| |
In lugnet.general, Steven Asbury wrote:
> The instruction and catalog scans have been removed. Kevin posted the following
> message ...
>
> "Due to the loss of our major sponsor, Instruction and Catalog scans are no
> longer available at Brickshelf.com. We are working to find them a new home. When
> we do, we will post a link here. We apologize for any inconvenience."
>
> I also see there is a message asking users to transfer their files to maj.com.
>
> Kevin (or anyone), can you give us some more information? Is Brickshelf going
> away immediately? If so, what timetable do we have before our galleries
> disappear?
Brickshelf.com is not going away, at least not if I can help it. I am working
with someone to rehost the instruction scans, and they will be in
their new home as soon as we can get them moved and they can get the necessary
permission from LEGO. I expect the new caretakers will do a better job
than I ever did, and especially better than I have lately.
It is my intent to keep the brickshelf gallery online for the forseeable future,
though performance may be limited and new uploads may be disabled at
some point.
- Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch wrote:
> Brickshelf.com is not going away, at least not if I can help it. I am working
> with someone to rehost the instruction scans, and they will be in
> their new home as soon as we can get them moved and they can get the necessary
> permission from LEGO. I expect the new caretakers will do a better job
> than I ever did, and especially better than I have lately.
>
> It is my intent to keep the brickshelf gallery online for the forseeable future,
> though performance may be limited and new uploads may be disabled at
> some point.
>
> - Kevin
Thanks, Kevin!
That message about transferring files to maj.com made it sound like the
galleries were going away, too.
Is there anything we can do to help? I've already donated, but would be happy to
add to my donation if there's a funding crisis.
Also, any way you can warn us before uploading is disabled or keep us up-to-date
on changes to avoid another panic?
Thanks again.
-Steven
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Steven Asbury wrote:
> > The instruction and catalog scans have been removed. Kevin posted the following
> > message ...
> >
> > "Due to the loss of our major sponsor, Instruction and Catalog scans are no
> > longer available at Brickshelf.com. We are working to find them a new home. When
> > we do, we will post a link here. We apologize for any inconvenience."
> >
> > I also see there is a message asking users to transfer their files to maj.com.
> >
> > Kevin (or anyone), can you give us some more information? Is Brickshelf going
> > away immediately? If so, what timetable do we have before our galleries
> > disappear?
>
> Brickshelf.com is not going away, at least not if I can help it. I am working
> with someone to rehost the instruction scans, and they will be in
> their new home as soon as we can get them moved and they can get the necessary
> permission from LEGO. I expect the new caretakers will do a better job
> than I ever did, and especially better than I have lately.
>
> It is my intent to keep the brickshelf gallery online for the forseeable future,
> though performance may be limited and new uploads may be disabled at
> some point.
>
> - Kevin
The web is wonderful but it ain't permanent or free. If the people who use
brickshelf think so much of it (and I have always been impressed with it), then
they should be willing to pay for a subscription to upload and download images.
Or have a fundraiser to endow it with enough money to keep it going in
perpetuity. And host it with a hosting company that will be around. Just my
thoughts. If someone can make a profit or at least break even, then it is much
less likely for it to go away.
Tommy ARmstrong
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Tommy Armstrong wrote:
> The web is wonderful but it ain't permanent or free. If the people who use
> brickshelf think so much of it (and I have always been impressed with it), then
> they should be willing to pay for a subscription to upload and download images.
I'd certainly be for micropayments for uploading images. I don't know how many
images are uploaded each day/week/month, but at $.01 each, I should think the
income might add up, yet wouldn't break anybody.
It'd be nice to keep the ability to view images free, though, since it opens up
the building community to the rest of the world.
Rick C.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch wrote:
> >
> > "Due to the loss of our major sponsor, Instruction and Catalog scans are no
> > longer available at Brickshelf.com. We are working to find them a new home. When
> > we do, we will post a link here. We apologize for any inconvenience."
>
> Brickshelf.com is not going away, at least not if I can help it. I am working
> with someone to rehost the instruction scans, and they will be in
> their new home as soon as we can get them moved and they can get the necessary
> permission from LEGO. I expect the new caretakers will do a better job
> than I ever did, and especially better than I have lately.
>
> It is my intent to keep the brickshelf gallery online for the forseeable future,
> though performance may be limited and new uploads may be disabled at
> some point.
>
> - Kevin
Is there a reason why the major sponsor was lost? Correct me if I'm wrong, but
wasn't The LEGO Group itself sponsoring or co-sponsoring the instruction scans?
Did this loss come with any warning?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Rick Clark wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Tommy Armstrong wrote:
>
> > The web is wonderful but it ain't permanent or free. If the people who use
> > brickshelf think so much of it (and I have always been impressed with it), then
> > they should be willing to pay for a subscription to upload and download images.
>
> I'd certainly be for micropayments for uploading images. I don't know how many
> images are uploaded each day/week/month, but at $.01 each, I should think the
> income might add up, yet wouldn't break anybody.
>
> It'd be nice to keep the ability to view images free, though, since it opens up
> the building community to the rest of the world.
Agreed. I havent looked much at maj.com, but there are tonnes of other pictures
than lego.
Micropayments on Bricklink could be the way.
But - my opinion - it should be by used storages. Some people upload _huge_
pictures of sizes of e.g. 1MB - I resize mine so the fit the screen size, and
take only 50-100 Kb -> 10% of a large image.
And I guess that resizing larger pictures could free a lot of space on the
server.
So, I suggest, that e.g. for every 50 Kb uploaded one should an amount. The
amount to pay is not for me to comment, Kevin knows more.
This way people will pay for how much the actually use, and my point - it would
be more pleasent to view pictures, when you actually can see more than just the
corner of it.
PS: paypal is one solution, but do think of something else for us, who cannot
use paypal!
PPS: I know that newer versions of IE resizes pictures, but keep in mind -
luckily there are other browsers in use ;-)
Kevin, can you comment on this?
Would it help, it people uploaded smaller pictures for the server size?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch wrote:
> Brickshelf.com is not going away, at least not if I can help it. I am working
> with someone to rehost the instruction scans, and they will be in
> their new home as soon as we can get them moved and they can get the necessary
> permission from LEGO. I expect the new caretakers will do a better job
> than I ever did, and especially better than I have lately.
>
> It is my intent to keep the brickshelf gallery online for the forseeable future,
> though performance may be limited and new uploads may be disabled at
> some point.
>
> - Kevin
I seem to be getting some decidely mixed signals. Should we be migrating our
files? If Brickshelf is not going away, why tell us to go away? If uploads go
away, Brickshelf becomes an archive only and is effectively dead for the future.
If this is a warning that Brickshelf may end up dead or (further) crippled, then
I think you may wish to state that more clearly rather than the current
confusion. Any clarification on the situation would be appreciated. Thanks,
and best wishes to a great service and all the people involved.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Rick Clark wrote:
> I'd certainly be for micropayments for uploading images. I don't know how many
> images are uploaded each day/week/month, but at $.01 each, I should think the
> income might add up, yet wouldn't break anybody.
>
> It'd be nice to keep the ability to view images free, though, since it opens up
> the building community to the rest of the world.
Yes I would also support a free to view, pay to upload system on Brickshelf.
I don't know how much work it would take to implement this, but you could have a
monthly, quarterly, and/or annual subscription fee that may give you (un)limited
uploading priveleges (ok maybe limit the total size of your files depending on
your subscription "package"). Or, users can also choose a "pay as you go"
method, maybe a few cents ($0.02?) per picture with additional restrictions.
Charging users to upload (with file size limits) would do the following two
things (at least):
1) Make users think twice about uploading out of focus (or poorly taken)
pictures, or huge pictures (both in file size and dimensions). Files that don't
meet the restrictions will be force users to resize and/or convert them.
2) Help pay for maintaining the server, and all other associated costs.
I think that switching over to a pay to upload system would simply "weed out"
the not-so-serious AFOLs/ALEs. Hopefully, it would encourage Brickshelf users
to transfer/exchange more "standardized" and better quality files. For those
that are unwilling to pay to use this service, there are other (free) hosting
services and picture hosting sites out there...
-Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Bryan Wong wrote:
> Charging users to upload (with file size limits) would do the following two
> things (at least):
>
> 1) Make users think twice about uploading out of focus (or poorly taken)
> pictures, or huge pictures (both in file size and dimensions). Files that don't
> meet the restrictions will be force users to resize and/or convert them.
I think that this is a very important point. IMHO big images are just a waste of
bandwidth (people get frustruated anyway when they realise the dimensions of the
image, and hit back in disgust) as well as space.
Also, delete unused accounts, after a set period of time.
> I think that switching over to a pay to upload system would simply "weed out"
> the not-so-serious AFOLs/ALEs. Hopefully, it would encourage Brickshelf users
I don't think the point here is to weed people out. If some relative unknown has
a one-off cool idea he wants to share (and, I want to see), he's highly unlikely
to pay for it.
I think a system similar to the one on LUGNET would be great. (Where you can
post messages for free, but by becoming a full member you get a lot of
additional perks.) You could for example, lay down a rules that limit the size
of the picture, and are more stringent toward quality for those who are 'free'
members, and ask for a nominal fee from the rest.
> to transfer/exchange more "standardized" and better quality files. For those
> that are unwilling to pay to use this service, there are other (free) hosting
> services and picture hosting sites out there...
True, but I don't want to have to go through a hundred other sites to find one
cool MOC a day. A centralised place is much better.
Legoswami
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Bryan Wong wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Rick Clark wrote:
| |
I’d certainly be for micropayments for uploading images. I don’t know
how many images are uploaded each day/week/month, but at $.01 each, I
should think the income might add up, yet wouldn’t break anybody.
It’d be nice to keep the ability to view images free, though, since it
opens up the building community to the rest of the world.
|
Yes I would also support a free to view, pay to upload system on Brickshelf.
I don’t know how much work it would take to implement this, but you could
have a monthly, quarterly, and/or annual subscription fee that may give you
(un)limited uploading priveleges (ok maybe limit the total size of your
files depending on your subscription “package”). Or, users can also choose
a “pay as you go” method, maybe a few cents ($0.02?) per picture with
additional restrictions.
|
Maybe I’m in the minority, but I would not be willing to pay $0.02 or even $0.01
per picture I put on Brickshelf. With that pricing scheme, I’d much sooner setup
my own domain and pay for a website hosting.
| |
I think that switching over to a pay to upload system would simply “weed out”
the not-so-serious AFOLs/ALEs. Hopefully, it would encourage Brickshelf
users to transfer/exchange more “standardized” and better quality files.
For those that are unwilling to pay to use this service, there are other
(free) hosting services and picture hosting sites out there...
|
I’d be suprised if anyone started out as a serious ALE. When I first got into
building, I’d have never paid to show pictures on Brickshelf. I just wouldn’t
have shared my creations. And not sharing my creations means that I might not
have grown as a builder. (Well *I* might have, as I’d probably have gotten
feedback from MichLUG members, but not every person getting into the hobby has
an active club near them.)
Jason Spears | BrickShelf Gallery | MichLUG | CLB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Samarth Moray wrote:
> I don't think the point here is to weed people out. If some relative unknown has
> a one-off cool idea he wants to share (and, I want to see), he's highly unlikely
> to pay for it.
Hmm that's a good point. But I wasn't really trying to "weed people out" so I
may have sent the wrong message!
> I think a system similar to the one on LUGNET would be great. (Where you can
> post messages for free, but by becoming a full member you get a lot of
> additional perks.) You could for example, lay down a rules that limit the size
> of the picture, and are more stringent toward quality for those who are 'free'
> members, and ask for a nominal fee from the rest.
Yeah that's a possibility - but the key point is that LUGNET memberships are
lifetime memberships (if I remember correctly). Would that work for Brickshelf?
> True, but I don't want to have to go through a hundred other sites to find one
> cool MOC a day. A centralised place is much better.
I would think that most people who really want their MOC to be seen would use
Brickshelf then? Just like someone who wanted to sell an item online would
likely go to eBay...
-Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Samarth Moray wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Bryan Wong wrote:
> > to transfer/exchange more "standardized" and better quality files. For those
> > that are unwilling to pay to use this service, there are other (free) hosting
> > services and picture hosting sites out there...
>
> True, but I don't want to have to go through a hundred other sites to find one
> cool MOC a day. A centralised place is much better.
This has already happened. More and more, when people get serious about the
online community, they get their own website(1). In order to keep up-to-date on
MOCs, etc, I usually check four or five websites a day.
-Lenny
(1)= For example, http://www.neutronbot.com featuring the work of Soren Roberts,
Kevin Blocksidge, Tim Deering, Lenny Hoffman, Jonesy Heckel, and Roy Grieg.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Rick Clark wrote:
> I'd certainly be for micropayments for uploading images. I don't know how
> many images are uploaded each day/week/month, but at $.01 each, I should
> think the income might add up, yet wouldn't break anybody.
I think the issue has always been that it just doesn't work in practice. I mean
sure, I wouldn't mind paying a penny per picture, but actually having to go
through both paypal AND the upload process, I dunno. It would create more of a
bother. Same deal with a periodic subscription fee-- having to remember to pay
it, etc, would be difficult, as well as adding extra steps to the process.
Plus, one of the reasons why BrickShelf is so popular is that it's free. There
are plenty of pay services out there already-- and if you've got one, you're
probably using it for your Lego pictures. And if you don't have one, chances are
you'll aim for a free service rather than a pay service.
It seems that the general hinderance to newbies is 1) lack of digital camera 2)
lack of a place to put pictures. So an easy, *free* utility is what people look
for first. Adding money to the process would change things quite a bit.
Particularly for minors who wouldn't have means for payment.
I do recall advocating "premium service", however-- Like, allowing your pictures
to be public before being moderated, or giving you more detailed stats on your
images. Or maybe allowing some always-desired features like moving
folders/images around while maintaining the "viewed" statistics. Maybe even
(this is ugly) giving your folder/images a slightly higher precedence for
BrickShelf searches. But all of that requires lots of coding-- Boooo!
I would be interested to see how much traffic is generated thanks to avatars and
the like, however. From what I remember, the vast majority of files on
BrickShelf are little avatars and whatnot, NOT people's Lego creations. Granted
the avatars are smaller files than huge images, but they are probably pulled
quite a lot.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Samarth Moray wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Bryan Wong wrote:
> > Charging users to upload (with file size limits) would do the following two
> > things (at least):
> >
> > 1) Make users think twice about uploading out of focus (or poorly taken)
> > pictures, or huge pictures (both in file size and dimensions). Files that don't
> > meet the restrictions will be force users to resize and/or convert them.
>
> I think that this is a very important point. IMHO big images are just a waste of
> bandwidth (people get frustruated anyway when they realise the dimensions of the
> image, and hit back in disgust) as well as space.
I agree, but for a slightly different reason. Try living where broadband simply
isn't available. There are still places in the US (and other countries I'm sure)
that have not yet received broadband rollout. Try clicking on one of those
'overly-large, not cropped, maximum resolution' images when connected via 49k
dialup. Not fun. Being on a slow connection, with a not-quite-the-fastest system
makes me appreciate smaller images much more than the average person.
Asking folks to (1) crop and (2) go with lower-quality might enhance the
experience for everyone and yield a reduced bandwidth requirement.
Ray
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jason Spears wrote:
| |
Maybe I’m in the minority, but I would not be willing to pay $0.02 or even
$0.01 per picture I put on Brickshelf. With that pricing scheme, I’d much
sooner setup my own domain and pay for a website hosting.
|
I guess the main point I’m trying to make (and not doing such a good job about
it) is that we’re trying to come up with ways to help pay for Brickshelf without
having all of the costs coming out of the owner’s pocket directly. The ideal
system I envision would hopefully be cheaper and easier/less technical than
getting a domain name & paying for website hosting.
| |
I’d be suprised if anyone started out as a serious ALE. When I first got into
building, I’d have never paid to show pictures on Brickshelf. I just wouldn’t
have shared my creations. And not sharing my creations means that I might not
have grown as a builder. (Well *I* might have, as I’d probably have gotten
feedback from MichLUG members, but not every person getting into the hobby
has an active club near them.)
|
Ok, then to accomodate a wider audience, maybe one of the packages you could get
from Brickshelf would be free - with a smaller storage limit and none of the
“special” features obviously.
Well, I’m not Kevin so I can’t say what will be included and what won’t be, but
let’s just keep tossing ideas around!
-Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Ray Sanders wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Samarth Moray wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Bryan Wong wrote:
> > > Charging users to upload (with file size limits) would do the following two
> > > things (at least):
> > >
> > > 1) Make users think twice about uploading out of focus (or poorly taken)
> > > pictures, or huge pictures (both in file size and dimensions). Files that don't
> > > meet the restrictions will be force users to resize and/or convert them.
> >
> > I think that this is a very important point. IMHO big images are just a waste of
> > bandwidth (people get frustruated anyway when they realise the dimensions of the
> > image, and hit back in disgust) as well as space.
>
> I agree, but for a slightly different reason. Try living where broadband simply
> isn't available. There are still places in the US (and other countries I'm sure)
> that have not yet received broadband rollout. Try clicking on one of those
> 'overly-large, not cropped, maximum resolution' images when connected via 49k
> dialup. Not fun. Being on a slow connection, with a not-quite-the-fastest system
> makes me appreciate smaller images much more than the average person.
I can see some times when people will want a high-resolution version
available... but for the most part, when browsing (a big purpose for
Brickshelf), it's best to have an optimized image, say no bigger than 800 pixels
in any dimension. There are several software packages available to do this on
the fly (I use ImageMagick with Ghostscript) which could save lots of bandwidth.
Having the ability to deep-link to a larger-size version would be a good
compromise. This fulfills both the casual visitor browsing, and the end user who
wants to have a big version available.
- Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Samarth Moray wrote:
| |
True, but I don’t want to have to go through a hundred other sites to find
one cool MOC a day. A centralised place is much better.
|
This has already happened. More and more, when people get serious about the
online community, they get their own website(1). In order to keep up-to-date
on MOCs, etc, I usually check four or five websites a day.
|
That’s very unfortunate, though. As Jason pointed out, it’s easy enough to host
your own pictures -- but there are great advantages to having them all in one
place. When I want to find a good idea for making a sofa, for example, I go to
BrickShelf and type in “sofa” (along with “couch” and maybe “furniture” if I get
desperate). That doesn’t work when people host their pics elsewhere.
Just brainstorming here, maybe what we need is a service that doesn’t actually
host pictures, but indexes them. It would provide search capability as well as
features like recent additions. Then people could host their pics on
BrickShelf, or maj.com, or one of the dozens of other photo sites, or on their
own personal site, and others could find their pics regardless.
Such a server wouldn’t have gross resource needs, either. I would advocate an
open-source model, with the server code hosted someplace like SourceForge, so
that if whoever’s running it loses interest, somebody else can pick it up.
Best,
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Samarth Moray wrote:
| |
True, but I don’t want to have to go through a hundred other sites to find
one cool MOC a day. A centralised place is much better.
|
This has already happened. More and more, when people get serious about the
online community, they get their own website(1). In order to keep
up-to-date on MOCs, etc, I usually check four or five websites a day.
|
That’s very unfortunate, though. As Jason pointed out, it’s easy enough to
host your own pictures -- but there are great advantages to having them all
in one place. When I want to find a good idea for making a sofa, for
example, I go to BrickShelf and type in “sofa” (along with “couch” and maybe
“furniture” if I get desperate). That doesn’t work when people host their
pics elsewhere.
|
I swore not to get into this discussion, but...
I am one of the persons who fall into the catagory of someone who owns their own
LEGO-related website (http://www.humboldt1.com/~hlwells/). I made this site
when I wanted something easier to customize than MOCpages or LUGNET. My site is
mostly a MOC site, containing links to all my MOCs and usually a description
accompanies that MOC. I announce new MOCs on the front page, and archive all my
other MOCs, but I also announce my new MOC to LUGNET, Classic-Castle, and
Classic-Space, depending on the type of MOC. I also host my pictures on
Brickshelf. This way, my MOC gets exposure from a maximum of four different
sites. Though my site has little add-ons like descriptions of my MOCs,
Brickshelf is still the core of my site when it comes to the actual pictures. I
suggest that people who have personal LEGO websites to host their images on
Brickshelf (keeping LEGO-related images centralized), while they feature their
MOCs on their personal sites.
Just my two bricks,
-- Nathan Wells
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Nathan Wells wrote:
| |
I am one of the persons who fall into the catagory of someone who owns their
own LEGO-related website (http://www.humboldt1.com/~hlwells/). I made this
site when I wanted something easier to customize than MOCpages or LUGNET. My
site is mostly a MOC site, containing links to all my MOCs and usually a
description accompanies that MOC. I announce new MOCs on the front page, and
archive all my other MOCs, but I also announce my new MOC to LUGNET,
Classic-Castle, and Classic-Space, depending on the type of MOC. I also host
my pictures on Brickshelf. This way, my MOC gets exposure from a maximum of
four different sites. Though my site has little add-ons like descriptions of
my MOCs, Brickshelf is still the core of my site when it comes to the actual
pictures. I suggest that people who have personal LEGO websites to host
their images on Brickshelf (keeping LEGO-related images centralized), while
they feature their MOCs on their personal sites.
|
Well, that’s a fine policy, unless BrickShelf is going away (or going to stop
accepting new pictures or whatever). Kevin still hasn’t been very clear on
that. But if it does, then we need to think up a new solution.
Best,
Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Samarth Moray wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Bryan Wong wrote:
> > > to transfer/exchange more "standardized" and better quality files. For those
> > > that are unwilling to pay to use this service, there are other (free) hosting
> > > services and picture hosting sites out there...
> >
> > True, but I don't want to have to go through a hundred other sites to find one
> > cool MOC a day. A centralised place is much better.
>
> This has already happened. More and more, when people get serious about the
> online community, they get their own website.
That's true, but I for one still put my pics on Brickshelf, and link there from
my site. This is partly because Northstar's free web hosting has a 100MB limit,
but mostly because I like the idea of people being able to also search my
gallery from Brickshelf.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Joe Strout wrote:
> Just brainstorming here, maybe what we need is a service that doesn't
> actually host pictures, but indexes them. It would provide search capability
> as well as features like recent additions. Then people could host their pics
> on BrickShelf, or maj.com, or one of the dozens of other photo sites, or on
> their own personal site, and others could find their pics regardless.
Actually, http://www.bricksonthebrain.com/instructions sort of already does
that, but in a much less comprehensive way.
Legoswami
|
|
| |
My comments for now:
ALE - it is not here - http://www.lugnet.com/~88/acronym_faq/all
no idea what ALE is, I do know what a AFOL is.
How about a free account with a certain amount of free pictures?
That way one can have some few pictures there, and sort them if one wants to
keep the account "free"?
That would also be an option for new users to try it.
Later, when "addicted", one can pay and get more - e.g. statistics etc.
Maybe a limitation for what kind of files can be accepted?
Larger limit for picture sizes?
Maybe only 10 pictures per folder? And max 5 folders? That gives quite many
options.
I still believe, there should be paid by the file sizes
I strongly agree that we should have pictures on a central place, it is easy to
browse etc. Looking for 352345234 pages on the net is not what I want.
I have a site myself (http://my.tele2.ee/sonnich/lego/ ), but for later projects
I have preferred to upload to bricklink and link to them.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=sonnich
I would not be agains paying for hosting my pictures as long as it is a small
amount, and it is by the file size.
I have a limited amount of pictures (but 3+ mocs to be added), so it would not
kill me. And, I would have to host them elsewhere, if it was not for BS.
I wrote it, and here it is again - I wonder how much disk space can be saved, if
all of us would resize pictures. Pictures 2048x1536 takes app. 10 times as much
as 640x480. My point - limit your pictures and leave room for e.g. instruction
scannings.
I would like to know from Kevin whether my theory holds water :-)
Best regards
Sonnich
In lugnet.general, Samarth Moray wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Bryan Wong wrote:
> > Charging users to upload (with file size limits) would do the following two
> > things (at least):
> >
> > 1) Make users think twice about uploading out of focus (or poorly taken)
> > pictures, or huge pictures (both in file size and dimensions). Files that don't
> > meet the restrictions will be force users to resize and/or convert them.
>
> I think that this is a very important point. IMHO big images are just a waste of
> bandwidth (people get frustruated anyway when they realise the dimensions of the
> image, and hit back in disgust) as well as space.
> Also, delete unused accounts, after a set period of time.
>
> > I think that switching over to a pay to upload system would simply "weed out"
> > the not-so-serious AFOLs/ALEs. Hopefully, it would encourage Brickshelf users
>
> I don't think the point here is to weed people out. If some relative unknown has
> a one-off cool idea he wants to share (and, I want to see), he's highly unlikely
> to pay for it.
>
> I think a system similar to the one on LUGNET would be great. (Where you can
> post messages for free, but by becoming a full member you get a lot of
> additional perks.) You could for example, lay down a rules that limit the size
> of the picture, and are more stringent toward quality for those who are 'free'
> members, and ask for a nominal fee from the rest.
>
> > to transfer/exchange more "standardized" and better quality files. For those
> > that are unwilling to pay to use this service, there are other (free) hosting
> > services and picture hosting sites out there...
>
> True, but I don't want to have to go through a hundred other sites to find one
> cool MOC a day. A centralised place is much better.
>
> Legoswami
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Sonnich Jensen wrote:
> ALE - it is not here - http://www.lugnet.com/~88/acronym_faq/all
> no idea what ALE is, I do know what a AFOL is.
It's a new acronym that's being tossed around to replace 'AFOL'-- ALE = "Adult
Lego Enthusiast"
> I wrote it, and here it is again - I wonder how much disk space can be saved,
> if all of us would resize pictures. Pictures 2048x1536 takes app. 10 times as
> much as 640x480. My point - limit your pictures and leave room for e.g.
> instruction scannings.
I don't think disk space is really the issue so much as bandwidth. IIRC he
filled up 2 T1's easily, which ain't cheap. People use BrickShelf a LOT. And I
think the vast majority of files are things like Bionicle avatars that get hit
like mad. But since they're small, they might not soak up as proportionally
large portion of the bandwidth, I dunno.
Certainly, you'd save some bandwidth by making the "default" image size be
800x600 or something (with an option to display the full-res), but I'm not sure
how much it'd save you.
> I would like to know from Kevin whether my theory holds water :-)
I think the issue is mostly maintenance and new code. A new payment system is
tricky, especially when dealing with "Hey, I paid, how come I have a problem"
type things that inevitably happen. Money makes it tricky. It's a fine idea in
that it's feasible and all, but first you need to find someone who's willing to
DO it :)
Plus, if it cost money, there's always the risk of making it chase people away
who would otherwise use it. If it were a pay service, it obviously wouldn't get
used as much. I kinda like the idea of a "free basic service" with a "premium
package" or something so that it's still free, but can generate income.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Sonnich Jensen wrote:
> ALE - it is not here - http://www.lugnet.com/~88/acronym_faq/all
> no idea what ALE is, I do know what a AFOL is.
ALE is Adult Lego Enthusiast, a newer (and preferred by at least some) term over
AFOL. It's easier to pronounce as an acronym, sounds less stilted when you say
it in words, and is generally more accurate too. See
<http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=50836> for the thread where it was proposed.
It's also in the Wikipedia entry, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFOL>.
Obviously the acronym FAQ hasn't been updated yet -- I'll send a note to Shiri.
Best,
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Sonnich Jensen wrote:
> My comments for now:
>
> ALE - it is not here - http://www.lugnet.com/~88/acronym_faq/all
> no idea what ALE is, I do know what a AFOL is.
I thought ALE was a particular type of alcoholic libation. I don't drink much,
so I don't know the difference between, say.. Stout, Ale, Beer, etc..
Scott
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Joe Strout wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Sonnich Jensen wrote:
>
> > ALE - it is not here - http://www.lugnet.com/~88/acronym_faq/all
> > no idea what ALE is, I do know what a AFOL is.
>
> ALE is Adult Lego Enthusiast, a newer (and preferred by at least some) term over
> AFOL.
I dare say in some cases it could possibly mean "Adult LEGO Extremist"...
Scott
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Eaton wrote:
> I don't think disk space is really the issue so much as bandwidth. IIRC he
> filled up 2 T1's easily, which ain't cheap. People use BrickShelf a LOT. And I
> think the vast majority of files are things like Bionicle avatars that get hit
> like mad. But since they're small, they might not soak up as proportionally
> large portion of the bandwidth, I dunno.
I'm not sure what a Bionicle avatar is, but I do agree that bandwidth is likely
the major expense.
> I think the issue is mostly maintenance and new code. A new payment system is
> tricky, especially when dealing with "Hey, I paid, how come I have a problem"
> type things that inevitably happen. Money makes it tricky. It's a fine idea in
> that it's feasible and all, but first you need to find someone who's willing to
> DO it :)
Right. And, while I'm not disparaging Kevin's efforts -- Brickshelf has been a
valuable service to the community for years -- its functionality is pretty
limited, and I've never seen its behavior change. Such major changes to the
code may simply be more than Kevin can afford to do.
> Plus, if it cost money, there's always the risk of making it chase people away
> who would otherwise use it. If it were a pay service, it obviously wouldn't get
> used as much. I kinda like the idea of a "free basic service" with a "premium
> package" or something so that it's still free, but can generate income.
Even better I think would be a truly free service, using the open-source model.
Anyone with the skills and motivation could contribute to the code -- and I
think we'd always have at least a couple dozen such folks in the ALE community.
And the bandwidth problem could be solved by not actually hosting the images on
the site, but instead, making it responsible only for the indexing and
reporting. The actual images would go elsewhere. Those of us who have our own
web sites could put them there; others could use any of the dozens of other
photo sites, or use a free web host, or whatever.
Such a system should scale very well, I would think, and couldn't really
disappear as long as anyone was still interested in it.
Best,
- Joe
|
|
| |
ALE is Adult Lego Enthusiast, a newer (and preferred by at least some) term
over
AFOL. It's easier to pronounce as an acronym, sounds less stilted when you
say
it in words, and is generally more accurate too. See
<http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=50836> for the thread where it was
proposed.
It's also in the Wikipedia entry, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFOL>.
Easier to pronounce is a good thing. Now all we need is one that is easier
to pronounce than MOC (which apparently some people called "mock" and others
call M-O-C).
Rob
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Rob Hendrix wrote:
| |
ALE is Adult Lego Enthusiast, a newer (and preferred by at least some) term
over
AFOL.
|
Renaming be damned! I like old-school, old-time. (Eddie Shore!)
Signed,
An AFOL who builds MOCs who also may be a Curmudgeon,
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Rob Hendrix wrote:
> Easier to pronounce is a good thing. Now all we need is one that is easier
> to pronounce than MOC (which apparently some people called "mock" and others
> call M-O-C).
"mock" is already a word, so I propose we pronounce it like "smoke" and "choke"
~Kevoh
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Rob Hendrix wrote:
| |
ALE is Adult Lego Enthusiast, a newer (and preferred by at least some) term
over
AFOL.
|
Renaming be damned! I like old-school, old-time.
|
To purists, I barely qualify as an “AFOL,” but even I agree that that term
is preferable to “ALE.” AFOL has history behind it, and its creation was
organic, rather than deliberate, and it therefore has greater aesthetic appeal
to me on those grounds alone.
I don’t care if either is “easier” to pronounce--no one I know “pronounces”
ETA, RSVP, or USA. “AFOL” is an abbreviation, not an acronym.
IMO (also an abbreviation rather than an acronym!), to call oneself an
“enthusiast” is to make oneself sound hopelessly effete and snobbish. Heck, if
we really want to sound self-important, why don’t we just call ourselves
“Brights?”
| |
An AFOL who builds MOCs who also may be a Curmudgeon,
|
That’s “An AFOLWBMWAMBAC,” to you.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
To purists, I barely qualify as an “AFOL,” but even I agree that that
term is preferable to “ALE.” AFOL has history behind it, and its creation
was organic, rather than deliberate, and it therefore has greater aesthetic
appeal to me on those grounds alone.
|
So, you like it better because there was little thought behind it? Next you’ll
be saying you voted for Bush. :)
| |
I don’t care if either is “easier” to pronounce--no one I know “pronounces”
ETA, RSVP, or USA. “AFOL” is an abbreviation, not an acronym.
|
Some people spell it out, but even that isn’t very euphonic -- unlike the other
initialisms you mention, AFOL when spelled quickly sounds more like a word
(ayafoal) than a string of letters.
But the real problem isn’t when speaking to other ALEs (or whatever you choose
to call them), but when speaking to people who aren’t into LEGO. I’ve tried
this on a number of occasions since coming out of my dark ages: “I’m an adult
fan of LEGO...” The result is almost always a “you’re joking, right?” sort of
grin, because it sounds so ridiculously pompous. It’s like saying “I’m a
drinker of wines.” It’s stilted and sounds silly. When have you ever heard a
train enthusiast describe themselves as an “adult fan of trains”?
So, from now on, I’ll be introducing my passion this way: “I’m an adult LEGO
enthusiast” -- “LEGO enthusiast” just like “train enthusiast,” plus “adult”
since (unlike the train hobby) LEGO is still seen by most people as a toy for
children. Adding “adult” defines adult LEGO enthusiasts as a group, implying
that there are others, and that the speaker isn’t just having maturity issues.
| |
IMO (also an abbreviation rather than an acronym!), to call oneself an
“enthusiast” is to make oneself sound hopelessly effete and snobbish.
|
Nonsense; it’s a standard term -- there are train enthusiasts, wine enthusiasts,
music enthusiasts and so on. If you want effete and snobbish, use “afficionado”
instead. (And if you want crass, use “buff” -- enthusiast is comfortably in the
middle.)
Laugh all you want, but I think this is a small but important part of getting
the society we live in to accept and understand the LEGO hobby.
Best,
- Joe
P.S. Is this really off-topic?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
To purists, I barely qualify as an “AFOL,” but even I agree that that
term is preferable to “ALE.” AFOL has history behind it, and its creation
was organic, rather than deliberate, and it therefore has greater aesthetic
appeal to me on those grounds alone.
|
So, you like it better because there was little thought behind it? Next
you’ll be saying you voted for Bush. :)
| |
I don’t care if either is “easier” to pronounce--no one I know “pronounces”
ETA, RSVP, or USA. “AFOL” is an abbreviation, not an acronym.
|
Some people spell it out, but even that isn’t very euphonic -- unlike the
other initialisms you mention, AFOL when spelled quickly sounds more like a
word (ayafoal) than a string of letters.
But the real problem isn’t when speaking to other ALEs (or whatever you
choose to call them), but when speaking to people who aren’t into LEGO.
I’ve tried this on a number of occasions since coming out of my dark ages:
“I’m an adult fan of LEGO...” The result is almost always a “you’re joking,
right?” sort of grin, because it sounds so ridiculously pompous.
|
Ahem, Joe, but they were mocking your hobby choice, not your title! :-)
| |
It’s like
saying “I’m a drinker of wines.”
|
I’ve always preferred “lush”, but “wine taster” isn’t much better.
| |
It’s stilted and sounds silly. When have
you ever heard a train enthusiast describe themselves as an “adult fan of
trains”?
So, from now on, I’ll be introducing my passion this way: “I’m an adult LEGO
enthusiast” -- “LEGO enthusiast” just like “train enthusiast,” plus “adult”
since (unlike the train hobby) LEGO is still seen by most people as a toy for
children. Adding “adult” defines adult LEGO enthusiasts as a group, implying
that there are others, and that the speaker isn’t just having maturity
issues.
|
Don’t be surprised if they still laugh:-)
| |
| |
IMO (also an abbreviation rather than an acronym!), to call oneself an
“enthusiast” is to make oneself sound hopelessly effete and snobbish.
|
Nonsense; it’s a standard term -- there are train enthusiasts, wine
enthusiasts, music enthusiasts and so on. If you want effete and snobbish,
use “afficionado” instead. (And if you want crass, use “buff” -- enthusiast
is comfortably in the middle.)
Laugh all you want, but I think this is a small but important part of getting
the society we live in to accept and understand the LEGO hobby.
|
Joe, terms like “AFOL” are “in-house”, part of our jargon, and not intended for
the unwashed GP. The fact is that the GP won’t accept you whatever acro you
decide to call yourself-- you will be shunned, and you will only find solice
back here with us.
We are geeks, pathetically playing with toys, and we must learn to accept it,
and not try to pander to the unenlightened. We are the Neoilluminati!
| |
P.S. Is this really off-topic?
|
Yes and no;-)
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
To purists, I barely qualify as an “AFOL,” but even I agree that that
term is preferable to “ALE.” AFOL has history behind it, and its creation
was organic, rather than deliberate, and it therefore has greater aesthetic
appeal to me on those grounds alone.
|
So, you like it better because there was little thought behind it? Next
you’ll be saying you voted for Bush. :)
|
Holy moley, them’s fightin’ words!
| |
| |
I don’t care if either is “easier” to pronounce--no one I know “pronounces”
ETA, RSVP, or USA. “AFOL” is an abbreviation, not an acronym.
|
Some people spell it out, but even that isn’t very euphonic -- unlike the
other initialisms you mention, AFOL when spelled quickly sounds more like a
word (ayafoal) than a string of letters.
|
I don’t know. I can think of all kinds of abbreviations that don’t snuggle into
the ear all that pleasantly. The Society for Creative Anachronisms (The SCA,
which sounds like ESS-YAY) is one such example. Participants in that group
are called “SCAdians,” though.
| |
But the real problem isn’t when speaking to other ALEs (or whatever you
choose to call them), but when speaking to people who aren’t into LEGO.
I’ve tried this on a number of occasions since coming out of my dark ages:
“I’m an adult fan of LEGO...” The result is almost always a “you’re joking,
right?” sort of grin, because it sounds so ridiculously pompous. It’s like
saying “I’m a drinker of wines.” It’s stilted and sounds silly. When have
you ever heard a train enthusiast describe themselves as an “adult fan of
trains”?
|
To be honest, I’ve never heard anyone describe himself as an enthusiast of any
hobby. Even if he did, he wouldn’t say “I’m an adult train enthusiast,” because
that sounds like he’s only into burlesque trains (which he may be, but that’s
beside the point...)
If you’re really invested in the term, I’d suggest dropping “Adult” from the
acronym because it serves no purpose other than compartmentalization. If you’re
speaking to non-LEGO savvy listeners, chances are good that they’ll recognize
you as an adult, right? And if you’re discussing it in writing, you’d have to
explain the acronym the first time you use it anyway, thusly:
“Hi all, I’m an Adult Lego Enthusiast (ALE), and here’s my story. I’ve been an
ALE for several years, and...”
In euphonic terms, pronouncing the word “ALE” isn’t much better or different
from spelling the abbreviation “LE,” and the latter is (IMO) superior by virtue
of being less arbitrarily subdivided.
| |
So, from now on, I’ll be introducing my passion this way: “I’m an adult LEGO
enthusiast” -- “LEGO enthusiast” just like “train enthusiast,” plus “adult”
since (unlike the train hobby) LEGO is still seen by most people as a toy for
children. Adding “adult” defines adult LEGO enthusiasts as a group, implying
that there are others, and that the speaker isn’t just having maturity
issues.
|
Well, that’s a good explanation, but even insofar as I’ve never heard anyone
self-described as an enthusiast, I’ve never heard any non-adult described as
an “enthusiast” by anyone!
| |
| |
IMO (also an abbreviation rather than an acronym!), to call oneself an
“enthusiast” is to make oneself sound hopelessly effete and snobbish.
|
Nonsense; it’s a standard term -- there are train enthusiasts, wine
enthusiasts, music enthusiasts and so on. If you want effete and snobbish,
use “afficionado” instead. (And if you want crass, use “buff” -- enthusiast
is comfortably in the middle.)
|
What’s wrong with “Hobbyist” as a term? We all participate in LEGO as a hobby,
right? Do we all participate in LEGO as an enthusiasm? I know, it’s not a 100%
precise comparison, but I think it underscores my point that “enthusiast,”
though certainly part of the lexicon, just sounds tritely artificial to me.
Like referring to a “Bottle Shoppe” for no particular reason.
| |
Laugh all you want, but I think this is a small but important part of getting
the society we live in to accept and understand the LEGO hobby.
|
Jeez, is it as serious as all that? I couldn’t care less if society accepts or
understand my involvement in the hobby. And, judging from the huge response
that LEGO train shows seem to garner, society welcomes “us” as well as it
welcomes any subculture of hobbyists. Even the aforementioned SCA, haven for
ubergeeks of all stripes, attracts a huge crowd whenever it puts on a public
demonstration.
| |
P.S. Is this really off-topic?
|
I wondered the same thing. Curse that scoundrel John Neal and his willy-nilly
FUT-ing!
Dave!
FUT lugnet.general
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
But the real problem isn’t when speaking to other ALEs (or whatever you
choose to call them), but when speaking to people who aren’t into LEGO.
I’ve tried this on a number of occasions since coming out of my dark ages:
“I’m an adult fan of LEGO...”
|
Huh-- I almost never say “fan of Lego” or “AFOL” to people who aren’t in the
hobby, because it just doesn’t give them a good frame of reference. I think I’ve
always said “Lego Hobbyist” because that’s what people understand.
Usually “fan” is used in reference to things like sports teams, music artists,
actors, etc. Something that denotes “I’m cheering for you” or “I love watching
you do your thing”.
A hobbyist or enthusiast is typically *involved* in an activity, rather than a
spectator. At least, that’s how I’ve come to understand the use of the word in
common speak. So I usually say “hobbyist” because I think it’s a little more
descriptive to the general public of what I do. IE, it’s something I’m involved
with that I’m not doing “professionally”, that I do in my spare time.
Essentially, I think the connatations of “Lego Hobbyist” are much more
meaningful to people OUTSIDE the hobby than “Lego Fan” or “Lego Enthusiast”.
However, INSIDE the hobby is a different story. I think “fan” is something that
caught on just like “Lego Maniac” sorta used to be. It might not be true
(because we’re not ACTUALLY maniacs or anything), but it’s that kind of amusing
slant on ourselves that exaggerates the point. Like saying “I’m just crazy
enough to buy that”. Are you actually saying you’re crazy? Nah. You’re just sort
of having a bit of joking fun at the notion of needing to be crazy. Poking fun
at yourself. In that same way, I think “fan” took off as a descriptor within the
community. Enough so as to become the ‘norm’ for how we describe ourselves.
Within the community, we reference ourselves a lot. Having a name for ourselves
just makes sense-- but the actual name itself means little to me, personally. We
could’ve called ourselves Fibblesnorks (the paleolithic ancestor of Fleebnorks)
for all I care. To me, an “AFOL” isn’t necessarily a “fan”, or even an “adult”.
It’s a person who’s ‘serious’ about the Lego hobby, insofar as they appreciate
more than just the play aspects that children enjoy. A person who enjoys Lego
for its modeling, utilitarian, nostalgic, or collectable value, and who isn’t
likely to abandon it lightly.
Whatever we call ourselves, that’s probably the name I’ll use. For now, I think
“AFOL” is still going to be the accepted norm, but if “ALE” catches on more, I
might start using that. To me, the actual name means little. I’ll likely
understand the name as who we really are as a community, not by the constituent
words or the connotation of whatever it is we call ourselves.
DaveE
|
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
|
|
| |
| |
So, you like it better because there was little thought behind it? Next
you’ll be saying you voted for Bush. :)
|
Holy moley, them’s fightin’ words!
|
Methinks he doth protest too much. Out with it-- that dirty little secret will
eat you alive, Dave!
<snip>
| |
I wondered the same thing. Curse that scoundrel John Neal and his
willy-nilly FUT-ing!
|
It may have been a little wily, but I categorically deny any nilly!
If it ain’t OT yet, I’ll make it so, number 1! (FUTOTF)
JOHN
|
|
| |
| |
I don’t care if either is “easier” to pronounce--no one I know “pronounces”
ETA, RSVP, or USA. “AFOL” is an abbreviation, not an acronym.
|
I’ve often had to descibe myself and what I do in my class to school
administrators, and I always use “Adult LEGO Fan”, which I suppose would be ALF
- but I know you guys don’t wanna be ALFs! Usually when I describe the community
(especially the LDraw community) to others in the CAD field I use the term
“Crazy LEGO People.” This seems to go over well with non-ALFs. :)
I don’t really understand why people don’t want to consider themselves “fans” or
“fanatics” - if you look up the definition of the word “fanatic” I think it
applies to a lot of us, me included. Maybe because it has a sports connotation
and many here aren’t into sports? Whatever.. ALE has other (far stronger)
connotations that I think detract from what the abbreviation is supposed to be
about. I think AFOL just one of those things that’s here to stay.
BTW, LUG is also used by the Autodesk CAD Community for “Local User Group” - I
haven’t bothered to correct them yet..
Darrell
ALF or, I suppose,
(Nut Brown) ALE.
mmmm... Newcastle!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
(snip)
| |
IMO (also an abbreviation rather than an acronym!), to call oneself an
“enthusiast” is to make oneself sound hopelessly effete and snobbish. Heck,
if we really want to sound self-important, why don’t we just call ourselves
“Brights?”
|
(snip)
Whenever I read “IMO” I pronounce it in my noggin as “ih-my-oh” all fluidlike,
one word. Ihmyoh. The “ih” is like the beginning of “idiot”, the “my” is just
like the word, and the “oh” is like the beginning of “ohio”
IMHO is “ih-my-ho”, FYI ( <-- but that is just said letter by letter)
ROFL is “rofl” just as it is spelled, though...
~KEVOH <-- pronounced letter by letter ;)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
| |
So, you like it better because there was little thought behind it? Next
you’ll be saying you voted for Bush. :)
|
Holy moley, them’s fightin’ words!
|
OK, that was a low blow, I apologize!
| |
To be honest, I’ve never heard anyone describe himself as an enthusiast of
any hobby. Even if he did, he wouldn’t say “I’m an adult train enthusiast,”
because that sounds like he’s only into burlesque trains (which he may be,
but that’s beside the point...)
|
Heh, true in that case, but that’s because trains have become widely accepted as
an adult hobby. LEGO has not.
| |
If you’re really invested in the term, I’d suggest dropping “Adult” from the
acronym because it serves no purpose other than compartmentalization. If
you’re speaking to non-LEGO savvy listeners, chances are good that they’ll
recognize you as an adult, right?
|
Yes, and they’ll be thinking: “This guy plays with LEGOs? Does he still live
with his mother and collect stickers too?”
Or worse, if the context is such that it’s clear I’m a member of some sort of
group of LEGO hobbyists, they’ll be thinking: “This guy hangs out with kids that
are into LEGO? What is he, some sort of pedophile?” These images all come from
the commonly-held assumption that LEGO is a kids’ toy, and a group of LEGO
enthusiasts is therefore a group of kids -- apart from the speaker, who must
therefore be some sort of freak.
That’s why “adult” needs to be in the group term -- it makes it clear that the
group you’re a part of is not a bunch of kids, but fully grown men and women
like yourself (er, the speaker that is).
| |
What’s wrong with “Hobbyist” as a term? We all participate in LEGO as a
hobby, right?
|
Yes, and “hobbyist” certainly isn’t terrible. Adult LEGO Hobbyist doesn’t make
for much of an acronym, though. But I’d readily admit that it’s better than
AFOL.
| |
Do we all participate in LEGO as an enthusiasm? I know, it’s
not a 100% precise comparison, but I think it underscores my point that
“enthusiast,” though certainly part of the lexicon, just sounds tritely
artificial to me. Like referring to a “Bottle Shoppe” for no particular
reason.
|
Hmm, very interesting -- my experience with the language is quite different.
People describe themselves as enthusiasts of this or that all the time. Perhaps
it’s a regional thing? (FWIW, I grew up in the midwest and also lived for a
number of years in San Diego.)
| |
Jeez, is it as serious as all that? I couldn’t care less if society accepts
or understand my involvement in the hobby.
|
Well, suit yourself then, but I do care. Perfectly normal, grown men can play
with little toy trains all day long and nobody thinks them eccentric, but tell
somebody you collect and build with LEGO, and they look at you like you’re
trying to recapture your youth or some such nonsense. This annoys me. No, it’s
not important in the grand scheme of things, but I’ll do my bit to change it as
I can. We’ll knock those “World’s Greatest Hobby” train guys off their pedestal
yet!
| |
And, judging from the huge
response that LEGO train shows seem to garner, society welcomes “us” as well
as it welcomes any subculture of hobbyists. Even the aforementioned SCA,
haven for ubergeeks of all stripes, attracts a huge crowd whenever it puts on
a public demonstration.
|
So do bearded ladies and snake charmers -- people love a spectacle. It hardly
indicates acceptance (of the sort I’m after, anyway).
Best,
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
why don’t we just call ourselves
“Brights?”
|
lol I’m trying to push “neoilluminati” but it
isn’t taking:-( Maybe “Legoluminati”?
Just trying to help.
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Jeez, is it as serious as all that? I couldn’t care less if society accepts
or understand my involvement in the hobby.
|
Well, suit yourself then, but I do care. Perfectly normal, grown men can
play with little toy trains all day long and nobody thinks them eccentric,
but tell somebody you collect and build with LEGO, and they look at you like
you’re trying to recapture your youth or some such nonsense. This annoys me.
No, it’s not important in the grand scheme of things, but I’ll do my bit to
change it as I can. We’ll knock those “World’s Greatest Hobby” train guys
off their pedestal yet!
Best,
- Joe
|
It certainly is interesting following this thread..... I was a secret “AFOL/ALE”
from 1980-86. No internet, no knowledge of any other adult who even cared about
Lego. I was in the proverbial “Lego Closet” for all those years. Then 4 things
happened all within 6 months in 1986-87. Because I put a couple of my buildings
in a toy store window display, I suddenly got into a metro Detroit newspaper.
Then TLG sent someone over to interview me, and then I was on a Canadian TV news
type show (The Journal), which was doing a special on 25 years of Lego in Canada
(1987). And finally I got a call from Henry Wiencik, the author of The World Of
Lego Toys who interviewed me over the phone (page 30 of the book).
Well I was sorta scared, cuz I didn’t know what most of my friends and family
would think if they knew I was an AFOL!!! I had kept all of my Lego at my
buddy’s house, the friend who played with Lego with me when we were 7 years old.
Would I be a laughing stock at work? Would my friends think I was immature?
Would my family think I was in need of therapy? I felt like I was in my own
Woody Allen movie, but with Lego.
As it turned out, my angst turned to pleasure when they all thought it was way
cool. I even got a call from my 6th grade school teacher saying how proud she
was (I was about 30 years old at this time).
So I can really respect some people being sensitive to what others might think
of them. The word “ADULT” should stay in the acronym. At least for a few more
years....
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Rob Hendrix wrote:
> > Easier to pronounce is a good thing. Now all we need is one that is easier
> > to pronounce than MOC (which apparently some people called "mock" and others
> > call M-O-C).
>
> "mock" is already a word, so I propose we pronounce it like "smoke" and "choke"
>
> ~Kevoh
I could write:
AFOL whose LEGOs are MOC'ed
And my spell check gives:
A fool whose legs are mocked.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Joe Strout wrote:
> In lugnet.general, David Eaton wrote:
>
> > I don't think disk space is really the issue so much as bandwidth. IIRC he
> > filled up 2 T1's easily, which ain't cheap. People use BrickShelf a LOT. And I
> > think the vast majority of files are things like Bionicle avatars that get hit
> > like mad. But since they're small, they might not soak up as proportionally
> > large portion of the bandwidth, I dunno.
Outside linking to images could be something to cut out.
> > I think the issue is mostly maintenance and new code. A new payment system is
> > tricky, especially when dealing with "Hey, I paid, how come I have a problem"
> > type things that inevitably happen. Money makes it tricky. It's a fine idea in
> > that it's feasible and all, but first you need to find someone who's willing to
> > DO it :)
What about a free will funds drive like Peeron did? That seemed to work out for
them. Is it feasible?
> And the bandwidth problem could be solved by not actually hosting the images on
> the site, but instead, making it responsible only for the indexing and
> reporting. The actual images would go elsewhere. Those of us who have our own
> web sites could put them there; others could use any of the dozens of other
> photo sites, or use a free web host, or whatever.
>
> Such a system should scale very well, I would think, and couldn't really
> disappear as long as anyone was still interested in it.
This would definitely drop the BandWidth cost. Most internet providers give you
so many MB. Sure, posting a new set of pictures would cause a hit for a few
days, but that drops of quick. Also, how many people are posting new folders
every other day. Most MOCs probably take two to four weeks to make.
Some problems:
1. The external pictures could be unavailable for many reasons.
That server is down, etc.
2. Moderation would be less guaranteed.
A user could replace their images with less than desirable content. But, only
showing a logged on user's content after they post something worthwhile should
make this fairly guaranteed.
3. The pictures could disappear forever.
The user cancels their service, the user removes the pictures, etc. When people
switch to other endeavors they clear out their old clutter. Some here would
consider this a loss to the community.
Andy Cross
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Joe Strout wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
|
| |
| |
To be honest, I’ve never heard anyone describe himself as an enthusiast of
any hobby. Even if he did, he wouldn’t say “I’m an adult train enthusiast,”
because that sounds like he’s only into burlesque trains (which he may be,
but that’s beside the point...)
|
Heh, true in that case, but that’s because trains have become widely accepted
as an adult hobby. LEGO has not.
|
That’s a good point. If I were to hear a child described as “into trains,” I
would just assume that it meant Thomas, or maybe that he liked to watch his
parents’ train sets. More than being “accepted” as an adult hobby, I’d guess
that it’s a primarily adult hobby.
| |
if the context is such that it’s clear I’m a member of some sort of
group of LEGO hobbyists, they’ll be thinking: “This guy hangs out with kids
that are into LEGO? What is he, some sort of pedophile?” These images all
come from the commonly-held assumption that LEGO is a kids’ toy, and a group
of LEGO enthusiasts is therefore a group of kids -- apart from the speaker,
who must therefore be some sort of freak.
That’s why “adult” needs to be in the group term -- it makes it clear that
the group you’re a part of is not a bunch of kids, but fully grown men and
women like yourself (er, the speaker that is).
|
Not a bad argument. I have to admit that I’ve felt the discomfort of suspicious
stares while browsing the shelves in a particular store (in which any guy who
wasn’t clearly tethered to a responsible-seeming woman was, I felt, assumed to
be some kind of deviant). I guess that this same discomfort may arise in other
settings. too.
| |
Hmm, very interesting -- my experience with the language is quite different.
People describe themselves as enthusiasts of this or that all the time.
Perhaps it’s a regional thing? (FWIW, I grew up in the midwest and also
lived for a number of years in San Diego.)
|
I’ve lived in eastern, central, and western Pennsylvania for just about all of
my life, and I’ve never really come across “enthusiast” except to describe a
“gun enthusiast” or a “wine enthusiast,” and each term is laden with the
sterotypical political baggage that one can probably infer. Maybe that’s why
“enthusiast” as a self-descriptor leaves me cold?
| |
| |
Jeez, is it as serious as all that? I couldn’t care less if society accepts
or understand my involvement in the hobby.
|
Well, suit yourself then, but I do care. Perfectly normal, grown men can
play with little toy trains all day long and nobody thinks them eccentric,
but tell somebody you collect and build with LEGO, and they look at you like
you’re trying to recapture your youth or some such nonsense. This annoys me.
No, it’s not important in the grand scheme of things, but I’ll do my bit to
change it as I can.
|
This part of your post (and Gerhard’s reply) opened my eyes a bit. Honestly, I
don’t care what the outside world thinks of my hobby, but it’s wrong of me to
think that other LEGO hobbyists/enthusiasts don’t or shouldn’t care. I’m
content to share my involvement in the hobby online (and in this forum in
particular), but for those with a greater desire for outreach, a wider stage may
be desirable.
Maybe part of my attitude stems from my fondness for clone brands, which sort of
isolates me even here on LUGNET. Not that I’m complaining--the
.off-topic.clone-brands group is fine with me, but I think it’s helped me to
develop an attitude of “if anyone else does or doesn’t like it, that’s fine.”
| |
We’ll knock those “World’s Greatest Hobby” train guys
off their pedestal yet!
|
And let’s start with John “I love 8-wide” Neal. He’s nothing but trouble.
| |
| |
And, judging from the huge
response that LEGO train shows seem to garner, society welcomes “us” as well
as it welcomes any subculture of hobbyists. Even the aforementioned SCA,
haven for ubergeeks of all stripes, attracts a huge crowd whenever it puts
on a public demonstration.
|
So do bearded ladies and snake charmers -- people love a spectacle. It
hardly indicates acceptance (of the sort I’m after, anyway).
|
Hee-hee! That wasn’t quite how I intended it. I meant that the “spectacle” of
a LEGO train show seems (IMO) sufficiently cool--even for the uninitiated--to
engage their interest without inviting derision. Sure, you’ll get detractors,
but there are jerks in every group (like that 8-wide-loving so-and-so... (just
kidding)), but that’s how it goes.
For comparison, I’ve built a bunch of shirts and/or coats of chain mail. When
they’re displayed, someone will invariably say “you need to get a life,” rather
than “you connected 70,000 links by hand? That’s cool.” Oh, well. I can let
it bother me, or I can dismiss the detractor as a knucklehead(1).
Dave!
(1) That same knucklehead will, approximately 87.46% of the time, observe that
“this won’t stop a bullet.” Thanks for the ballistics lesson, you knob. And I
note that your ceramic/composite flak jacket won’t stop a weapon from 800 years
in the future, either.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Andrew Cross wrote:
> What about a free will funds drive like Peeron did? That seemed to work out
> for them. Is it feasible?
Brickshelf is already set up to accept monetary contributions. Details here:
http://www.brickshelf.com/contrib.html
You may donate with Paypal or mailed payment. Kevin even gives contributors some
perks:
1) No adverts are shown to any veiwers of your folders ever.
No adverts are shown to you on any page while you are logged in.
(requires a minimum contribution level)
2) You get an icon on your pages recognizing the level of your support.
So, put your pennies where your pictures are, and post a payment to BS.
Clark
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=8642
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Clark Stephens wrote:
> Brickshelf is already set up to accept monetary contributions. Details here:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/contrib.html
> ...
>
> So, put your pennies where your pictures are, and post a payment to BS.
That's assuming that money is the problem. I'm not convinced of that, and Kevin
certainly hasn't said so. In fact, he's said very little of anything at all,
except that he may stop accepting uploads at some point.
Of course I am only guessing, but it looks to me like Kevin may be lacking the
time or interest to maintain Brickshelf. This is a pretty common occurrence in
any one-person project. Money can help for a little while, if there's enough of
it, but ultimately it's likely to fail unless the project turns into a full-time
business or an open-source, user-driven one.
Best,
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Joe Strout wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Clark Stephens wrote:
>
> > Brickshelf is already set up to accept monetary contributions. Details here:
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/contrib.html
> > ...
> >
> > So, put your pennies where your pictures are, and post a payment to BS.
>
> That's assuming that money is the problem. <snip>
> and Kevin certainly hasn't said so.
> In fact, he's said very little of anything at all,
Umm, excuse me? To quote from here:
http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/
"Due to the loss of our major sponsor,..."
Exactly what English definition of sponsor are you using?
Clark
PS As for 'interest', the galleries are still online, the approvals of member's
pictures are still being made in a timely matter, and until recently, even the
instruction gallery was gaining new pdf files directly from Lego. I'd assume
your references to both 'a won man show' and a 'loss of interest' derive from
very few facts.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
For comparison, I’ve built a bunch of shirts and/or coats of chain mail.
When they’re displayed, someone will invariably say “you need to get a life,”
rather than “you connected 70,000 links by hand? That’s cool.” Oh, well. I
can let it bother me, or I can dismiss the detractor as a knucklehead(1).
Dave!
(1) That same knucklehead will, approximately 87.46% of the time, observe
that “this won’t stop a bullet.” Thanks for the ballistics lesson, you knob.
And I note that your ceramic/composite flak jacket won’t stop a weapon from
800 years in the future, either.
|
Dave, I got a good chuckle out of your knucklehead comments. Very funny!
Eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
(1) That same knucklehead will, approximately 87.46% of the time, observe
that “this won’t stop a bullet.” Thanks for the ballistics lesson, you knob.
And I note that your ceramic/composite flak jacket won’t stop a weapon from
800 years in the future, either.
|
LOL, probably won’t help much against a good sharp broadsword either...
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Clark Stephens wrote:
> > That's assuming that money is the problem. <snip>
> > and Kevin certainly hasn't said so.
> > In fact, he's said very little of anything at all,
>
> Umm, excuse me? To quote from here:
> http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/
>
> "Due to the loss of our major sponsor,..."
>
> Exactly what English definition of sponsor are you using?
Let's fill in the rest, shall we?
"Due to the loss of our major sponsor, Instruction and Catalog scans are no
longer available at Brickshelf.com."
That says absolutely nothing about the (IMHO) more important issue of user
pictures on Brickshelf, which I consider its primary purpose. The instructions
and catalog scans are available elsewhere, and could pretty easily be re-hosted
someplace new if necessary.
The crisis at hand is whether Brickshelf itself is going away, or is going to be
frozen (not accepting new uploads), as Kevin said might be the case. And
despite numerous calls here in the last week along the lines of "Let's have a
funding drive," Kevin has utterly failed to say anything like "Yes, that would
help, thank you very much."
If money were the primary problem (with keeping Brickshelf alive for
user-contributed content), I'd think he would have spoken up by now.
Best,
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Scott Lyttle wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Sonnich Jensen wrote:
> > My comments for now:
> >
> > ALE - it is not here - http://www.lugnet.com/~88/acronym_faq/all
> > no idea what ALE is, I do know what a AFOL is.
>
> I thought ALE was a particular type of alcoholic libation. I don't drink much,
> so I don't know the difference between, say.. Stout, Ale, Beer, etc..
>
> Scott
Scott, you've just pointed out why I don't care for that acronym. AFOL is fine
by me!
-Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Scott Lyttle wrote:
| |
I thought ALE was a particular type of alcoholic libation.
|
I thought ALE was a warm place reserved for agnostics like Dave!
JOHN (trying to keep up with your barbarisms, Dave!)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Scott Lyttle wrote:
| |
I thought ALE was a particular type of alcoholic libation.
|
I thought ALE was a warm place reserved for agnostics like Dave!
JOHN (trying to keep up with your barbarisms, Dave!)
|
Why don’t we use “Adult Hobbyist Of Lego” or AHOL! After all we are all AHOLs
once in a while! :-p
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Gerhard R. Istok wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Scott Lyttle wrote:
| |
I thought ALE was a particular type of alcoholic libation.
|
I thought ALE was a warm place reserved for agnostics like Dave!
JOHN (trying to keep up with your barbarisms, Dave!)
|
Why don’t we use “Adult Hobbyist Of Lego” or AHOL! After all we are all
AHOLs once in a while! :-p
Gary Istok
|
That is the best yet!!!!!!!
Adr.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Scott Lyttle wrote:
| |
I thought ALE was a particular type of alcoholic libation.
|
I thought ALE was a warm place reserved for agnostics like Dave!
JOHN (trying to keep up with your barbarisms, Dave!)
|
Hey, leave my haircut out of this.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Hey, leave my haircut out of this.
|
Shear thing, Dave!
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Gerhard R. Istok wrote:
| |
Why don’t we use “Adult Hobbyist Of Lego” or AHOL! After all we are all
AHOLs once in a while! :-p
|
ROTFLMAHOLO!
Good one, Gary! :-)
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Blocksidge wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Rob Hendrix wrote:
| |
Easier to pronounce is a good thing. Now all we need is one that is easier
to pronounce than MOC (which apparently some people called “mock” and others
call M-O-C).
|
“mock” is already a word, so I propose we pronounce it like “smoke” and
“choke”
|
Moke is also already a word, its a type of open
Mini
tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Joe Strout wrote:
> "Due to the loss of our major sponsor, Instruction and Catalog scans are no
> longer available at Brickshelf.com."
>
> That says absolutely nothing about the (IMHO) more important issue of user
> pictures on Brickshelf, which I consider its primary purpose. The
> instructions and catalog scans are available elsewhere, and could pretty
> easily be re-hosted someplace new if necessary.
>
> The crisis at hand is whether Brickshelf itself is going away, or is going
> to be frozen (not accepting new uploads), as Kevin said might be the case.
> And despite numerous calls here in the last week along the lines of "Let's
> have a funding drive," Kevin has utterly failed to say anything like "Yes,
> that would help, thank you very much."
>
> If money were the primary problem (with keeping Brickshelf alive for
> user-contributed content), I'd think he would have spoken up by now.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
He has:
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/brickshelf/?n=125
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=46097
"While I don’t think fundrasing drives are a viable long-term option (we need
somewhat reliable monthly cashflow), we certainly will not turn away impromptu
sponsors!"
Clark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Clark Stephens wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Joe Strout wrote:
> > If money were the primary problem (with keeping Brickshelf alive for
> > user-contributed content), I'd think he would have spoken up by now.
> >
> > Best,
> > - Joe
>
> He has:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/announce/brickshelf/?n=125
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=46097
>
> "While I don’t think fundrasing drives are a viable long-term option (we need
> somewhat reliable monthly cashflow), we certainly will not turn away impromptu
> sponsors!"
>
> Clark
Both of those are passive requests. In the same vein, I'm always interested in
getting free money, but that isn't the same like saying 'I'm broke and need to
get some cash. I'm going to sell my Collection to make money.' I think what Joe
is looking for is for Brickshelf and Kevin to explicitly state that they need
help to raise the money and provide BrickShelf with regular income.
Right now I can buy a Brickshelf membership, but the only benefit is that I
don't have to look at ads while browsing if I am signed in. I must sign in
every time I visit Brickshelf, rather than saving my signed-in status like most
sites do these days. Also, membership must be renewed in January. Right now, I
could pay $20 for a yearly membership, and only get 6 months of service.
Not that I don't think Brickshelf is a worthy cause as-is, but if benefits
aren't more substantial, it will remain a pure charity case.
-Lenny
|
|
| |
Hello!
> > I don't care if either is "easier" to pronounce--no one I know "pronounces"
> > [ETA,] [RSVP,] or [USA.] "AFOL" is an abbreviation, not an acronym.
I say "eta" (That's a terror organization in the Spanish Basque region.) or
E-T-A (meaning "estimated time of arrival"), R-S-V-P (what the heck is it?) and
U-S-A. But I say "afol" and "mock" and "burp" because:
> unlike the
> other initialisms you mention, AFOL when spelled quickly sounds more like a
> word (ayafoal) than a string of letters.
Or does anybody say B-U-R-P to a BURP? Or S-N-O-T to SNOT?
> So, from now on, I'll be introducing my passion this way: "I'm an adult LEGO
> enthusiast"
When discribing my hobby to non-LEGO-fans I usually say "I build with LEGO."
Telling them any Acronym wouldn't help them much. And they often see for
themselves that I am an adult.
> > IMO (also an abbreviation rather than an acronym!), to call oneself an
> > "enthusiast" is to make oneself sound hopelessly effete and snobbish.
That's what I think, too.
Also, in German "enthusiast" is considered a "foreign word" (dunno how the
situation is in English), not everybody is able to spell it correctly, many
people don't know what it means or don't even know the word at all. Words like
this are merely used by advanced users of language (AUOLs).
How I understand it: An enthusiast is somebody who gets always glistering eyes
when speaking about his hobby. - That's truely not the case with me, so I am not
an enthusiast. Therefore "ALE" wouldn't apply to me at all. I am an adult friend
of LEGO (LEGO the bricks, not LEGO the company). That's best aconym-ed in
"AFOL".
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Hello!
Hi JoJo!
> I say "eta" (That's a terror organization in the Spanish Basque region.) or
> E-T-A (meaning "estimated time of arrival"), R-S-V-P (what the heck is it?)
Respondez Sil Vous Plait (1) HTH!
++Lar (can we pick one FUT? I think .people but what do I know?)
1 - IIRC(2)... it's French or something for "get back to me whether you are
coming to my party or not because I need to know how much beer to order" or
something...
2 - Which I never say as "irk", I always say Eye Eye Are Cee...
|
|
| |
Hello!
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Respondez Sil Vous Plait (1) HTH!
Merci beaucoup!
> (can we pick one FUT?)
I posted to .general because I wrote about something LEGO-related. And to
.debate because it was debate-ish.
> 1 - IIRC(2)... it's French or something for "get back to me whether you are
> coming to my party or not because I need to know how much beer to order"
Yeah, thanks, I'm coming to that party! Would you pay for my taxi?
> 2 - Which I never say as "irk", I always say Eye Eye Are Cee...
How do you pronounce "LOL"? Better asked: Does anybody ever pronounce it? Ain't
www-acronyms like that only used in written communication?
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Yeah, thanks, I'm coming to that party! Would you pay for my taxi?
Taxi OR beer, whichever's less. I guess... Assuming I have any money left after
BF... Apparently some rumor got started that I'm buying rounds at Rocklands???
Gonna be hard to pull off because Nik'll be with me again this year and I don't
think I can sneak him in the way I did 2 years ago...
Anyway, not gonna happen.
Well maybe I'll buy rounds just for the people that actually like me (and can
prove it... somehow...), that should be a lot cheaper...
> > 2 - Which I never say as "irk", I always say Eye Eye Are Cee...
>
> How do you pronounce "LOL"? Better asked: Does anybody ever pronounce it? Ain't
> www-acronyms like that only used in written communication?
Ya I think so, except in rare circumstances. But the question still comes up,
how do you say it "in your head" when you're reading it, even if you don't voice
it... I actually say LOL "loll" in my head, believe it or not, unlike IIRC...
|
|
| |
> Well maybe I'll buy rounds just for the people that actually like me (and
> can
> prove it... somehow...), that should be a lot cheaper...
Crap, there's always a catch isn't there?
Rob
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Johannes Koehler wrote:
| |
How do you pronounce “LOL”? Better asked: Does anybody ever pronounce it?
Ain’t www-acronyms like that only used in written communication?
|
Ya I think so, except in rare circumstances. But the question still comes up,
how do you say it “in your head” when you’re reading it, even if you don’t
voice it... I actually say LOL “loll” in my head, believe it or not, unlike
IIRC...
|
What a strange person! Acros are to save time typing, neh? So, why wouldn’t
one voice it out “in one’s head”? Whenever I read an acro, I unsuffit.
Unless a person is too important and their time too valuable to take that extra
nanosecond or two to do it? ;-)
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Johannes Koehler wrote:
| |
How do you pronounce “LOL”? Better asked: Does anybody ever pronounce it?
Ain’t www-acronyms like that only used in written communication?
|
Ya I think so, except in rare circumstances. But the question still comes
up, how do you say it “in your head” when you’re reading it, even if you
don’t voice it... I actually say LOL “loll” in my head, believe it or not,
unlike IIRC...
|
What a strange person! Acros are to save time typing, neh? So, why
wouldn’t one voice it out “in one’s head”? Whenever I read an acro, I
unsuffit.
|
The voices in my head talk slowly, so that I can understand what they are
saying... apparently yours don’t, and talk so fast that you’re getting garbled
messages?
That certainly would explain a lot!
| |
Unless a person is too important and their time too valuable to take that
extra nanosecond or two to do it? ;-)
|
Yep, that’s me all right...
|
|
| |
> > Unless a person is too important and their time too valuable to take that
> > extra nanosecond or two to do it? ;-)
>
> Yep, that's me all right...
Of all the people who *could* have responded to [JOHN], I knew you would be
the first (if not the only) to chime in and say that. You're becoming too
easy to read. Time to change your modus operandi...
Rob
|
|
| |
I am happy to announce that the Brickshelf Instuction Library will be coming
back online soon. Kevin Loch has asked us, and we agreed, to host it at
Peeron.com. Since we have to write a new interface for the library, it is not
ready yet to go live, but we hope it will be available soon.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> I am happy to announce that the Brickshelf Instuction Library will be coming
> back online soon. Kevin Loch has asked us, and we agreed, to host it at
> Peeron.com. Since we have to write a new interface for the library, it is not
> ready yet to go live, but we hope it will be available soon.
This is EXCELLENT news, and a real releif!
HOORAY!
Legoswami
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
| |
I am happy to announce that the Brickshelf Instuction Library will be coming
back online soon. Kevin Loch has asked us, and we agreed, to host it at
Peeron.com. Since we have to write a new interface for the library, it is not
ready yet to go live, but we hope it will be available soon.
|
Great news! (^.^)
Much thanks to Dan, Jenn, and others.
-Suz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> I am happy to announce that the Brickshelf Instuction Library will be coming
> back online soon. Kevin Loch has asked us, and we agreed, to host it at
> Peeron.com. Since we have to write a new interface for the library, it is not
> ready yet to go live, but we hope it will be available soon.
Great news! Thanks much! Will (does) that include the catalouge scans?
Thanks and God Bless,
Nathan
|
|
| |
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:54:49PM +0000, Nathan Todd wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> > I am happy to announce that the Brickshelf Instuction Library will
> > be coming back online soon. Kevin Loch has asked us, and we agreed,
> > to host it at Peeron.com. Since we have to write a new interface for
> > the library, it is not ready yet to go live, but we hope it will be
> > available soon.
>
> Great news! Thanks much! Will (does) that include the catalouge scans?
Yes, but not immediately.
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
| |
Great news! Thank you Peeron.
e
|
|
| |
Hello!
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> I am happy to announce that the Brickshelf Instuction Library will be coming
> back online soon. Kevin Loch has asked us, and we agreed, to host it at
> Peeron.com. Since we have to write a new interface for the library, it is not
> ready yet to go live, but we hope it will be available soon.
That's indeed good news. Thanks for taking that over, Peeron!
Now that this matter is resolved: What's happening to the MOC galleries on
BrickShelf now?
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> I am happy to announce that the Brickshelf Instuction Library will be coming
> back online soon.
That is great news, I am very glad The instructions Have found a new home.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> I am happy to announce that the Brickshelf Instuction Library will be coming
> back online soon. Kevin Loch has asked us, and we agreed, to host it at
> Peeron.com. Since we have to write a new interface for the library, it is not
> ready yet to go live, but we hope it will be available soon.
And there will be much rejoicing!
|
|
| |
ok
this still leaves me with.... should I move my pictures or let them stay at
BS?
Sonnich
"Dan Boger" <dan@peeron.com> wrote in message news:II8GxH.1KEE@lugnet.com...
> I am happy to announce that the Brickshelf Instuction Library will be • coming
> back online soon. Kevin Loch has asked us, and we agreed, to host it at
> Peeron.com. Since we have to write a new interface for the library, it is • not
> ready yet to go live, but we hope it will be available soon.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Sonnich Jensen wrote:
> ok
>
> this still leaves me with.... should I move my pictures or let them stay at
> BS?
AFAIK, Kevin has no plans to shut down the gallery - so I would say certainly
keep them there.
I think people forget that the best thing about hosting pictures on BS isn't the
free hosting (which is still cool), but the fact that that's the ONE PLACE
people go to find new LEGO creations.
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> I am happy to announce that the Brickshelf Instuction Library will be coming
> back online soon. Kevin Loch has asked us, and we agreed, to host it at
> Peeron.com. Since we have to write a new interface for the library, it is not
> ready yet to go live, but we hope it will be available soon.
I am glad to hear the good news.
With Peeron becoming an even more valuable resource for the community (not that
it wasn't valuable already), are there any plans for redundancy so if there were
problems with Peeron (God forbid) that we would not be stuck as a community?
Jude
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Jude Beaudin wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> > I am happy to announce that the Brickshelf Instuction Library will be coming
> > back online soon. Kevin Loch has asked us, and we agreed, to host it at
> > Peeron.com. Since we have to write a new interface for the library, it is not
> > ready yet to go live, but we hope it will be available soon.
>
> I am glad to hear the good news.
>
> With Peeron becoming an even more valuable resource for the community (not that
> it wasn't valuable already), are there any plans for redundancy so if there were
> problems with Peeron (God forbid) that we would not be stuck as a community?
Well, I assume that by "problem with Peeron" you mean a problem with Jennifer
and myself :) But there are other members of the community that have access to
the server, the code, and the data. So even if we were to go away, the site
could continue to run. We also keep Peeron funds seperate, pay for hosting a
year at a time (which means there will be time to find a new host if need be),
and the site does support it's own expenses, meaning it's not a burden to
continue running it.
So while that's not quite redundant, I'd say it's fairly safe.
Dan
|
|
| |
"Dan Boger" <dan@peeron.com> schreef in bericht
news:II8GxH.1KEE@lugnet.com...
> I am happy to announce that the Brickshelf Instuction Library will be
> coming
> back online soon. Kevin Loch has asked us, and we agreed, to host it at
> Peeron.com. Since we have to write a new interface for the library, it is
> not
> ready yet to go live, but we hope it will be available soon.
Now there's some great news!
Thanks for all the efforts.
Jaco
|
|
| |
It took a little bit longer than we had hoped, but the scans are now available
again. We still need to add the PDF instructions, and the catalogs, but we felt
that releasing what we have already would be better than waiting for everything
to be ready.
Try it out - The Peeron Instruction and Catalog Scans Library (PICSL)[1].
If you have any comments or suggestions, be it new features or ways to make the
user interface better, or bug reports, please let us know!
We would like to thank Kevin for hosting this important resource for all these
years, and The LEGO Group and LEGOFan for allowing us to publish the Library
online
Dan and Jennifer Boger.
[1] http://www.peeron.com/scans/
|
|
| |
It took a little bit longer than we had hoped, but the scans are now available
again. We still need to add the PDF instructions, and the catalogs, but we felt
that releasing what we have already would be better than waiting for everything
to be ready.
Try it out - The Peeron Instruction and Catalog Scans Library (PICSL)[1].
If you have any comments or suggestions, be it new features or ways to make the
user interface better, or bug reports, please let us know!
We would like to thank Kevin for hosting this important resource for all these
years, and The LEGO Group and LEGOFan for allowing us to publish the Library
online
Dan and Jennifer Boger.
[1] http://www.peeron.com/scans/
(reposting to the right groups :)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Dan Boger wrote:
> It took a little bit longer than we had hoped, but the scans are now available
> again. We still need to add the PDF instructions, and the catalogs, but we felt
> that releasing what we have already would be better than waiting for everything
> to be ready.
>
> Try it out - The Peeron Instruction and Catalog Scans Library (PICSL)[1].
>
> If you have any comments or suggestions, be it new features or ways to make the
> user interface better, or bug reports, please let us know!
That's excellent Dan! You got that up & going ultra quick, thanks!
I do have a query though - I couldn't find set 8040. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a
PDF because it's pretty old, and I had page 13 bookmarked because of the
infamous 5x9 plate :) So I'm just wondering if you definitely have all the
non-PDF scans there?
ROSCO
|
|
| |
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 05:32:25AM +0000, Ross Crawford wrote:
> I do have a query though - I couldn't find set 8040. I'm pretty sure
> it wasn't a PDF because it's pretty old, and I had page 13 bookmarked
> because of the infamous 5x9 plate :) So I'm just wondering if you
> definitely have all the non-PDF scans there?
I knew I forgot to mention something! Some of the older scans were
actually invalid pictures, so they didn't import cleanly. I still need
to go through the ones that were rejected, and import them manually.
I just found 8040, and it was one of those scans... But it's imported
now.
Sorry for the confusion!
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Dan Boger wrote:
> It took a little bit longer than we had hoped, but the scans are now available
> again. We still need to add the PDF instructions, and the catalogs, but we felt
> that releasing what we have already would be better than waiting for everything
> to be ready.
>
> Try it out - The Peeron Instruction and Catalog Scans Library (PICSL)[1].
>
> If you have any comments or suggestions, be it new features or ways to make the
> user interface better, or bug reports, please let us know!
Wowsers, that rocks! Thanks!
A suggestion I have is to integrate the scan lib into the search.
If you want to find a particular set now, I think you have to search for the set
inventory, then follow the link to the scan. Although you have pics turned off
by default for the inventory, that extra step does add a few secs (and
presumably some server load?), so can you allow "scans" as a search type and if
selected, skip the set inventory step? I'd default to "scans" while in the PICSL
but not while elsewhere, if that makes sense.
I dunno if scans is the right term but "sets" is already used... perhaps change
that so you have "set inventory" and "set instructions" as choices?
|
|
| |
Inventories and Scans together at last. I am really glad to see that you were
able to carry the torch here Dan, thank you very much.
Scott
In lugnet.publish, Dan Boger wrote:
> It took a little bit longer than we had hoped, but the scans are now available
> again. We still need to add the PDF instructions, and the catalogs, but we felt
> that releasing what we have already would be better than waiting for everything
> to be ready.
>
> Try it out - The Peeron Instruction and Catalog Scans Library (PICSL)[1].
>
> If you have any comments or suggestions, be it new features or ways to make the
> user interface better, or bug reports, please let us know!
>
> We would like to thank Kevin for hosting this important resource for all these
> years, and The LEGO Group and LEGOFan for allowing us to publish the Library
> online
>
> Dan and Jennifer Boger.
>
> [1] http://www.peeron.com/scans/
>
> (reposting to the right groups :)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Dan Boger wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 05:32:25AM +0000, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > I do have a query though - I couldn't find set 8040. I'm pretty sure
> > it wasn't a PDF because it's pretty old, and I had page 13 bookmarked
> > because of the infamous 5x9 plate :) So I'm just wondering if you
> > definitely have all the non-PDF scans there?
>
> I knew I forgot to mention something! Some of the older scans were
> actually invalid pictures, so they didn't import cleanly. I still need
> to go through the ones that were rejected, and import them manually.
>
> I just found 8040, and it was one of those scans... But it's imported
> now.
>
> Sorry for the confusion!
No problem at all! Ahhhhh there it is http://www.peeron.com/scans/8040-1/13
ROSCO
|
|
|
