Subject:
|
Re: Brickshelf L.L.C.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:58:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1796 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Brickshelf L.L.C.
|
| (...) <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 (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
