Subject:
|
Re: Brickshelf going away???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 3 Jun 2005 07:42:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7707 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Supporting Brickshelf so it doesn't go away!!!
|
| (...) Brickshelf is already set up to accept monetary contributions. Details here: (URL) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 3-Jun-05, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Brickshelf going away???
|
| (...) I'm not sure what a Bionicle avatar is, but I do agree that bandwidth is likely the major expense. (...) Right. And, while I'm not disparaging Kevin's efforts -- Brickshelf has been a valuable service to the community for years -- its (...) (19 years ago, 2-Jun-05, to lugnet.general)
|
125 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
