution
and I really appriciate what you have done for the AFOL community this
far. Thanks a lot! I hope you did not loose the job because they
finally "got on" to you officially with the Brickshelf project, that
would really make you a martyr .)
Regarding Brickshelf it has three big uses:
1) Has scans and instructions.
2) Collects (new) MOCs in one place.
3) Gives a form of webspace to those who don't have any via their ISP.
Number one and two are the most important IMHO. I only post my MOCs
and stuff to Brickshelf to make it more easy to find, I also have
duplicates on my personal webpages. I know there are a lot more who
works in this way and others that keep all their images at Brickshelf
even though they have perfectly good webspace via their ISP's.
If I had to pay for using Brickshelf, honestly, I would keep my
pictures on my site alone. It is hard work getting them up to
Brickshelf now when the FTP is down since my ISP only lets me upload
files under 1MB via webinterface so I have to break my image folders
down into several ZIP-files and uploading can take several hours.
The scans on the other hand is a very valuable thing for me and I
might pay for that service. But I don't like the idea of selling other
peoples work (scanning takes a lot of time).
Banners is probably the ticket if they are needed but I suspect they
don't bring much money?
What about Lugnet? Could Lugnet run the instruction scans in a worst
case senario or would that be too much traffic?
This could also mean a better Brickshelf if LEGO OnLines their own
"scans" = high and good quality, no little borther crayon. I really
hope the functionality of BS at least keeps it high standards and I'll
whish for more. But then again...
With best regards from Sweden,
/Tobbe
http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
|
|
| |
Kevin-
I'm terrifically sorry that you lost your job, but I (like others)
know full well that even that won't keep you down. It was pretty
obvious some time ago that Brickshelf couldn't stay free forever,
so that part wasn't exactly a shock.
For those who would like to donate to Brickshelf *now*, free and
clear, can you provide a PayPal address to which we may send said
donations? Also, I'd be happy to pay a fee for anything hosted.
I'd be most in favor of a middle ground between "ad-happy" and
"all members only"--a fee to hold space on the site, and a few well-
chosen ads such as, for example, the ones Larry mentioned he wants
to buy on the site. That would probably generate more revenue than
casino-ish popups, because the market is much better targeted, and
would also be less onerous (and really a help to some navigators).
Hopefully TLC will allow you to keep the scans on the site, though
I'm not sure how the finances would work out. It's probably too
much to hope that TLC would subsidize it without taking away the
independence of Brickshelf.
Here's to the future--may it be bright!
best
LFB
PS: L. L. C.? Licensed, Liquor Commission?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Mark de Kock writes:
> In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> > Before anyone gets too excited about this, no money changed hands in this
> > transaction. This is a necessary part of the conversion from a "hobby" site
> > to a commercial site. While it would have been nice to run it as a hobby site
> > forever, the immense trafic has made that impossible. While this has been in
> > progress for some time, it was accellerated by the fact that I lost my job
> > yesterday.
:( sorry to hear that. Here's hoping you get another one real soon! :)))
> Too bad. I hope you can find a (paying) job soon.
>
> > Brickshelf must now support itself, as I am unable to. Brickshelf
> > will soon be selling Brickshelf branded merchandise, as well as other products
> > of interest to it's visitors. It will also soon have banner ads (ugh),
> > although I will try to do that in a tasteful (yet effective) manner.
>
> Banners? Uh-oh... as long as you don't do pop-ups.
Do what ever you have to, so everyone can still continue to look through
your site like in the past. You could always come up with membership
packages, like include some of the merchandise and a fee that includes
membership. I'd buy one of those :) Just make sure you could accept
payments through paypal etc.
>
> > A related concequence is that the Instruction and Catalog scan library had to
> > be taken offline. This was necessary because the Company had not yet received
> > permission from LEGO to use them on a commercial site, and to reduce bandwidth
> > costs. I sincerely hope that a workable business solution can be found for
> > those two issues.
Bummer... it's a shame Lego can't help you out there in some sort of a
strange way, like they support/sponsor it for you or something.
> I hope you can work something out as A) we need those scans and B) Phone
> operators from TLC have been directing customers to your site for scans. So
> in a sence, they will HAVE to give you permission.
Yes! even here in Aussiemite land they recommend the site to those who they
can't help with instructions etc...
<cut>
> And if you need some kind of membership-fees like LUGnet, that's okay. I'll
> gladly pay for such a great site. One that I visit at least once a day.
To be honest (unless I'm looking at someone's postings and it directs me
there), I don't really go there that often, but I'm still happy to help out
with some fee/donations. Even to run some donation campaign thing on my
site if needed!
Mel
www.brickzine.com
> Mark -going there now- de Kock
|
|
| |
Wow Kevin - I'm sorry to hear about the job situation. I'm sure you'll find
something soon. I know there are opportunities around and you're bound to
luck into one sooner or later.
As far as Brickshelf goes, I'd support a membership fee or storage space fee
rather than be blinded by ads. That's my $0.02 worth.
best of luck with whatever the future may hold.
JB
|
|
| |
> LFB
>
> PS: L. L. C.? Licensed, Liquor Commission?
Limited Liability Corporation I believe.
Troy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
>
> > It will also soon have banner ads (ugh),
> > although I will try to do that in a tasteful (yet effective) manner.
>
> Eww... I'm sure you hate having to do this. Have you considered other
> options, like subscriptions to upload images to the member gallery? From
> what I understand, banners don't pay that much, if you had something like a
> $5/mo subscription for each gallery member, your active membership might
> drop a bit, but you might be able to pay for it without needing banners.
Personally, I prefer banner ads, as long as they're not obtrusive pop-up
windows, and obviously not pr0n sites. Then I have the choice whether I
click or not.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> While this has been in
> progress for some time, it was accellerated by the fact that I lost my job
> yesterday.
Seems to be a disease going about at the moment 8?( I hope I don't catch it...
> A related concequence is that the Instruction and Catalog scan library had to
> be taken offline. This was necessary because the Company had not yet received
> permission from LEGO to use them on a commercial site, and to reduce bandwidth
> costs. I sincerely hope that a workable business solution can be found for
> those two issues.
Another related consequence is the sudden disappearance of the icon I have on
my Lugnet page, namely http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/images/bsicon.gif.
Is this icon (and the various other versions) available somewhere else on
Brickshelf?
Thanks
ROSCO
|
|
| |
The saddest part of all this, for me, is the 'loss' of the Instructions
scans. Do you think it might be possible to release them on CD's? I would
imagine the sale of the (discontinued) instructions would help pay for the
site - provided of course you can work out some kind of agreement with LEGO.
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
>
> A related concequence is that the Instruction and Catalog scan library had to
> be taken offline. This was necessary because the Company had not yet received
> permission from LEGO to use them on a commercial site, and to reduce bandwidth
> costs. I sincerely hope that a workable business solution can be found for
> those two issues.
>
> Kevin M Loch
> Manager,
> Brickshelf L.L.C.
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kyle Beatty writes:
> Has outside linking been a problem? Geocities has an effective method (which
> I have never really researched, but I'm pretty sure is merely router-based
> rule-sets) of keeping outside pages from linking to Geocities-hosted
> resources.
If I could choose one thing to *keep* in brickshelf, it would be this option
(outside linking). It allows making elaborate pages on lugnet as well as
accomodating large sites. IMHO it is one of Brickshelf's biggest advantages
(only, perhaps, second to the instructions).
Let me second Kyle's way-to-go to Kevin while I'm at it. :-)
-Shiri
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Bram Lambrecht writes:
> Tim Courtney writes:
> > Eww... I'm sure you hate having to do this. Have you
> > considered other options, like subscriptions to upload images
> > to the member gallery? From what I understand, banners don't
> > pay that much, if you had something like a $5/mo subscription
> > for each gallery member, your active membership might drop a
> > bit, but you might be able to pay for it without needing banners.
>
> IMO, the main great thing about Brickshelf is that it is free. It
> allows just about anyone to share their LEGO pictures. But, if
> membership fees are necessary to support the site, then perhaps you
> could use membership to turn off banner ads, or for those people who
> need over a set limit of disk space...although that hurts the people who
> post movies.
> $5/month is very high though...I pay $30/yr for a full web host with 50
> MB, 3 GB transfer, PHP, MYSQL, subdomains, etc.
> --Bram
A few days before the change at BrickShelf, I happened to be looking at the
server stats. IIRC, the daily usage from the prior *day* was something like 25GB
of traffic. Most hosting sites stop quoting at 100GB/month, so extrapolating
from their 100GB + $x.xx per additional MB left me with a large number,
somewhere in the vicinity of $10K/month. Now, maybe my numbers here are messed
up somewhere, but it would appear that we have been getting a tremendous free
lunch for quite a while.
Ray
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Ray Sanders writes:
>
> A few days before the change at BrickShelf, I happened to be looking at the
> server stats. IIRC, the daily usage from the prior *day* was something like 25GB
> of traffic. Most hosting sites stop quoting at 100GB/month, so extrapolating
> from their 100GB + $x.xx per additional MB left me with a large number,
> somewhere in the vicinity of $10K/month. Now, maybe my numbers here are messed
> up somewhere, but it would appear that we have been getting a tremendous free
> lunch for quite a while.
>
> Ray
You hit the nail right on the head. The hosting does cost thousands of dollars
per month. That had been subsidised entirely by my employer (who also used the
bandwidth, rack space and servers). This new situation (employer trying not to
go out of business) presents an interesting business challenge.
KL
|
|
| |
Amy Hughes wrote:
> I, for one, have no patience for pop-up or interstitial ads, and if I can't
> defeat them I abandon the site. Not that I want to cheat a site of potential
> revenue, just that my attention is worth more than the fraction of a penny they
> earned annoying me with crap. I'd rather pay for content and hosting, and I'd
> pay to keep BS around, but I'd only pay if I didn't also have to see ads. And
> if I pay for hosting I don't want people viewing my images to see ads.
I agree, if BrickShelf starts popping up adds, I won't be browsing
BrickShelf very often.
> arstechnica.com went to a voluntary subscription basis and has apparently had
> some success with it. But skipping the ads is not one of the benefits of
> membership, so I haven't given them a penny. Even a $10 donation is much *much*
> more than they'll earn annoying me with ads, so it seems self-defeating to
> advertise to subscribers.
>
> A few other observations...
>
> 2) Perhaps BS could link to images hosted elsewhere. Instead of uploading
> pictures I'd upload links. BS would create thumbnails and folders and whatnot,
> but the full-size images would be hosted at my site. The downside is you'd get
> a lot of broken links.
BS wouldn't be very useful to me if all it did was collect the images.
> 3) Perhaps a limit on the size of folders would cut down on bandwidth. I often
> encounter folders with 100+ pictures (and I've created at least one such
> folder). In the time it takes me to decide I'm not really interested, BS has
> served a lot of bandwidth just drawing all those thumbnails. Even if I am
> interested, I'm only likely to click on a few of the pictures. The usage stats
> for my own large folder show that this behavior isn't unique to me. Limiting
> folder size might also encourage people to be more selective in their uploads.
Hmm, interesting idea. I would certainly like to see people be more
selective about their pictures. When I've posted pictures from a train
show, I've often ended up only posting one in three or so.
> 4) Picture size guidelines might be useful to people, particularly if space is
> limited or costs money. If images exceed a given byte count for their size,
> perhaps folks would benefit from a notice and some links to some tools to help
> reduce the size of their pictures. Don't prevent them from uploading a 600x400
> picture that's 150K, but tell them it probably shouldn't be much larger than
> 50K. The 150K web-size picture is one of my pet peeves :-)
I would love some picture size guidelines. 1600x1200 pictures are just
silly on BrickShelf, even at home, I have to scroll to see the whole
picture.
I hope a solution for BrickShelf can be found. I have mostly eliminated
hosting pictures on my personal web site after a couple days of hosting
someone's town pictures sucked more than 50% of my monthly bandwidth
allotment. Without BrickShelf, or with BrickShelf charging in some way
for bandwidth, I will have to examine closely my picture hosting
options.
Frank
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Frank Filz writes:
> Amy Hughes wrote:
> > I, for one, have no patience for pop-up or interstitial ads, and if I can't
> > defeat them I abandon the site. Not that I want to cheat a site of potential
> > revenue, just that my attention is worth more than the fraction of a penny they
> > earned annoying me with crap. I'd rather pay for content and hosting, and I'd
> > pay to keep BS around, but I'd only pay if I didn't also have to see ads. And
> > if I pay for hosting I don't want people viewing my images to see ads.
>
> I agree, if BrickShelf starts popping up adds, I won't be browsing
> BrickShelf very often.
<blue_sky_wishful_thinking>
What would be nice, would be if TLC picked up the banner ads for the catalog
and instruction scans. After all, those items are TLC's original IP and there
would be no issue of 'appropriateness'. In fact, seeing banner ads for things
like the SC or the Blacksmith Shop would be cool while looking at older
instruction scans.
Support for the gallery would be a different matter.
</blue_sky_wishful_thinking>
snip
> I hope a solution for BrickShelf can be found. I have mostly eliminated
> hosting pictures on my personal web site after a couple days of hosting
> someone's town pictures sucked more than 50% of my monthly bandwidth
> allotment. Without BrickShelf, or with BrickShelf charging in some way
> for bandwidth, I will have to examine closely my picture hosting
> options.
>
> Frank
My earthlink account has a limit on how many MBs I can have in the web space,
but I've never seen mention of a bandwith limit (although I'm sure there must be
one lurking somewhere). Most of my images are 3K-6K and are in support of my
BrickLink shop. I doubt that I will hit the bar on those images.
Ray
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> You hit the nail right on the head. The hosting does cost thousands of >dollars per month. That had been subsidised entirely by my employer (who >also used the bandwidth, rack space and servers). This new situation
> (employer trying not to go out of business) presents an interesting business >challenge.
This in mind - I don't think there is a legal issue with charging for the
service of making copyrighted material _available_. The same as the POV
license saying you can include POV on a CD so long as what you charge for
the CD covers your distribution and isn't a profit based on the software
included.
So, why can't you keep the LEGO instruction scans online, and charge for the
service of accessing them? You aren't charging for the material itself, you
can't, but I think you can certainly charge for the service you are providing.
From discussions I've been having recently, I believe this to be perfectly
legal. Not saying LEGO wouldn't take an issue with it, but would they have
a leg to stand on? Obviously, working with them for a mutually agreeable
solution is best, though.
Just some thoughts.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti writes:
> > LFB
> >
> > PS: L. L. C.? Licensed, Liquor Commission?
>
> Limited Liability Corporation I believe.
>
> Troy
Minor correction - it's Limited Liability Company, not Corp.
- Bob
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Mark Chittenden writes:
> The saddest part of all this, for me, is the 'loss' of the Instructions
> scans. Do you think it might be possible to release them on CD's? I would
> imagine the sale of the (discontinued) instructions would help pay for the
> site - provided of course you can work out some kind of agreement with LEGO.
Releasing instruction scans on CD's would be neat.
Perhaps a good legal way to do this would be to give the CD's away FREE but
have a high shipping and handling charge of $15.00 - $25.00 for the first CD
and $10.00 per disc thereafter, for example. IANAL, but this might be okay.
____
|
|
| |
"Kevin Loch" <kloch@opnsys.com> wrote in message
news:Gs45GF.2s2@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.general, Ray Sanders writes:
> >
> > A few days before the change at BrickShelf, I happened to be looking at • the
> > server stats. IIRC, the daily usage from the prior *day* was something • like 25GB
> > of traffic. Most hosting sites stop quoting at 100GB/month, so • extrapolating
> > from their 100GB + $x.xx per additional MB left me with a large number,
> > somewhere in the vicinity of $10K/month. Now, maybe my numbers here are • messed
> > up somewhere, but it would appear that we have been getting a tremendous • free
> > lunch for quite a while.
> >
> > Ray
>
> You hit the nail right on the head. The hosting does cost thousands of • dollars
> per month. That had been subsidised entirely by my employer (who also • used the
> bandwidth, rack space and servers). This new situation (employer trying • not to
> go out of business) presents an interesting business challenge.
How about selling directly to LEGO? I wonder if they would be interested in
purchasing your site as an add on to their own?
You have to figure that one of the main questions on the LEGO Opinion site
is "Would you like instructions?" It seems like a nature fit for LEGO to
purchase Brickshelf and integrate it into the main LEGO.com site.
Of course if LEGO doesn't want to buy your site outright, they could always
advertise on it. Unfortunately, that seems like preaching to the choir.
--
Grant Giandonato
ggiandonato@comcast.net
Check out my eBay auctions:
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/ggiandonato/
|
|
| |
> Most hosting sites stop quoting at 100GB/month, so extrapolating
> from their 100GB + $x.xx per additional MB left me with a large number,
> somewhere in the vicinity of $10K/month.
A lot for an individual, but presumably chicken feed for TLG, since I assume
the people who use brickshelf are some of TLG's best customers.
While I wouldn't mind TLG paying to run brickshelf, I'm not sure I'd like them
to run it themselves, as I think it would get juniorised.
Kerry
|
|
|
