| |
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
|
|
| |
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, 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, 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, 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
|
|
|
