 | | | | | |
Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Maj still seems to be up
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
>
> Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
>
> Maj still seems to be up
>
> Tim
Nice of Kevin to give us some warning.
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
>
> Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
>
> Maj still seems to be up
>
> Tim
Good job giving everyone time to back there stuff up, Kevin
Everyone else, get on Flickr. Brickshelf has sucked since the 90's.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jon Palmer wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> > Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
> >
> > Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
> >
> > Maj still seems to be up
> >
> > Tim
>
> Good job giving everyone time to back there stuff up, Kevin
> Everyone else, get on Flickr. Brickshelf has sucked since the 90's.
Kevin's known for taking a good idea, starting something we want, and then
abandoning all administration of it. Oh, without passing the torch gracefully.
I estimate I probably lost 3/4 of my MOC photos.
Aaron
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
You and 3/4 of the people on Lugnet.
---
Rick
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Rick Hallman wrote:
> You and 3/4 of the people on Lugnet.
>
>
> ---
> Rick
Hum.. you mean you never backed up any of the stuff you uploaded to brickshelf?
shame, shame, shame...
I backup and make a backup of the backup just in case.
Learned my lesson a while back when I lost 90% of my data to
1) Back up WEEKLY!
2) Make a backup of the backup and have it OFF SITE
3) Promised I would never again trust my data to just 1 source!
-AHui
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jon Palmer wrote:
| |
Everyone else, get on Flickr.
|
No, Flickr is a load of garbage. It’s way, way slower to load than just about
any other image-hosting site I’ve ever used, it has crap size restrictions on
the actual image presentations for no reason other than it wants to maintain a
“site look”, which, frankly, is totally unnecessary for an image-hosting site,
and it tempts users to add pointless fluff that tends to hinder rather than help
examination of images.
People should try Maj, or Yesalbum, or Photobucket, or google for “image
hosting” if they don’t like those, but for the love of all that is sane in this
world DON’T use Flickr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Paul Baulch wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Jon Palmer wrote:
| |
Everyone else, get on Flickr.
|
No, Flickr is a load of garbage. It’s way, way slower to load than just about
any other image-hosting site I’ve ever used, it has crap size restrictions on
the actual image presentations for no reason other than it wants to maintain
a “site look”, which, frankly, is totally unnecessary for an image-hosting
site, and it tempts users to add pointless fluff that tends to hinder rather
than help examination of images.
People should try Maj, or Yesalbum, or Photobucket, or google for “image
hosting” if they don’t like those, but for the love of all that is sane in
this world DON’T use Flickr.
|
Yeah, so maybe our Flickr experiences are very different. I love the site.
I’ve loved it since it first came out. The interface is clean, the commenting
and annotation system is outstanding and etc etc etc. It has about a dozen good
features that probably could have been implemented on Brickshelf years ago.
Don’t use Maj. It has the same antiquated file system and structure that
Brickshelf had and unless Kevin gets on here and says otherwise, I anticipate it
will disappear too. And Photobucket? You gotta be kiddin me.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Paul Baulch wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Jon Palmer wrote:
| |
Everyone else, get on Flickr.
|
No, Flickr is a load of garbage. It’s way, way slower to load than just about
any other image-hosting site I’ve ever used, it has crap size restrictions on
the actual image presentations for no reason other than it wants to maintain
a “site look”, which, frankly, is totally unnecessary for an image-hosting
site, and it tempts users to add pointless fluff that tends to hinder rather
than help examination of images.
People should try Maj, or Yesalbum, or Photobucket, or google for “image
hosting” if they don’t like those, but for the love of all that is sane in
this world DON’T use Flickr.
|
I’d have to take great exception to this point. I love Flickr. It’s an
absolutely fantastic.
There have been slower periods, certainly, but honestly I’ve only noticed them
pre-Yahoo! acquisition when they were growing in leaps and bounds and were still
a private entity. (I remember a number of times over the years Brickshelf having
the same issues) I have been actively using Flickr for a while now and have more
than 2,000 photos posted.
Maybe I don’t understand the point you mean but it absolutely does not have
“crap size restrictions”. I’ve uploaded 3000pixel wide images regularly without
problems and Flickr automatically resizes and posts multiple sizes, each with a
unique permalink. For $25/year, I have unlimited uploads of unlimited bandwidth
of unlimited storage. Not bad. Not bad at all.
As far as the “site look” being “totally unnecessary”... again, couldn’t
disagree more. Flickr isn’t meant to be simply “image hosting”. It’s meant to
allow people to not only post, but to share, discuss, engage with photos.
Brickshelf was 99% image hosting sites like MOCpages had to popup in order to
add a layer of context to the photos. Flickr does both of these things. It’s not
a bad workflow, it’s just different.
You’re absolutely right to point out that if you want a duplicate the experience
and functionality of Brickshelf that you should look at Yesalbum or Photobucket.
My question, however, is - in 2007, why would you want to duplicate Brickshelf
functionality? (This isn’t intended to be run or downplay the contribution that
Brickshelf added over the years, just an honest question about what we want for
the future)
One last note about Flickr - as a company (both pre- and post- Yahoo!), they
have always had a fantastic “community focus”. They listen, they react, they
care. As someone who studies the company+community relationship for a living, I
have been continually amazed and impressed with how they react to and treat
their community. That should be important to a group of fans like ours.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Private Citizen
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Paul Baulch wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Jon Palmer wrote:
| |
Everyone else, get on Flickr.
|
No, Flickr is a load of garbage. It’s way, way slower to load than just
about any other image-hosting site I’ve ever used, it has crap size
restrictions on the actual image presentations for no reason other than it
wants to maintain a “site look”, which, frankly, is totally unnecessary for
an image-hosting site, and it tempts users to add pointless fluff that tends
to hinder rather than help examination of images.
People should try Maj, or Yesalbum, or Photobucket, or google for “image
hosting” if they don’t like those, but for the love of all that is sane in
this world DON’T use Flickr.
|
I’d have to take great exception to this point. I love Flickr. It’s an
absolutely fantastic.
|
Sorry to follow-up to my own post (I wish I could simply edit the existing post
instead). Forgot to mention that Flickr also has an incredible robust API that
allows other sites to tap into the functionality of Flickr with relative ease.
Three of my favorite uses of the API:
- Picnik (www.picnik.com) - incredibly robust image editing and manipulation capabilities. Freemium account scheme (although everything is free during their initial launch), all web-based, and absolutely incredible.
- Moo Cards (www.moo.com) - For $20, you can create a box of “Moo Cards”, small business cards with your text info on one side and photos of your selection from your Flickr account on the other. It’s fast and very very easy.
- Post/Blog via email - I can take a photo on my cell phone and using the standard Flickr functionality, send it to a special Flickr email address. One address posts the photo straight to the site, one address posts for “friends and family” access only, one sends the photo straight to my blog.
There are many, many more cool Flickr functions out there, but these are three
that I use regularly that many people don’t know about.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Private Citizen
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hello!
In lugnet.general, Jon Palmer wrote:
> Good job giving everyone time to back there stuff up, Kevin
> Everyone else, get on Flickr. Brickshelf has sucked since the 90's.
I admit it would have been good to get a warning before BrickShelf was shut
down. However, I have been using it excessively, all my Lego pictures were
stored there for free, and I was thankful that a Lego picture service like this
existed. BrickShelf had its disadvantages, but I don't think it "sucked". It was
free, plain and easy. That's more than one can expect from a picture service.
Flickr is free (isn't it), but looking at pictures there it lasts forever until
you get the pics displayed the way you want to look at them. And you have to
make the adjustments for every single picture in a gallery. And it's not a
Lego-only service, so you probably won't find all the good stuff. Up to now we
only had to comb through a bunch of Bionicle pictures to finally get some
(sorry, Bionicle-lovers) real Lego pis. On Flickr we have to comb through
Wedding pics, Car show pics, holiday and vacation pics, nature pics...
(Yes, I know there is a search there.)
Bye
Jojo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Flickr is free (isn't it),
There are two levels: Free, which gives you xxxx, and paid, which removes any
and all restrictions for $25/year.
> but looking at pictures there it lasts forever until
> you get the pics displayed the way you want to look at them. And you have to
> make the adjustments for every single picture in a gallery. And it's not a
> Lego-only service, so you probably won't find all the good stuff. Up to now we
> only had to comb through a bunch of Bionicle pictures to finally get some
> (sorry, Bionicle-lovers) real Lego pis.
> On Flickr we have to comb through
> Wedding pics, Car show pics, holiday and vacation pics, nature pics...
There is a fairly easy solution to this: simply set some guidelines for you
"tag" your photos. Other Flickr users can also add tags to your photos as they
go. Certainly in our community, this is something we shouldn't have trouble
doing. At Brickfest PDX 2007, for instance, the organizers mentioned the tag
for the event was "brickfest2007". Here's the 3,000+ photos that search returns:
http://flickr.com/photos/tags/brickfest2007/
There's also another solution, albeit a bit more complicated: Use the Flickr API
to create a tool or tools that help "LEGOize" the experience. There is a metric
ton of potential in this, both for display as well as posting (and searching and
manipulation and...).
(For a list of some of the API tools, check this out: http://www.flickrbits.com)
> (Yes, I know there is a search there.)
And a darn good one at that.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Private Citizen
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
>
> > Flickr is free (isn't it),
>
> There are two levels: Free, which gives you xxxx, and paid, which removes any
> and all restrictions for $25/year.
Aarg! Must be early... or I must be tired, anyway. I mean to replace the xxxx
with the actual details and forgot before hitting submit. Anyway, for the free
accounts, you get according to Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/):
"When you have a free Flickr account, you can upload 100MB worth of photos each
calendar month. This is a bandwidth limit, and not an amount of space that you
have on Flickr servers."
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Private Citizen
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hi Jake!
Thanks for the information and clarification.
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> "When you have a free Flickr account, you can upload 100MB worth of photos each
> calendar month. This is a bandwidth limit, and not an amount of space that you
> have on Flickr servers."
Hm, having 94MB worth of MOC pictures on my HD that sounds manageable.
Bye
Jojo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Hi Jake!
>
>
> Thanks for the information and clarification.
>
>
> In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> > "When you have a free Flickr account, you can upload 100MB worth of photos each
> > calendar month. This is a bandwidth limit, and not an amount of space that you
> > have on Flickr servers."
>
> Hm, having 94MB worth of MOC pictures on my HD that sounds manageable.
I'll tell you, I have absolutely zero problems paying $25/year for the Flickr
services. I use it daily now, uploading tons of RAW photos at full quality. Plus
you get some additional features that are pretty handy. I've been posting the
baby pics there and now have a score of my family members signed up as Pro
members too.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Private Citizen
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I am with you all the way, Jake. I think Flickr is an incredible deal, and one
that will probably be around for a long time thanks to it being integrated with
Yahoo and with the revenue streams from printing, etc.
For $25 a year I can archive my pictures, and yet allow download of them at
reduced resolution to the public. I have not explored all its features, but it
took me only 60 seconds to send them my money after I read about it. I think I
have a couple of gig of archived stuff up there now and feel pretty good about
it being there when I need it. I thought it to be one of the coolest sites I had
ever come across and incredibly easy to use and easy to organize pictures. In
fact, I think that Flickr would make a great LEGO community site as you can set
up groups, tag pictures, comment on pics,etc. etc. They do have a maximum
picture size of 10 meg per picture and some of mine sometimes run way over that,
but those are archived on DVD's and I then simply reduce them to 9.9 meg.
I have no idea what is in store with LEGO Universe, but the ability to upload
custom MOC's would be a nice feature for cultivating the community. It would of
course have to be moderated. But could be integrated into the Factory concept.
Link from LEGO Universe to the factory so that could actually be within LU and
post to the factory. I can really imagine LU as being an incredible fun place
and also a place to move a lot of product. One could go into a "class room" and
learn to use LDD or how to make a NXT sensor do something, etc. Got off topic a
bit--but to reiterate, I have found Flickr one of the best deals I have ever had
on the Internet.
Tommy Armstrong
The BrickEngraver
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> > Hi Jake!
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the information and clarification.
> >
> >
> > In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> > > "When you have a free Flickr account, you can upload 100MB worth of photos each
> > > calendar month. This is a bandwidth limit, and not an amount of space that you
> > > have on Flickr servers."
> >
> > Hm, having 94MB worth of MOC pictures on my HD that sounds manageable.
>
> I'll tell you, I have absolutely zero problems paying $25/year for the Flickr
> services. I use it daily now, uploading tons of RAW photos at full quality. Plus
> you get some additional features that are pretty handy. I've been posting the
> baby pics there and now have a score of my family members signed up as Pro
> members too.
>
> Jake
> ---
> Jake McKee
> Private Citizen
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tommy Armstrong wrote:
> I am with you all the way, Jake. I think Flickr is an incredible deal, and one
> that will probably be around for a long time thanks to it being integrated with
> Yahoo and with the revenue streams from printing, etc.
Another thing about Flickr - you can get the Flickr Uploadr program (for Mac or
Windows) to do drag-n-drop uploading of images. It's sooooo much easier than
creating a zip file or uploading one file at a time on Brickshelf.
Also by getting a pro account you can organize photos into sets and collections
of sets, as well as applying tags to photos, to organize them any way your heart
desires.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Tommy Armstrong wrote:
> > I am with you all the way, Jake. I think Flickr is an incredible deal, and one
> > that will probably be around for a long time thanks to it being integrated with
> > Yahoo and with the revenue streams from printing, etc.
>
> Another thing about Flickr - you can get the Flickr Uploadr program (for Mac or
> Windows) to do drag-n-drop uploading of images. It's sooooo much easier than
> creating a zip file or uploading one file at a time on Brickshelf.
>
> Also by getting a pro account you can organize photos into sets and collections
> of sets, as well as applying tags to photos, to organize them any way your heart
> desires.
Hey! This is great info! For a while I was planning to just move all my stuff
to maj.com but Flickr pro w/ Flickr Uploadr sounds much easier. Thanks.
Adr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Adrian Egli wrote:
| |
Hey! This is great info! For a while I was planning to just move all my stuff
to maj.com but Flickr pro w/ Flickr Uploadr sounds much easier. Thanks.
|
That’s the dilemma. Easier for the uploader, but harder for the surfer to find.
I am too familiar with the Brickshelf/maj model and will stick with it for the
time-being.
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Adrian Egli wrote:
>
> > Hey! This is great info! For a while I was planning to just move all my
> > stuff to maj.com but Flickr pro w/ Flickr Uploadr sounds much easier.
> > Thanks.
>
> That's the dilemma. Easier for the uploader, but harder for the surfer to
> find. I am too familiar with the Brickshelf/maj model and will stick with it
> for the time-being.
This is where I think there's a lot of opportunity to create a "Flickr Viewer"
app using the Flickr API. You can have the same user experience of fast,
LEGO-only surfing and still use Flickr.
I'm also not convinced that Brickshelf is/was easier to find anything. Other
than the latest uploads, random browsing, or links from other sites, I found it
very, very difficult to locate content I was specifically looking for,
especially once a bit of time had passed. (This isn't railing on the site or
Kevin, just sharing my personal experience)
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Private Citizen
"Keeping hope alive"
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Adrian Egli wrote:
| |
Hey! This is great info! For a while I was planning to just move all my
stuff to maj.com but Flickr pro w/ Flickr Uploadr sounds much easier.
Thanks.
|
That’s the dilemma. Easier for the uploader, but harder for the surfer to
find. I am too familiar with the Brickshelf/maj model and will stick with it
for the time-being.
|
This is where I think there’s a lot of opportunity to create a “Flickr Viewer”
app using the Flickr API. You can have the same user experience of fast,
LEGO-only surfing and still use Flickr.
|
But you are a wiz-kid, Jake, and I am but a simple, old-timer:-)
| |
I’m also not convinced that Brickshelf is/was easier to find anything. Other
than the latest uploads, random browsing, or links from other sites, I found
it very, very difficult to locate content I was specifically looking for,
especially once a bit of time had passed. (This isn’t railing on the site or
Kevin, just sharing my personal experience)
|
Yeah, that I’ll admit, but I never really looked for things past just browsing
the recent pages. What I liked was the one-site shopping, and that it was an
AFOL site, too. Flickr is bigbox. I like the corner drugstore guy;-)
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
Yeah, that I’ll admit, but I never really looked for things past just
browsing the recent pages. What I liked was the one-site shopping, and that
it was an AFOL site, too. Flickr is bigbox. I like the corner drugstore
guy;-)
|
A bit off-topic here, but I’d hardly call Flickr a “bigbox”. From their earliest
days they have been a community oriented company in a way that nearly every
other company around can learn from. They built a fantastic tool always keeping
in mind community needs and actively community feedback.
They did so good at it, in fact, that they were acquired by Yahoo!. This has
been a big help for them in dealing with precisely the same scaling/bandwidth
issues that I assume are causing Kevin to turn off Brickshelf.
I understand and agree that supporting an AFOL-created site is a great thing to
do. But the problem with that option is that once a community grows beyond a
certain mass, you’re left with precisely the sort of situation we have here now.
I keep harping on the Flickr API and the specialized “Flickr Viewer” application
(not something I could probably create personally) is that the likelihood of
Yahoo! going away is drastically less than anything any one of the AFOLs could
create specifically for the AFOL community. If we can find a smart solution(s)
that helps give a Brickshelf-like user experience, while also creating something
that we can reliably and safely assume will exist into the foreseeable future,
it’s a win-win.
Even if Brickshelf were to return at the top of the hour, it’s always going to
be at an ongoing risk for closure. Brickshelf (and really, any photo sharing
site) is a victim of its own success. The more usage it gets, the
business/financial risk grows exponentially. On top of that, any entirely free
site should be considered a limited time activity. I’ve yet to think of a
project on the Web that has been (mostly) ad/sponsor-free, subscription free,
and major contributor-free, and still been around much longer than a few months.
Kevin has done an amazing thing for many, many years. But perhaps it’s time to
really work on a solution that will comfortably last us all another 8 years (or
more) and let Kevin retire with grace.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Private Citizen
“Keeping hope alive”
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Brickshelf is back up, with a warning date of the end of the month.
Now’s your chance, GO!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
>
> > Flickr is free (isn't it),
>
> There are two levels: Free, which gives you xxxx, and paid, which removes any
> and all restrictions for $25/year.
What about "hot linking" to a photo in Flickr? I can't find an easy way to do
that, and that was one of the things I liked best about Brickshelf.
jt
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, James Trobaugh wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> >
> > > Flickr is free (isn't it),
> >
> > There are two levels: Free, which gives you xxxx, and paid, which removes any
> > and all restrictions for $25/year.
>
> What about "hot linking" to a photo in Flickr? I can't find an easy way to do
> that, and that was one of the things I liked best about Brickshelf.
Ok, I found where you can get the direct URL to the image on Flickr, but the
rules say you must include a link back to Flickr if you post the URL to another
web page.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, James Trobaugh wrote:
> In lugnet.general, James Trobaugh wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> > > In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> > >
> > > > Flickr is free (isn't it),
> > >
> > > There are two levels: Free, which gives you xxxx, and paid, which removes any
> > > and all restrictions for $25/year.
> >
> > What about "hot linking" to a photo in Flickr? I can't find an easy way to do
> > that, and that was one of the things I liked best about Brickshelf.
>
>
> Ok, I found where you can get the direct URL to the image on Flickr, but the
> rules say you must include a link back to Flickr if you post the URL to another
> web page.
Yes, but wouldn't you probably do that anyway?
See the way I use Flickr on my blog, brickpile.com, for an example of how it can
work well for LEGO images.
Flickr is also used widely at classic-space.com.
Another nice thing about Flickr is groups. You can join a group around some
topic or other, and share photos with members of that group.
And everything is RSS-subscribable.
People who are complaining about Flickr being hard to use just need to get up to
speed on the power of tagging and RSS, and you'll laugh at the mere idea of
Brickshelf once you do.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
>
> Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
>
> Maj still seems to be up
>
> Tim
Maybe it's been hacked? I can't imagine he wouldn't have given people a chance
to save their images.... :-(
Maggie C.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Maggie Cambron wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> > Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
> >
> > Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
> >
> > Maj still seems to be up
> >
> > Tim
>
> Maybe it's been hacked? I can't imagine he wouldn't have given people a chance
> to save their images.... :-(
Actually, I can - it would have swamped his server, big time.
It's gonna take ages to fix all the links on my web pages, and that's even WITH
backups of all my pics.
And that's not to mention all the links I have to other people's pics... oh
wait, I just did...
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Maggie Cambron wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> > Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
> >
> > Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
> >
> > Maj still seems to be up
> >
> > Tim
>
> Maybe it's been hacked? I can't imagine he wouldn't have given people a chance
> to save their images.... :-(
>
> Maggie C.
I'm glad I kept all my pics--but like Maggie, I have a hard time buying into the
theory that someone would just shut 'er down with little/no warning. This has to
be a hack job...I hope I'm right about this--
Play Well and Prosper,
Matthew
"The Brick Detective"
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Matthew Crandall wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Maggie Cambron wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> > > Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
> > >
> > > Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
> > >
> > > Maj still seems to be up
> > >
> > > Tim
> >
> > Maybe it's been hacked? I can't imagine he wouldn't have given people a chance
> > to save their images.... :-(
> >
> > Maggie C.
>
> I'm glad I kept all my pics--but like Maggie, I have a hard time buying into the
> theory that someone would just shut 'er down with little/no warning. This has to
> be a hack job...I hope I'm right about this--
>
> Play Well and Prosper,
>
> Matthew
> "The Brick Detective"
Kevin has almost never communicated with the lego community at all and he's
barely updated Brickshelf over the years at all. It looked like it was from
1995. I'm not surprised by this move at all.
I'm just hoping it really isn't gone or there is a server backup somewhere. The
internet archive is not an ideal way to find all of the lost content.
Imagine all the years of creations built by builders that have come and gone. If
this is all really lost it's a stunning blow to the community. Seriously lame to
do this with no warning.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Crandall wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Maggie Cambron wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
| |
Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Maj still seems to be up
Tim
|
Maybe it’s been hacked? I can’t imagine he wouldn’t have given people a
chance to save their images.... :-(
Maggie C.
|
I’m glad I kept all my pics--but like Maggie, I have a hard time buying into
the theory that someone would just shut ‘er down with little/no warning. This
has to be a hack job...I hope I’m right about this--
Play Well and Prosper,
Matthew
“The Brick Detective”
|
There was a thread a couple of years
ago where there was a suggestion on BS to transfer all your images to Maj as BS
was shutting down, so that should probably have been taken as a warning. Kevin
hasn’t mentioned anything about it since, the message was removed, and all
seemed to return to normal, so you can be excused for thinking BS was going to
stay.
It doesn’t surprise me that he’d pull the plug with no further warning. It’s not
like he’s been particularly interested in running the site for a long time. It’s
good practice to have all your images saved locally anyway.
Allister
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
There was a thread a couple of
years ago where there was a suggestion on BS to transfer all your images to
Maj as BS was shutting down, so that should probably have been taken as a
warning.
|
But would anyone trust another of his sites now? Remember he did the same thing
with zerostuds.com - suddenly it was just gone.
For a site which he must have known a lot of people check daily and was a
cornerstone of the Lego community, this is terrible behaviour. I mean there were
years of pictures there - you could see how models had changed as new pieces
came out and styles of building developed and spread.
Here’s hoping someone else picks up the torch and starts another site with the
same functionality.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Allister McLaren wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Crandall wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Maggie Cambron wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
| |
Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Maj still seems to be up
Tim
|
Maybe it’s been hacked? I can’t imagine he wouldn’t have given people a
chance to save their images.... :-(
Maggie C.
|
I’m glad I kept all my pics--but like Maggie, I have a hard time buying into
the theory that someone would just shut ‘er down with little/no warning.
This has to be a hack job...I hope I’m right about this--
Play Well and Prosper,
Matthew
“The Brick Detective”
|
There was a thread a couple of
years ago where there was a suggestion on BS to transfer all your images to
Maj as BS was shutting down, so that should probably have been taken as a
warning. Kevin hasn’t mentioned anything about it since, the message was
removed, and all seemed to return to normal, so you can be excused for
thinking BS was going to stay.
It doesn’t surprise me that he’d pull the plug with no further warning. It’s
not like he’s been particularly interested in running the site for a long
time. It’s good practice to have all your images saved locally anyway.
|
Ack! Not a good thread to walk into... ...Unfortunately, it’s not just one’s
own photos being lost (if this is true). I keep copies of my MOC images on CD
ROM, and recent ones on my hard drive. But that doesn’t save the numerous MOCs
of other builders that I have bookmarked in an “inspiration” folder (I doubt I’m
the only one to do this). And I couldn’t count the number of hyperlinks I have
on various message boards, blogs, and websites that would now be broken.
Granted, I was relying on a free service to host my images to save on capacity
on my own sites, so one could argue I get what I pay for. But it’s still sad
and frustrating nonetheless (if indeed the service has been lost).
-Hendo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
|
|
|
|
| |
Ack! Not a good thread to walk into... ...Unfortunately, it’s not just
one’s own photos being lost (if this is true). I keep copies of my MOC
images on CD ROM, and recent ones on my hard drive. But that doesn’t save
the numerous MOCs of other builders that I have bookmarked in an
“inspiration” folder (I doubt I’m the only one to do this). And I couldn’t
count the number of hyperlinks I have on various message boards, blogs, and
websites that would now be broken.
Granted, I was relying on a free service to host my images to save on
capacity on my own sites, so one could argue I get what I pay for. But it’s
still sad and frustrating nonetheless (if indeed the service has been lost).
-Hendo
|
the links issue is really too bad, it’s a hard reality of internets life. our
viclug site has a links and tools page that is heavy with brickshelf links and
it won’t be fun updating it. there’s a large array of folders locally here that
are cool images copied off of brickshelf and the likes but it’s sorted by
subject, so finding out the original creator will be nigh impossible. this can’t
be recreated as people won’t know the site is down for awhile if ever and the
archive nature of the site is gone.
plus as a fellow viclug’e pointed out this am, not sure if it’s been mentioned
here yet, that mocpages is crippled by this. the thumbnails still work as
mocpages generated the site, but the images are deeplinked. I’ve already noticed
some people’s avatars as broken links as well, this is a very widespread bomb to
be dropped. sure this is inevitable, maybe predictable, but still really sucks
and hard not to feel pouty about it.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Joseph Williams wrote:
| |
plus as a fellow viclug’e pointed out this am, not sure if it’s been
mentioned here yet, that mocpages is crippled by this.
|
I forgot to mention BrickWiki is also severely
crippled as we were using special templates to link to BS folders and images in
a huge number of articles.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Crandall wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Maggie Cambron wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> > > Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
> > >
> > > Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
> > >
> > > Maj still seems to be up
> > >
> > > Tim
> >
> > Maybe it's been hacked? I can't imagine he wouldn't have given people a chance
> > to save their images.... :-(
> >
> > Maggie C.
>
> I'm glad I kept all my pics--but like Maggie, I have a hard time buying into the
> theory that someone would just shut 'er down with little/no warning. This has to
> be a hack job...I hope I'm right about this--
Well, if I hacked the site, I think I'd put a message slightly more flamboyant
than "Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any
inconvenience". But I am not a h@x0r, so I have no idea what goes on in their
heads.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
>
> Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
>
> Maj still seems to be up
>
> Tim
i just sent off an email with the 2 main questions everyone is asking. hopefully
we'll get some answers.
ondrew
p.s. is there anyone who could temporaraly host brickshelf for lets say 2 weeks
so people can backup there photos?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
> p.s. is there anyone who could temporaraly host brickshelf for lets say 2 weeks so people can backup there photos?
If Kevin would need Peeron to help with that, it can be done. Keep in mind that
Brickshelf proper was a *huge* bandwidth hog - I don't remember the exact
numbers, but it was multiple TB/mo.
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> If Kevin would need Peeron to help with that, it can be done. Keep in mind
> that Brickshelf proper was a *huge* bandwidth hog - I don't remember the
> exact numbers, but it was multiple TB/mo.
It was enough that he had to incorporate the website to even be allowed the
option of purchasing the amount of bandwidth that he needed, as the "personal
use" chart topped out well below his needs, and they apparently wouldn't make
exceptions for a customer who was actively willing to pay more (and no, even
though I comprehend that, it makes no sense to me either).
Anyways, it's a moderate annoyance to me, since I never set up an account...yet.
I'd intended to in about a month or two (need to get set up to do studio-style
photography again), but I'd been holding off until I could post good photos of
my updated Prowler as my first batch.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
This is not directed at Tim, but rather some of the whiners that responed to his
post above...
When I first saw that BrickShelf was down, I was all gung-ho to see what I could
do to help bring it back up. As the host for Classic-Castle, I do have have a
dedicated server and excess bandwidth, so some help could have been provided.
Now, after seeing the reaction here and elsewhere, I am rapidly starting not to
care if you whiney vultures ever get your photos back.
Kevin provided a basically free service to everyone for YEARS. Everyone used it
without much thought tot he costs involved. Sure, he could have handled this
latest episode better, but for now none of us know the circumstances involved.
I know that *I* would certainly have grown tired of supporting a site for a
bunch of ungrateful users.
And as for the supposed "Lego Community"? Useless. Instead of being a true
community and banding together to help save a pillar of the community, what to
we get? Personal attacks on Kevin and a bunch of whining.
Do something or quit your complaining.
Troy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Troy, thank you for posting this - much more eloquently than I would have been
able to.
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> Troy, thank you for posting this - much more eloquently than I would have been
> able to.
>
> Dan
I second that, Thanks Troy. I would say more, but I am currently busy
re-uploading pics for my store. I am also happy to pay for the service
brickshelf has provided. I assumed that Brickshelf was part of LUGNET, and that
my donation was to help both, but I guess I was wrong. Darren
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
> This is not directed at Tim, but rather some of the whiners that responed to his
> post above...
>
> When I first saw that BrickShelf was down, I was all gung-ho to see what I could
> do to help bring it back up. As the host for Classic-Castle, I do have have a
> dedicated server and excess bandwidth, so some help could have been provided.
>
> Now, after seeing the reaction here and elsewhere, I am rapidly starting not to
> care if you whiney vultures ever get your photos back.
>
> Kevin provided a basically free service to everyone for YEARS. Everyone used it
> without much thought tot he costs involved. Sure, he could have handled this
> latest episode better, but for now none of us know the circumstances involved.
> I know that *I* would certainly have grown tired of supporting a site for a
> bunch of ungrateful users.
>
> And as for the supposed "Lego Community"? Useless. Instead of being a true
> community and banding together to help save a pillar of the community, what to
> we get? Personal attacks on Kevin and a bunch of whining.
>
> Do something or quit your complaining.
>
> Troy
Pardon me, but if you provide a MAJOR service to a community that a huge number
of people use, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS FREE OR NOT, it is pure politeness
and respect to GIVE WARNING BEFORE YOU DISCONTINUE SERVICE. Honestly, to do
otherwise says that you don't give a shit about the community members who used
the service.
As to the reason it was taken down, I don't know. I seriously doubt it was
hacked as has been speculated, and Kevin DOES have a history of making drastic
changes with no warning. In addition, he has publicly stated that people should
always be keeping local copies of images and not to use the site as your sole
repository.
Since maj is up and running, and it uses the same account system (even the hit
counters are combined), I don't see any reason not to move the files over there.
I know maj uses far more bandwidth than BS does, so I'd be hard-pressed to say
it was a bandwidth issue. And if it WERE a cost issue, it would be FAR better
to transition it to a pay site of some kind. Many people would still use it.
All I can say is that I'm glad anything up there that I don't have on my machine
already, I don't really care about. I will miss being able to view models by
Japanese builders, however.
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jeff Stembel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
| |
This is not directed at Tim, but rather some of the whiners that responed to
his post above...
|
|
**Snip**
| |
| |
And as for the supposed “Lego Community”? Useless. Instead of being a true
community and banding together to help save a pillar of the community, what
to we get? Personal attacks on Kevin and a bunch of whining.
Do something or quit your complaining.
Troy
|
Pardon me, but if you provide a MAJOR service to a community that a huge
number of people use, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS FREE OR NOT, it is pure
politeness and respect to GIVE WARNING BEFORE YOU DISCONTINUE SERVICE.
Honestly, to do otherwise says that you don’t give a shit about the community
members who used the service. • **snip**
Jeff
|
Okay, folks--
Troy: Point made. While I am sad that this service has ended, if someone was
running it out of pocket, bless them. I do resent being called a vulture,
however--I have said nothing against a man I never met. That is unkind and
somewhat unfair--and with no information as to the why of a shutdown, is
patiently absurd. All I said was that I hoped Brickshelf was hacked--nothing
more.
Jeff: Point also made. It is respectful for such a major resource to at least
say goodbye and give say, two weeks warning. I have kept all my pics...like I
said, it’s the photo geek in me. I will miss this source of inspiration,
however. I will also miss the pics from LEGO conventions that I could not be at.
Stray thought: what would happen if we lost LUGnet? Or Bricklink? or any number
of other AFOL/LEGO related websites? It gives me pause to think through what we
might wish to consider to help those who keep these kinds of sites afloat. Might
be money, might be time....
Now, for everyone else: regardless of what has happened (and why), my question
is simple: what do we as a community do to replace--and possibly make better--a
repository for MOC pics, LEGO convention pics, etc.?
I guess what I am asking is this: Instead of carping and complaining about what
we’ve lost (for whatever reason), what do we do now--and where do we do it? Can
we make this negative a positive, somehow?
And, do we all need to pitch in a small fee--annual or otherwise--to keep such a
place afloat?
Seems to me that’d be the spirit of “Play Well.”
Play Well and Prosper,
Matthew
“The Brick Detective”
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jeff Stembel wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
> >
> > Do something or quit your complaining.
>
> Pardon me, but if you provide a MAJOR service to a community that a huge number
> of people use, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS FREE OR NOT, it is pure politeness
> and respect to GIVE WARNING BEFORE YOU DISCONTINUE SERVICE. Honestly, to do
> otherwise says that you don't give a shit about the community members who used
> the service.
It says nothing of the sort. As a JLUG admin we had a similar decision to make
very recently, and chose the same path. We had no obligation to warn anyone,
even though we had a picture gallery with pics people may not have kept a copy
of. That's just the way things go sometimes. Heck, I even helped Kevin with
monetary support on a couple of occasions and I still don't feel I had any right
to expect a warning.
While I will miss Brickshelf as a resource, and just the occasional random
browse, my main issue is fixing my pages that relied on it. But I should never
have relied on it, so that's my fault anyway, not Kevin's.
And like Troy said, the best thing is to do something instead of just
complaining - the JLUG regulars had a new forum up within hours, and chat within
a few days. And people here called them community misfits.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Jeff Stembel wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
> > >
> > > Do something or quit your complaining.
> >
> > Pardon me, but if you provide a MAJOR service to a community that a huge number
> > of people use, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS FREE OR NOT, it is pure politeness
> > and respect to GIVE WARNING BEFORE YOU DISCONTINUE SERVICE. Honestly, to do
> > otherwise says that you don't give a shit about the community members who used
> > the service.
>
> It says nothing of the sort. As a JLUG admin we had a similar decision to make
> very recently, and chose the same path. We had no obligation to warn anyone,
> even though we had a picture gallery with pics people may not have kept a copy
> of. That's just the way things go sometimes. Heck, I even helped Kevin with
> monetary support on a couple of occasions and I still don't feel I had any right
> to expect a warning.
>
> While I will miss Brickshelf as a resource, and just the occasional random
> browse, my main issue is fixing my pages that relied on it. But I should never
> have relied on it, so that's my fault anyway, not Kevin's.
>
> And like Troy said, the best thing is to do something instead of just
> complaining - the JLUG regulars had a new forum up within hours, and chat within
> a few days. And people here called them community misfits.
>
> ROSCO
So how do we fix lugnet post links?
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
>
> So how do we fix lugnet post links?
Same as you've always had to do when a site linked here disappeared - repost
with a new link, or live with it.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> And like Troy said, the best thing is to do something instead of just
> complaining - the JLUG regulars had a new forum up within hours, and chat
> within a few days.
And I hear the 'Invite To Chat' function is going to be ready pretty soon too.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
Stajinaria Community Overlooker
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Jeff Stembel wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
> > >
> > > Do something or quit your complaining.
> >
> > Pardon me, but if you provide a MAJOR service to a community that a huge number
> > of people use, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS FREE OR NOT, it is pure politeness
> > and respect to GIVE WARNING BEFORE YOU DISCONTINUE SERVICE. Honestly, to do
> > otherwise says that you don't give a shit about the community members who used
> > the service.
>
> It says nothing of the sort. As a JLUG admin we had a similar decision to make
> very recently, and chose the same path. We had no obligation to warn anyone,
> even though we had a picture gallery with pics people may not have kept a copy
> of. That's just the way things go sometimes. Heck, I even helped Kevin with
> monetary support on a couple of occasions and I still don't feel I had any right
> to expect a warning.
Different situation; there were issues beyond your control involved with the
loss of data and the lack of backups. In addition, discussion of the situation
was out in the open.
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
> This is not directed at Tim, but rather some of the whiners that
> responed to his post above...
-snip-
>
> Do something or quit your complaining.
>
> Troy
Well put, Troy, spotlighted.
Kevin owes 'the community' nothing. 'The community' owes brickshelf a lot.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
LEGO Ambassador
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Thanks a lot for dragging Kevin out of the flames Troy, I couldn’t agree more.
Now, I don’t know what has happened, but we know that BS was a problem for
Kevin, and he may have good reasons for not wanting to continue it.
However from a community-perspective, it’s a cornerstone of our HISTORY, as many
has said, it’s not our own pictures, but those of others that we’ve bookmarked
or linked to - that isn’t avaliable elsewhere, and may never be...
There must
be a gazillion posts and links all over the internet that is totally worthless
right now - and the idea that it should be possible to reupload/fix even a
fraction of these pictures and links one at a time is simply ridiculusly
unrealistic.
So Tim, if you’re reading this:
There’s plenty of other possibilities for hosting pictures, and I can understand
if you have reasons for wanting to get rid of it, but wouldn’t it be possible to
lock it for further uploads and/or turn it over to somebody else?
If it was locked for further uploads and if we could be “sure” that it stayed
up, I imagine that the traffic would gradually drop as people begin to upload
and link to pictures elsewhere - until only the vital traffic caused by
bookmark-browsing for inspiration was left, together with the occasional hits
from somebody reading up on old posts.
Anyways, Even though I’ve hardly uploaded anything to Brickshelf since I got my
own webpage, I’d like to heartily thank you for hosting our pictures for so
long.
I hope you’re well Kevin, and that it’s still possible to find a less
drastic sollution that everybody can live with.
Cheers NB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sorry about the double post here, Troy’s post got me confused about who was
actually behind Brickshelf, so please disregard the one above this.
Damn I hate that you can’t edit your posts here :(
Cheers NB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Thanks a lot for dragging Kevin out of the flames Troy, I couldn’t agree more.
Now, I don’t know what has happened, but we know that BS was a problem for
Kevin, and he may have good reasons for not wanting to continue it.
However from a community-perspective, it’s a cornerstone of our HISTORY, as many
has said, it’s not our own pictures, but those of others that we’ve bookmarked
or linked to - that isn’t avaliable elsewhere, and may never be...
There must
be a gazillion posts and links all over the internet that is totally worthless
right now - and the idea that it should be possible to reupload/fix even a
fraction of these pictures and links one at a time is simply ridiculusly
unrealistic.
So Kevin, if you’re reading this:
There’s plenty of other possibilities for hosting pictures, and I can understand
if you have reasons for wanting to get rid of it, but wouldn’t it be possible to
lock it for further uploads and/or turn it over to somebody else?
If it was locked for further uploads and if we could be “sure” that it stayed
up, I imagine that the traffic would gradually drop as people begin to upload
and link to pictures elsewhere - until only the vital traffic caused by
bookmark-browsing for inspiration was left, together with the occasional hits
from somebody reading up on old posts.
Anyways, Even though I’ve hardly uploaded anything to Brickshelf since I got my
own webpage, I’d like to heartily thank you for hosting our pictures for so
long.
I hope you’re well Kevin, and that it’s still possible to find a less
drastic sollution that everybody can live with.
Cheers NB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Niels Bugge wrote:
> However from a community-perspective, it's a cornerstone of our HISTORY, as
> many has said, it's not our own pictures, but those of others that we've
> bookmarked or linked to - that isn't avaliable elsewhere, and may never
> be...¬ There must be a gazillion posts and links all over the internet that
> is totally worthless right now - and the idea that it should be possible to
> reupload/fix even a fraction of these pictures and links one at a time is
> simply ridiculusly unrealistic.
>
> [So Kevin, if you're reading this:]
>
> There's plenty of other possibilities for hosting pictures, and I can
> understand if you have reasons for wanting to get rid of it, but wouldn't it
> be possible to lock it for further uploads and/or turn it over to somebody
> else?
>
> If it was locked for further uploads and if we could be "sure" that it stayed
> up, I imagine that the traffic would gradually drop as people begin to upload
> and link to pictures elsewhere - until only the {vital} traffic caused by
> bookmark-browsing for inspiration was left, together with the occasional hits
> from somebody reading up on old posts.
First, Kevin, you've cost me thousands of dollars. If it weren't for Brickshelf
I'd probably be off doing some boring hobby. Brickshelf was one of the hooks
that drew me in and I'm very glad to be here. For this, I thank you.
Second, as I sit here and look over my list of brickshelf links of good ideas
and then think about the thousands of brickshelf images that are linked from the
lugnet archive, if anything can be done to preserve brickshelf (without further
postings if necessary), I would strongly support/encourage it. Even better would
be publicly viewable, but paid member only posting on brickshelf from here on
out (presumably with Kevin as emeritus administrator, or retaining ownership and
licensing out the site to some sucker or group of suckers foolish enough to take
on the administrative and financial responsibilities).
Third, maybe the days of a custom built photo sharing site have been superseded
by the massive photo sharing sites, but brickshelf has two things that no other
site could ever have. Whatever it is you see on brickshelf, you know it will be
lego related. And brickshelf has been a focal point for the AFOL community, the
site where the majority of AFOL pictures have been posted.
Sure, we can twiddle with the markers on flickr, but that will just increase the
learning curve for a newbe and instead of being front and center, the AFOL will
fade in to the background of flickr. I assume we will also run into problems
posting .ldr, .lxf, .pdf, movies, etc to flickr. Losing the one one stop shop we
have with brickshelf.
So thank you Kevin for providing brickshelf, hopefully it will live on in some
form. And thank you Niels for eloquently expressing your ideas.
Benn
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Second, as I sit here and look over my list of brickshelf links of good ideas
> and then think about the thousands of brickshelf images that are linked from the
> lugnet archive, if anything can be done to preserve brickshelf (without further
> postings if necessary), I would strongly support/encourage it.
I would be happy if it were possible to buy the entire BS content database on a
set of DVD's or something. Does anyone know how much space the entire BS
archive is? How many 4.7GB DVDs would it take up?
At the very least it would be nice if Kevin could donate the drives that contain
all the BS content to the online community (lugnet, peeron, etc) so that it may
be possible for someone to resruect the site in an archive-only format.
drc
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Benn Coifman wrote:
| |
Second, as I sit here and look over my list of brickshelf links of good ideas
and then think about the thousands of brickshelf images that are linked from
the lugnet archive, if anything can be done to preserve brickshelf (without
further postings if necessary), I would strongly support/encourage it. Even
better would be publicly viewable, but paid member only posting on brickshelf
from here on out
|
Amen, brother. And I’m willing to put my $$$ where my mouth is, and I have
emailed Kevin as much.
I thought that it was great that Kevin finally started taking donations, but he
ceased it. It is certainly worth $2.00 a month to me to support Brickshelf.
Heck, throw in another $2.00 for LUGNET. Fiddy bucks a year for sites like
Brickshelf and LUGNET to exist?! Every day, in a New York minute!
I say we flood Kevin with $$$ with some sort of “Save Ferris” fundraiser. We
could scrape up 5 figures in no time.
Come on, Kevin! Give us the word. Give us a PP account addy....
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
| |
This is not directed at Tim, but rather some of the whiners that responed to
his post above...
When I first saw that BrickShelf was down, I was all gung-ho to see what I
could do to help bring it back up. As the host for Classic-Castle, I do have
have a dedicated server and excess bandwidth, so some help could have been
provided.
Now, after seeing the reaction here and elsewhere, I am rapidly starting not
to care if you whiney vultures ever get your photos back.
Kevin provided a basically free service to everyone for YEARS. Everyone used
it without much thought tot he costs involved. Sure, he could have handled
this latest episode better, but for now none of us know the circumstances
involved. I know that *I* would certainly have grown tired of supporting a
site for a bunch of ungrateful users.
And as for the supposed “Lego Community”? Useless. Instead of being a true
community and banding together to help save a pillar of the community, what to
we get? Personal attacks on Kevin and a bunch of whining.
Do something or quit your complaining.
Troy
|
Absolutely. We were all guests at his house, if you will. At some point the
party is over and he has a right to turn out the lights and send us home. I see
nothing wrong with his decision. I’m saddened by it, there was lots of
inspiration on the site, but I am viewing it as a challenge now because I have
seen some excellent ideas that I was going to try to duplicate but now I have
to work to create it myself. I see lots of criticism here, and I remember
similar groans over the loss of the instruction gallery a couple of years ago,
but again few people offered to take over the reins. I see mostly people
yelling “foul” or personal offense.
“Ask not what your Brickshelf can do for you, ask what you can do for your
Brickshelf.”
-Scott
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Scott Towne wrote:
| |
Absolutely. We were all guests at his house, if you will. At some point the
party is over and he has a right to turn out the lights and send us home.
|
Except that even the worst host would allow his guests to grab their jacket and
car keys before throwing them out the door.
Of course he was within his rights and of course we should be grateful for what
BS was and work to replace it. However, it would have taken very little effort
on his part to write a note here saying it was closing down and we had X days to
retrieve our files.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
> This is not directed at Tim, but rather some of the whiners that responed to his
> post above...
>
> When I first saw that BrickShelf was down, I was all gung-ho to see what I could
> do to help bring it back up. As the host for Classic-Castle, I do have have a
> dedicated server and excess bandwidth, so some help could have been provided.
>
> Now, after seeing the reaction here and elsewhere, I am rapidly starting not to
> care if you whiney vultures ever get your photos back.
>
> Kevin provided a basically free service to everyone for YEARS. Everyone used it
> without much thought tot he costs involved. Sure, he could have handled this
> latest episode better, but for now none of us know the circumstances involved.
> I know that *I* would certainly have grown tired of supporting a site for a
> bunch of ungrateful users.
>
> And as for the supposed "Lego Community"? Useless. Instead of being a true
> community and banding together to help save a pillar of the community, what to
> we get? Personal attacks on Kevin and a bunch of whining.
>
> Do something or quit your complaining.
>
> Troy
Troy, something like this doesn't have to be either black or white, one side or
the other. Brickshelf can be awesome because it's free and a good resource and
it can also suck because it wasn't really ever improved and *especially* because
it just went away with no warning at all.
I really like that Brickshelf was free. I like that Kevin provided this service.
I'm also allowed to not like that it wasn't updated and Kevin didn't maintain
much of a relationship with the community. I also do not like that he has
apparently just thrown everyone's images out with no warning at all.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
Now, after seeing the reaction here and elsewhere, I am rapidly starting not
to care if you whiney vultures ever get your photos back.
|
You expected rounds of applause?
| |
Kevin provided a basically free service to everyone for YEARS. Everyone used
it without much thought tot he costs involved. Sure, he could have handled
this latest episode better, but for now none of us know the circumstances
involved. I know that *I* would certainly have grown tired of supporting a
site for a bunch of ungrateful users.
|
The people who used Brickshelf were very grateful for it - at no point, even
now, have we become “ungrateful”. The whole reason we are angry and disappointed
is because it was a site we cared about. Most people were aware of the costs
involved, but there were ads on the site to cover the cost and if he needed more
money all he had to do was ask. Yes it was a free service, but even a free
service needs to be able to be relied upon or nobody would ever use it in the
first place.
| |
And as for the supposed “Lego Community”? Useless. Instead of being a true
community and banding together to help save a pillar of the community, what to
we get? Personal attacks on Kevin and a bunch of whining.
|
Kevin, as far as we know, is the only person responsible for Brickshelf, so it
makes sense to direct questions and frustrations at him.
| |
Do something or quit your complaining.
Troy
|
For most of us there is nothing we can do except vent our frustration - perhaps
you have a server that could be used or you’ve spoken to Kevin so you feel less
powerless and let down, but to tell people to put up or shut up isn’t going to
help the situation, it’s just going to make people more resentful.
In all, that was a particularly nasty tirade that completely misjudged the
reasons for why people are upset. We are upset because we cared about the
site, not because we are at all ungrateful. You talk about the Lego community
being “useless” while spitting venom at AFOLs here and defending someone who has
harmed the Lego community more than anything else I can think of.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
| |
Do something or quit your complaining.
|
While I respect the direction you have steered this conversation, I have to say
I disagree with some of your comments Troy.
First of all, many of the replies here have simply voiced frustration or concern
over the possible loss to the online community - and a decade of images and
links IS a loss no matter how many of us saved locally. Such replies are valid
comments to share and neither attack the admins of BS nor should they be readily
dismissed as “whining”.
Second, you suggest this might not have happened if only users had been willing
to support BS. Posts that come below yours in the orginal thread have mixed
evidence that perhaps BS was surviving financially on the ads alone. Further, I
see mention that some members had indeed made donations. It seems possible the
site went down for more than just financial reasons. But if finances were a
factor, I for one would have been okay with it being a pay site. ...As one
poster mentioned here, it’s rather amazing Lugnet is only $10 plus an ocassional
donation campaign. (I’d be willing to pay more here too!)
Third, you ask for people to take action rather than complain. But what action
can most of us take? While most could forgo that extra $20 S@H set each year to
afford a subscription to a paysite, few of us have computer servers laying
around our living rooms, nor is everone who posts here savvy with the networks,
hardware, or software involved. (Maybe I’m wrong about that - but I certainly
don’t/am not. I can hardly manage the webspace I have for my little 100MB site!
And other than being an end-user, I stopped learning new stuff about computer
science when the Commodore 128 was still in use.) Further, we are spread out
across the globe, and several of us lead busy lives. So other than donating
money (which we are willing but no longer able), donating skills (which not all
of us have), or dontating time (which not all of us have), what is this
“something” you think we can do? Other than simply HOPE the community has more
benevolent tech-savvy server-owners, I’m out of ideas.
-Hendo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hendo,
I will reply here to your post, but will try to cover everything above it as
well. Please do not think that everything is pointed at you.
In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson wrote:
| |
First of all, many of the replies here have simply voiced frustration or
concern over the possible loss to the online community - and a decade of
images and links IS a loss no matter how many of us saved locally. Such
replies are valid comments to share and neither attack the admins of BS nor
should they be readily dismissed as “whining”.
|
Please not that my original post specifically said “SOME” and not “ALL” replies.
I can certainly understand that there is frustration at the loss. That was my
first reaction as well, as I have quite a few photos there. I probably have
them all SOMEWHERE on my computer, but it is certainly going to be a pain to
find and gather them all up again.
| |
Second, you suggest this might not have happened if only users had been
willing to support BS. Posts that come below yours in the orginal thread
have mixed evidence that perhaps BS was surviving financially on the ads
alone. Further, I see mention that some members had indeed made donations.
It seems possible the site went down for more than just financial reasons.
But if finances were a factor, I for one would have been okay with it being a
pay site. ...As one poster mentioned here, it’s rather amazing Lugnet is
only $10 plus an ocassional donation campaign. (I’d be willing to pay more
here too!)
|
One of my main points is that we DON’T KNOW yet what happened, It may or may
not have been financial. There are any of number of other reasons it could have
been taken down. Until we as a community know what happened, we should atleast
give Kevin the benefit of the doubt.
| |
Third, you ask for people to take action rather than complain. But what
action can most of us take? While most could forgo that extra $20 S@H set
each year to afford a subscription to a paysite, few of us have computer
servers laying around our living rooms, nor is everone who posts here savvy
with the networks, hardware, or software involved. (Maybe I’m wrong about
that - but I certainly don’t/am not. I can hardly manage the webspace I have
for my little 100MB site! And other than being an end-user, I stopped
learning new stuff about computer science when the Commodore 128 was still in
use.) Further, we are spread out across the globe, and several of us lead
busy lives. So other than donating money (which we are willing but no longer
able), donating skills (which not all of us have), or dontating time (which
not all of us have), what is this “something” you think we can do? Other
than simply HOPE the community has more benevolent tech-savvy server-owners,
I’m out of ideas.
|
Until we know what needs to be done, there really is not much direct action that
can take place. But at a time like this, HOPE and positive attitudes go a long
way. Just expressing a willingness to help, in whatever way you can, would go a
long way to encouraging others to do the same.
I was just really upset that when a major site went down, and while I and some
others were talking behind the scenes on how to fix the problem, others chose
this opportunity to take pot shots at Kevin and BrickShelf. It was very
discouraging to myself and the others that people were so quick to make
judgements without knowing all the facts. Granted, BrickShelf may not have been
perfect, and Kevin may not have been the best host, but provided a great serice
for a long time, and that should not be forgotten.
As it is right now, BS is sort of working through https, so everyone can go get
their photos that they did not have backed up. The main thing is that all the
pictures are still there. If Kevin is no longer willing to host the site
himself, I am confident that it can be transferred somewhere else.
I certainly will continue to work towards a positive solution, and I am sure
that the others I have been talking to privately will as well. If everyone else
could also remain positive that would certainly help as well.
As for the “No warning at all” that people keep saying, this is not true.
Warning was given 2 years ago that the future of BrickShelf was in doubt and
that all photos should be moved to Maj.com. That we all chose to ignore this
warning for two years is our fault, not Kevins. That he managed to keep the
site going for another 2 years does not negate the warning.
As for my “nasty tirade” I just call it like I see it. Some people were upset
and voiced their opinions, which is fine. Some people felt the need to pick
over the fresh corpse (that turned out not to be quite dead yet), and that is
not fine and not helpful at all.
I found it odd and disturbing that the conversation at Lugnet, the supposed
center of the AFOL universe, took on a decidedly negative tone early on before
all (or any) of the facts were known. Contrast this to BrickLink, which is
mainly a commerce site, where the discussion covered dismay, but also maintained
a positive attitude about the situation with many people expressing their
interest to help out however they could.
I guess that I was just disappointed with the reaction here, I had expected
better. In fairness, I was also disappointed by the reaction at Classic-Castle
as well, and voiced much the same opinions there as well.
Troy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
| |
I was just really upset that when a major site went down, and while I and
some others were talking behind the scenes on how to fix the problem, others
chose this opportunity to take pot shots at Kevin and BrickShelf. It was
very discouraging to myself and the others that people were so quick to make
judgements without knowing all the facts. Granted, BrickShelf may not have
been perfect, and Kevin may not have been the best host, but provided a great
serice for a long time, and that should not be forgotten.
|
Yes, on this we agree! ...And I too was trying to look at all sides fairly.
You are right though, BS hasn’t been down long and we don’t know all the facts
yet... And I do thank you and the others who have tried for any effort toward
finding a solution.
-Hendo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
> This is not directed at Tim, but rather some of the whiners that responed to his
> post above...
>
> When I first saw that BrickShelf was down, I was all gung-ho to see what I could
> do to help bring it back up. As the host for Classic-Castle, I do have have a
> dedicated server and excess bandwidth, so some help could have been provided.
>
> Now, after seeing the reaction here and elsewhere, I am rapidly starting not to
> care if you whiney vultures ever get your photos back.
>
> Kevin provided a basically free service to everyone for YEARS. Everyone used it
> without much thought tot he costs involved. Sure, he could have handled this
> latest episode better, but for now none of us know the circumstances involved.
> I know that *I* would certainly have grown tired of supporting a site for a
> bunch of ungrateful users.
>
> And as for the supposed "Lego Community"? Useless. Instead of being a true
> community and banding together to help save a pillar of the community, what to
> we get? Personal attacks on Kevin and a bunch of whining.
>
> Do something or quit your complaining.
>
> Troy
It is clear to me you have never had to deal with Kevin before.
I'm not a whiner, but I know when a battle is lost.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
| |
Do something or quit your complaining.
|
Do what? He’s only talking to but a few people, and not telling them much.
EJP
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
<SNIP>
> And as for the supposed "Lego Community"? Useless. Instead of being a true
> community and banding together to help save a pillar of the community, what to
> we get? Personal attacks on Kevin and a bunch of whining.
>
> Do something or quit your complaining.
>
> Troy
And so far the biggest whining has come from Troy ...... lmao on the irony.
BS was a great service and will be missed, but let's not forget why it was good.
It was the AFOL and all the awesome MOCs. Useless Troy? I don't think so.
Shutting down BS will fracture all the content everywhere. It's not that we
don't keep our own backups, we just didn't backup everyone's.
So what if it was free, that was his choice, but by stopping BS, he has set back
the AFOL community a long time.
You would have thought he would have explained himself and the motives behind
the closure.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
>
> Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
>
> Maj still seems to be up
>
> Tim
Looks like it's gone for good... :(
I would happily pay a fee (like the Lugnet $10) to be able to post my photos
again, if it meant keeping Brickshelf online.
Dan and Jennifer, thank you for trying to find a solution with Kevin. Maybe you
guys can figure out something similar to what you did with the sets'
instructions library on peeron.
Glad I kept ALL my files on my hard disk...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
It would have been nice if only the accounts of people who didn't donate money
to Brickshelf were gone. I imagine that doing that would have reduced the
number of files on the site to about 1% of what it was. As a Brickshelf member
who donated to the site, I would have gladly keep up my annual countributions.
Oh well...
David
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sounds bad. I keep local copies of anything I upload on the internet, but a lot
of good stuff on there will have been lost if this is genuine. I don't think it
was hacked, as the Zerostuds forum went down the same way last year.
The general image hosting sites like Photobucket or Flickr seem to be decent
alternatives. Maj would be a direct replacement, but as someone remarked earlier
I wouldn't trust that site to be reliable after this.
I remember Kevin saying on Zerostuds that BS cost "thousands of dollars" per
month to operate, but the ad revenue covered it well enough to turn in a small
profit, so this couldn't have been due to server costs either.
-Gaurav
(remove the capital S's in the email)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
>
> Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
>
> Maj still seems to be up
>
> Tim
If this turns out to be permanent, I am glad that there are alternatives out
there. But when I started out here on Lugnet, it was because of Brickshelf.
Had I not had a free service with which to use to upload my LEGO related photos,
I don't think I would have gotten into the AFOL hobby as I have.
In fact I fear for the community as a whole. Sure, the LEGOverse isn't about to
totally collapse if Brickshelf is indeed gone, but it is a serious blow, and
we'll never be the same. I fear many new entrants to our hobby will be
discouraged without, in my opinion, the jewel in the AFOL crown, and could
possibly go on to other endevours.
Of course MOCpages is down for the count for the most part.
And all of those AFOLs we've lost... those who have died and who's work was only
available through Brickshelf could now be gone forever. I can think of quite a
few AFOLs who's pictures were only available on Brickshelf, unless they had
personal websites I was unaware of, or fans of their work saved them for
posterity.
I will admit that I am one of the slackers who never once donated to Brickshelf,
though I would certainly donate now. But I don't really think Brickshelf going
down would be a money related issue... there's always money to be had. Simply
making Brickshelf a pay for use site would have fixed that.
I have no time to donate to bringing Brickshelf back, and I have very little
money, but I'm willing to send what little I do have to spare to those who could
resurrect it.
I guess, at least in the mean time, I will be upgrading my flickr account...
--Tony
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
>
> Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
>
> Maj still seems to be up
>
> Tim
The loss of Brickshelf, even for a temporary period, is a serious loss to the LEGO community. I visit the site every day and depend on it a great deal. Without knowing the circumstances or the facts, some of you have attacked Kevin based on nothing more than assumptions. Attacking the person whose assistance we will need in restoring the site or transferring the files, is not an intelligent act. My first thought when I saw the e-mail posted on WAMALUG was to try and reach Kevin or Denise to find out what caused the problem. I then checked LUGNET to see if the information was true. What I found were messages that were just plain mean. There is no way I would try to call the two of them late at night and be associated with the responses posted.
We honestly don’t know the circumstances or reasoning why Brickshelf is down.
Everyone take a deep breath and wait until we know the facts before any more
damage is done.
Clifton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
>
> Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
>
> Maj still seems to be up
>
> Tim
After reading this thread I am a little confused. I had always thought that the
ads such as Amazon.com or personal Lego sales such as is on Bricklink paid the
cost of these sites like Lugnet and Peeron. Peeron asked for donations to speed
up the site and it was a rather small amount, so do these sites really cost all
that much to run? And if they were not making a profit of somesort are the
folks that run them doing it out of their love of Lego? I know that Amazon.com
pays a lot to sites as a sponser if they put their link to items for sale.
Is it possible that the owner of BS had health or personal problems that
precluded his working it and the service was cut. Has anyone given a thought
that he may be in the hospital or dead?
I though that sites like this were money makers, albite not cash cows. How
could one go about buying the site? If it is not a profitable as I would have
thought, then maybe he would be willing to sell it for a reasonable amount.
I do not understand why all these sites are free. $10 to lugnet is nothing for
life time membership. 10 a year would still be cheap.
Also after reading all these I am reminded of "How does it affect me?" I cannot
imagine anyone putting all their pictures on a web site and not saving them
somewhere else. Very poor planning. A box of blank CDs is not all the
expensive. I trust no one with my files. Something like this might happen.
John P
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, John Patterson wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> > Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
> >
> > Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
> >
> > Maj still seems to be up
> >
> > Tim
>
> After reading this thread I am a little confused. I had always thought that the
> ads such as Amazon.com or personal Lego sales such as is on Bricklink paid the
> cost of these sites like Lugnet and Peeron. Peeron asked for donations to speed
> up the site and it was a rather small amount, so do these sites really cost all
> that much to run? And if they were not making a profit of somesort are the
> folks that run them doing it out of their love of Lego? I know that Amazon.com
> pays a lot to sites as a sponser if they put their link to items for sale.
> Is it possible that the owner of BS had health or personal problems that
> precluded his working it and the service was cut. Has anyone given a thought
> that he may be in the hospital or dead?
> I though that sites like this were money makers, albite not cash cows. How
> could one go about buying the site? If it is not a profitable as I would have
> thought, then maybe he would be willing to sell it for a reasonable amount.
> I do not understand why all these sites are free. $10 to lugnet is nothing for
> life time membership. 10 a year would still be cheap.
> Also after reading all these I am reminded of "How does it affect me?" I cannot
> imagine anyone putting all their pictures on a web site and not saving them
> somewhere else. Very poor planning. A box of blank CDs is not all the
> expensive. I trust no one with my files. Something like this might happen.
> John P
Ads dont work unless people click on them.
---
Rick
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
>
> Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
>
> Maj still seems to be up
>
> Tim
Although there are many other picture hosting site can anyone recommend a site
that will allow you to upload other file types such as Lego CAD files?
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> Although there are many other picture hosting sites, can anyone
> recommend a site that will allow you to upload other file types
> such as Lego CAD files?
>
> Tim
That is a very good point. On Brickshelf you could upload CAD files, movies,
PowerPoint presentations, etc. Flickr can't do that. In fact I don't know of
any online gallery that does.
David
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
Well, the discontinuation of Brickshelf is a big bummer. As people have
indicated elsewhere, it has been a major pillar of our AFOL community since the
beginning.
Flickr Schmickr. What I valued most about Brickshelf is that it was one-stop
shopping for LEGO MOCs.
If Kevin is going to continue Maj.com, and if he’d include a “LEGO” category,
then I think that would be about the best solution, providing a place where all
our MOCs are easily viewed.
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
Well, the discontinuation of Brickshelf is a big bummer. As people have
indicated elsewhere, it has been a major pillar of our AFOL community since
the beginning.
Flickr Schmickr. What I valued most about Brickshelf is that it was one-stop
shopping for LEGO MOCs.
If Kevin is going to continue Maj.com, and if he’d include a “LEGO” category,
then I think that would be about the best solution, providing a place where
all our MOCs are easily viewed.
JOHN
|
I agree with you with regards to the the one-stop-shop-ness but I’m not sure we
are going to see that again anywhere. I would much prefer to use somethng with a
bigger user and support base, whose to say the same won’t happen to Maj?
tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
| |
Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Maj still seems to be up
Tim
|
Try this. Click OK to be able to view it.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Matt Hamann wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
| |
Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Maj still seems to be up
Tim
|
Try this. Click OK to be able to view it.
|
Looks like that one has now been taken down as well.
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Matt Hamann wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
| |
Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Maj still seems to be up
Tim
|
Try this. Click OK to be able to view it.
|
That hole has apparently been plugged. It was open a few minutes ago, then it
was closed. Which means that Kevin is reading this, and this is unlikely to be a
hacker attack.
Kevin, I think it would be a good idea if you could take a couple of minutes to
explain why BrickShelf is gone. It might not be an answer people would like, but
it could provide some closure.
Thanks,
Kelly
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Matt Hamann wrote:
It no longer works. Clearly, someone is reading these posts and responding by
making changes to the site.
Kevin (or whomever is managing the site), since you’re obviously reading, can
you please let us know what’s going on? If it’s a financial problem, I think the
community would like to help. If you’re looking for someone else to manage the
site, again I think the community would like to help.
And your silence raises lots of questions. Did Lego make you take it down
because of leaked photos? Are you well? Did someone hack the site? Did another
AFOL say something to make you leave the community? Or are you just moving the
site to a new owner?
Please talk to us. You’ve done a lot for the Lego community, and a lot of us
would like to return the favor if only we knew what was going on.
-Steven
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Steven Asbury wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Matt Hamann wrote:
It no longer works. Clearly, someone is reading these posts and responding by
making changes to the site.
|
While it may well be true that he is reading these posts, the fact that the hole
was closed implies no such thing. As a server admin, he’s going to see traffic.
When he gets a sudden huge spike in traffic to a site that he just shut down,
he’s going to investigate. And the server logs are going to show all the
traffic going through https URLs.
--Travis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I’m not sure where to post this in this thread, so I’m just going to throw it
out there. If anyone here decides they want to take action (as I said, I’m not
sure what) to build or rebuild the sort of service we had with BS, I want to
make one suggestion: Use people’s real names.
In my experience Lugnet is one of the few web-services I’ve seen that does this.
But I prefer it! Some reasons why:
One concern voiced in this thread is that the work of AFOLs who have passed on
or otherwise left the hobby was accessible only through sites like BS. But even
with such sites, it is almost impossible for some viewers to know which AFOL is
tied to which username. (Okay, with me it’s a tad easier since my typical user
name is the same nickname I’ve had since before there was an internet, but you
get my point.) Even if BS was running, does everyone know the nicknames and
usernames of each other well enough that if a favorite builder went away that
we’d be able to search for his MOCs? I know I couldn’t. ...Except here on
Lugnet, I can search for the name I know them by - the same name I might have
met them as at a convention or train show or gaming event.
Further, the more sites each of us joins - Flickr, BS, BL, LUG boards, Blogs,
Lego.com, etc. etc. - the more variations of fake usernames we’re likely to
have. E.g., I try to use Hendo when I join a new site, but sometimes it’s in
use so I have to add a digit (which I hate because there should be only one!) or
I go with a variation like Hendotron. But even so, it’s all still a variation
of my real name. If we use real names only, it’s easier to find each other.
And finally, I’ve always felt this feature strengthens the community. Somehow,
responsding to a Lugnet post has always been more “real” to me. I like knowing
I’m talking to Joseph Smith of Queensland Australia who is married with a
daughter, as opposed to internet chatting with jqueen102. This difference here
at Lugnet has helped us get to know each other better, and connect more quickly
if/when we meet in person. ...And isn’t connecting what this hobby is all
about? :)
So, despite that I posted earlier that my hands feel tied when it comes to
helping on the BS issue, I nonetheless put forth this idea to whomever might
ever try to offer a similar service to BS - please consider using full, real
names as Lugnet has.
Thanks!
-Hendo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson wrote:
| |
I’m not sure where to post this in this thread, so I’m just going to throw it
out there. If anyone here decides they want to take action (as I said, I’m
not sure what) to build or rebuild the sort of service we had with BS, I want
to make one suggestion: Use people’s real names.
|
Brickshelf used to use real names but there have been some laws passed in the
past few years that make that problematic. For one thing, there are laws
against collecting certain information online from people under the age of 13.
The idea is to make it harder for pedophiles to track down their prey. Kevin
took all the real names down one day a few years ago (without much fanfare, they
just disappeared). You used to be able to browse users by their real names, but
then after that you could only use the login name.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson wrote:
| |
I’m not sure where to post this in this thread, so I’m just going to throw
it out there. If anyone here decides they want to take action (as I said,
I’m not sure what) to build or rebuild the sort of service we had with BS, I
want to make one suggestion: Use people’s real names.
|
Brickshelf used to use real names but there have been some laws passed in the
past few years that make that problematic. For one thing, there are laws
against collecting certain information online from people under the age of
13. The idea is to make it harder for pedophiles to track down their prey.
Kevin took all the real names down one day a few years ago (without much
fanfare, they just disappeared). You used to be able to browse users by
their real names, but then after that you could only use the login name.
|
You’re referring to the US Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
(There are similar things in many other countries, but as I understand COPPA is
one of the most stringent, so it’s what many people deal with as a default)
Basically COPPA says that you can’t ask for and/or accept personally
identifiable information from anyone 13 or younger without parental consent. You
can have them sign up all day long, but you can’t ask them for things like name,
address, phone, email, hometown, etc., but you have to have parental consent.
(Which is fairly difficult according to COPPA’s rules)
That doesn’t preclude a site from taking “reasonable efforts” to ensure that a
new user is older than 13 then asking them for all kinds of personal data. Those
reasonable efforts just have to meet certain criteria (like not actively
encouraging a kid to lie ... “You have to be older than 13 to get the really
good stuff! Are you older than 13?”)
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Private Citizen
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
> Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
>
> Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
>
> Maj still seems to be up
>
> Tim
There is something I think we all need to think about for a moment- it's still
the weekend. If we don't get any word by, say, Monday afternoon then it's off
to MAJ, Flickr, or whatever works for each of us.
Adr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
&&tIn lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
| |
Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Maj still seems to be up
Tim
|
Per the Brickshelf terms of service, still available at
<http://www.maj.com/terms.html;:
13. MODIFICATIONS TO SERVICE
Brickshelf reserves the right at any time and from time to time to modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Service (or any part thereof) with or without notice. You agree that Brickshelf shall not be liable to you or to any third party for any modification, suspension or discontinuance of the Service.
Not that it soothes any wounds or voids any objections, but this term does
expressly cover the possibility of Brickshelf’s permanent discontinuation
without notice. Still, I advise my fellow “adult” fans of LEGO to remain patient
and retain an open mind.
Jim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Tim David" <talltim@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JL6w33.4L7@lugnet.com...
> Just been to Brickshelf and it reports
>
> Brickshelf has discontinued operation. We apologize for any inconvenience.
>
> Maj still seems to be up
>
> Tim
I've been using imeem to share photos and videos. Here's a sample video I
uploaded:
http://groups.imeem.com/lGAydPMq/video/qVnemCLQ/lego_exoforce_7711/
It's also financially (and bandwidth) stable because they just inked a
partnership deal with Warner Music.
AFOLs could use it to create their own "Group" that includes blogging
features, photo albums, forums, video and audio hosting, etc. All of the
content can be rated, tagged, and commented.
Anyway, I figured I'd share in case anyone wants to try it out. There's
already a bit of a Lego community there.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
For those of you who don't know me, I've been in the AFOL community for a long
time. I'm also one of the largest hosters of LEGO clubs and other LEGO-related
sites. Most of these sites are donated to help the clubs have an internet
presence, Some of the sites have been nice enough to put a link back to my site,
but this is not always the case. I've been doing this for years as a service to
the community, with a small hope of picking up some paid business from this
donation. While a few people have done so, the vast majority of these donated
sites have never generated a single lead for paid business. I've also advertised
at BrickFest, in BrickJournal, and a number of other places, none of which have
generated any business for me, either. I say this not to complain, but to show a
pattern in this community that Brickshelf probably ran into.
I'm not sure why brickshelf was never switched to a subscription-based service,
but that's really up to Kevin. However, giving away bandwidth, storage, and
hosting with no guaranteed source of revenue is not something I personally want
to get into. If you're Google, you're making money on giving away free e-mail by
indexing e-mail and showing well-targeted ads to your visitors. The various
photo (flickr, etc) sites allow a limited amount of usage before they start
charging, but they can do a fairly good conversion (free -> paid) because people
get hooked on the service and don't want to leave.
There are some fairly large expenses involved in running a large site like
brickshelf, and the numbers I'm quoting are based on my own experiences as a web
host. The bandwidth that brickshelf.com is using is massive. The site has done a
number of things, such as doing good thumbnails, etc. to cut down the data
transfer, but even then, here are some numbers for you to ponder:
- The going rate for bandwidth in commercial data centers varies, but I've
gotten quotes for single 45 Mbps lines for around $2200/month.
- Data center space is based on the amount of equipment you have, measured in
"U" units. A typical server is anywhere from 1U - 4U in size. If you do a search
for colocation rates, you'll find rates anywhere from $50-$100/U and up.
- If you have enough servers to fill an entire cabinet, you're looking at
anywhere from $750+ for cabinet rental in a typical data center.
- You also have maintenance contracts on hardware, security subscriptions for
firewalls, and so on.
For those of you saying that the site had ads (and I do remember the uproar when
they appeared), ads only work if people click on them. Given the fact that the
bulk of the content was pictures, it would be hard to get well-targeted ads on
the pages. Poorly targeted ads = poor clickthrough rates = less money.
Kevin has been providing this site for free for years, for no thanks or much
money. I'm hoping he was at least breaking even, but I am not privy to those
details. As far as I know, Kevin was never made into a Lego Ambassador, even
though his site helped promote the community. Most people probably don't even
know who he is... he's just another AFOL who came up with a great site to help
people share their creations. Kevin deserves our thanks for providing a place to
look at people's creations. If he's decided to take it down, then we need to say
thanks, and move on. A warning might have been nice, but you have no idea what
the circumstances were that caused the shutdown. Let's give him the benefit of
the doubt, but remember some of the things I've mentioned.
As to you ungrateful people who have the nerve to complain about the site not
being available, and especially to the people who insulted the site, how much
did you pay for the service? Did you ever even send a thank-you for
brickshelf.com? Did you ever donate a penny to help the site stay up? Did you
ever think about how much it was costing to put it up? Did you even click on an
ad once in a while? My guess is that your answers to all these questions are a
resounding NO.
That sort of attitude makes me absolutely sick. It really disturbs me that I'm
donating space to help promote clubs that contain people like you. Your posts
are an insult to the community that you claim to belong to. If I were him and
was reading some of the posts that were up, the pictures you may have posted
would be deleted as fast as I could make them go away. Someone is paying for
every single "free" service and software package you use. If you're not doing
something (paying, etc.) to contribute, you're a parasite.
That's my 2 (or 20) cents on the matter... thanks for listening.
Eric Smith
President, Northstar Computer Systems
www.northcomp.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
As someone who operates a blog (brickpile.com) about LEGO I agree that there is
very little revenue from ads. The problem with ads in a LEGO-related site is
that there are only so many times people can click on links to legoshop.com and
there just aren't many other advertisers in the rotation.
Brick Journal has the same problem. They get ads from Tommy's brick engraving,
a few AFOL's who do custom kits, but really there aren't any big-ticket
advertisers interested in AFOL's.
I've given this a lot of thought and haven't come up with any good answers. The
best I could think of would be somebody like Plano or other maker/sellers of
storage products that AFOL's might want to use.
As for going to a subscription model, Kevin did try that a little bit, by giving
the option to donate in order to avoid the ads. But there was never much effort
made to making that work well (such as one-click PayPal Subscriptions) and the
ads are easy enough to ignore that most people probably didn't bother. If there
were bandwidth limits placed on non-paying users, or something like that, then
people might have been more motivated to pay.
Also, regarding bandwidth, that was sheer laziness on Kevin's part. Yes, he had
a good thumbnail system in place, but what he failed to do was shrink the full
size images. With most people having multi-megapixel cameras these days,
unshrunk JPEG images are BIG. Brickshelf shrunk the images by using HTML
width/height attributes, which made it fit on the browser window, but did
nothing to help with bandwidth. If bandwidth was an issue he would have
displayed the images in 640x480 or 800x600. This could be done by leveraging
the existing thumbnail generating code.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Eric Smith wrote:
>
> For those of you saying that the site had ads (and I do remember the uproar when
> they appeared), ads only work if people click on them. Given the fact that the
> bulk of the content was pictures, it would be hard to get well-targeted ads on
> the pages. Poorly targeted ads = poor clickthrough rates = less money.
Thanks for the information, Eric. It's hard for most people (including myself)
to get a grasp on just what resources are needed to run such a site.
With respect to targeted ads, Kevin was using Google Adsense, and I believe
(from seeing different ads for different folders) he was feeding the folder
keywords and maybe the description text to Google to get better targeted ads.
Advertising services like Adsense can generate pretty well targeted ads, and
although the revenue is less than getting advertisers directly, it is much less
work. BRE, with only 50-60MB/day bandwidth, and pretty unobtrusive ads, is
easily able to cover the $10/mth hosting fee without even doing any of the
things Google recommend to get better results. I'm sure a site with traffic like
Brickshelf could generate significant income from such a service with a little
work.
And as you say, there is always the option of subscriptions to generate more
income.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Advertising services like Adsense can generate pretty well targeted ads, and
> although the revenue is less than getting advertisers directly, it is much less
> work. BRE, with only 50-60MB/day bandwidth, and pretty unobtrusive ads, is
> easily able to cover the $10/mth hosting fee without even doing any of the
> things Google recommend to get better results. I'm sure a site with traffic like
> Brickshelf could generate significant income from such a service with a little
> work.
Hmm. If Brickshelf was attracting plenty of money through advertising, why would
its owner close it down? Unless we think Kevin is joining a monastery and
devoting himself to a life of poverty, that's not rational behaviour. If
Bricklink was really bringing in megabucks in advertising, Kevin could afford to
hire someone else to maintain the site if he was too busy.
So, my guess is that the Brickshelf was not making money or at least not making
enough to be worth Kevin's time maintaining it.
Kerry
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Kerry Raymond wrote:
> > Advertising services like Adsense can generate pretty well targeted ads, and
> > although the revenue is less than getting advertisers directly, it is much less
> > work. BRE, with only 50-60MB/day bandwidth, and pretty unobtrusive ads, is
> > easily able to cover the $10/mth hosting fee without even doing any of the
> > things Google recommend to get better results. I'm sure a site with traffic like
> > Brickshelf could generate significant income from such a service with a little
> > work.
>
> Hmm. If Brickshelf was attracting plenty of money through advertising, why would
> its owner close it down? Unless we think Kevin is joining a monastery and
> devoting himself to a life of poverty, that's not rational behaviour. If
> Bricklink was really bringing in megabucks in advertising, Kevin could afford to
> hire someone else to maintain the site if he was too busy.
>
> So, my guess is that the Brickshelf was not making money or at least not making
> enough to be worth Kevin's time maintaining it.
>
> Kerry
Or he's focusing his efforts on maj.com, which as far as I can tell is based on
Brickshelf's code.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jordan Bradford wrote:
| |
Or he’s focusing his efforts on maj.com, which as far as I can tell is based
on Brickshelf’s code.
|
I just hate speculating in the dark about all of this, but that’s my sense. For
now, I’m simply going to reupload all of my pics to my maj.com account (which is
the same username and password for all former Brickshelf accounts). I just hope
Kev makes a “LEGO” section on maj.com so that we can once again surf through
folders of just LEGO creations. Not having one place to surf LEGO MOCs is what
I miss the most:-(
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
For now, I’m simply going to reupload all of my pics to my maj.com account
(which is the same username and password for all former Brickshelf accounts).
I just hope Kev makes a “LEGO” section on maj.com so that we can once again
surf through folders of just LEGO creations. Not having one place to surf
LEGO MOCs is what I miss the most:-(
JOHN
|
I completely agree with John’s last point - I’d hit the ‘recent updates’ link on
Brickshelf a couple times a day.
My own biggest problem is that the images I had on Brickshelf are going to be
difficult to replace - the computer they were originally uploaded from has gone
haywire on me.
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
I completely agree with John’s last point - I’d hit the ‘recent updates’ link
on Brickshelf a couple times a day.
|
And it appears that the mass migration is on! If you go to maj.com, its recent
pages are filled with LEGO MOCs...
| |
My own biggest problem is that the images I had on Brickshelf are going to be
difficult to replace - the computer they were originally uploaded from has
gone haywire on me.
|
Doood. Your problem, J-1, is that you are old-school AND net-wiz-bang:-)
J-2
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
I completely agree with John’s last point - I’d hit the ‘recent updates’
link on Brickshelf a couple times a day.
|
And it appears that the mass migration is on! If you go to maj.com, its
recent pages are filled with LEGO MOCs...
|
Am I the only one that’s a bit nervous about about a mass migration to maj.com?
If a mass migration happens, the maj.com bandwidth shoots through the roof and
Kevin is once again facing overwhelming bandwidth costs. If this happens, does
he shut down that site too, thus leaving everyone in the same spot they’re in
now? Generally, we don’t know if the issue is that Kevin is done hosting
anything or only done hosting brickshelf.com.
Without any communication from Kevin on this matter, I’d be hesitant to rush to
migrate to maj.com. But perhaps that’s just me.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Private Citizen
“Keeping hope alive”
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
I completely agree with John’s last point - I’d hit the ‘recent updates’
link on Brickshelf a couple times a day.
|
And it appears that the mass migration is on! If you go to maj.com, its
recent pages are filled with LEGO MOCs...
|
Am I the only one that’s a bit nervous about about a mass migration to
maj.com?
|
No, you’re not alone.
| |
Without any communication from Kevin on this matter, I’d be hesitant to rush
to migrate to maj.com. But perhaps that’s just me.
|
Same here. We’re all speculating, and in the dark. Without any word from Kevin,
everything is just second-guessing. I would not be comfortable using Maj.com for
anything until reading something from Kevin about Brickshelf’s demise. I
simply can’t trust that the same thing that happened to BS won’t happen to Maj.
Kelly
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
I completely agree with John’s last point - I’d hit the ‘recent updates’
link on Brickshelf a couple times a day.
|
And it appears that the mass migration is on! If you go to maj.com, its
recent pages are filled with LEGO MOCs...
|
Am I the only one that’s a bit nervous about about a mass migration to
maj.com? If a mass migration happens, the maj.com bandwidth shoots through
the roof and Kevin is once again facing overwhelming bandwidth costs. If this
happens, does he shut down that site too, thus leaving everyone in the same
spot they’re in now? Generally, we don’t know if the issue is that Kevin is
done hosting anything or only done hosting brickshelf.com.
Without any communication from Kevin on this matter, I’d be hesitant to rush
to migrate to maj.com. But perhaps that’s just me.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Private Citizen
“Keeping hope alive”
|
I also agree until we find out something from Kevin, moving files, correcting
links, and stressing over lost pictures is all worthless, we all just need to
take a breath and wait to hear something.
It is obvious that Brickshelf has evolved into more then a free web site for a
small corner of the internet. It has morphed into an endless free sharing of
designs techniques and models of any thing LEGO.
For what ever the reason for the current outage I feel the LEGO community has
more than enough history and work involved in Brickshelf that we need to make
sure we have this site for the future, in any form.
I enjoy going to one site and seeing nothing but LEGO, I fear that with out
Brickshelf in the future many of the works of others will be lost in the
internet fog. I love the recent folders as I know I can see everything that gets
uploaded. Searching is hard but that’s because most people do not name the
pictures or add a search string to the folder.
Hopping for the return of the one and only Brickshelf!
Mike Gallagher
MIKESLEGO GALLAGHERSART
FYI,
Mentioned years ago and a backup solution was made, new version works on MAJ.com
(what does MAJ stand for ?)
Lugnet article
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=50928
Current link
http://www.fial.com/bob/partscatalog/download/BSBackup_0013.zip
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Mike Gallagher wrote:
| |
what does MAJ stand for ?
|
It took me a few weeks from first hearing the name to figure it out, but it’s a
trademarkable spelling of the second syllable of the word “image”. Not
pronounced quite the same, but clearly the source of the word.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
Without any communication from Kevin on this matter, I’d be hesitant to rush
to migrate to maj.com. But perhaps that’s just me.
|
No, it’s not just you, Jake. I do it with fear and trepidation. But want to be
loyal to Kevin and what he has done for the AFOL community, if that indeed is
what a migration means. If we are a nuisance, then I would by all means go to a
Flickr-type solution.
And as it happens, I already have a Flickr account, because I already had a
Yahoo! account. So I’ll go poke around there for a while...:-)
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
I completely agree with John’s last point - I’d hit the ‘recent updates’
link on Brickshelf a couple times a day.
|
And it appears that the mass migration is on! If you go to maj.com, its
recent pages are filled with LEGO MOCs...
|
Am I the only one that’s a bit nervous about about a mass migration to
maj.com? If a mass migration happens, the maj.com bandwidth shoots through
the roof and Kevin is once again facing overwhelming bandwidth costs. If this
happens, does he shut down that site too, thus leaving everyone in the same
spot they’re in now? Generally, we don’t know if the issue is that Kevin is
done hosting anything or only done hosting brickshelf.com.
Without any communication from Kevin on this matter, I’d be hesitant to rush
to migrate to maj.com. But perhaps that’s just me.
|
I’ve decided to start migrating my BS account to MAJ. Fortunately for me, my
gallery is pretty small. What is really needed is a migration bot that
automates the upload process to MAJ after BSbackup utility has finished its
downloads from brickshelf.
I too am a bit nervous about how bandwidth on MAJ will be affected. Without any
stats from Kevin there is no way to tell if MAJ>>BS or BS>>MAJ. It would really
be nice to hear his reasons for deciding to shut the site down. If it is
financial, I’m sure the community could find a solution. If it is simply time,
would he be willing to turn the site administration over to the community?
Regardless of what hosting service people use, I really hope that Kevin
maintains the BS content somewhere even if it is off line. I’m sure that alot
of content will not be migrated and will be lost to the online community.
It would be really nice if he could donate (or loan) the drives where the BS
content is stored to lugnet or peeron or someone in the community
(ambassadors??) for safe keeping until a community administered & funded
solution could be established. At that point, the original BS content could be
restored.
drc
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Kerry Raymond wrote:
> > Advertising services like Adsense can generate pretty well targeted ads, and
> > although the revenue is less than getting advertisers directly, it is much less
> > work. BRE, with only 50-60MB/day bandwidth, and pretty unobtrusive ads, is
> > easily able to cover the $10/mth hosting fee without even doing any of the
> > things Google recommend to get better results. I'm sure a site with traffic like
> > Brickshelf could generate significant income from such a service with a little
> > work.
>
> Hmm. If Brickshelf was attracting plenty of money through advertising, why would
> its owner close it down? Unless we think Kevin is joining a monastery and
> devoting himself to a life of poverty, that's not rational behaviour. If
> Bricklink was really bringing in megabucks in advertising, Kevin could afford to
> hire someone else to maintain the site if he was too busy.
>
> So, my guess is that the Brickshelf was not making money or at least not making
> enough to be worth Kevin's time maintaining it.
>
> Kerry
As I mentioned earlier, he himself said that he was making a small profit off
Brickshelf. I would try finding his post but Zerostuds was only up for around
two weeks and wasn't picked up by the Wayback Machine crawlers at all.
I can imagine him taking it down due to time constraints though. I believe he
was moderating every uploaded folder by himself, which would be an enormous
drain on his time. I don't know how he managed to do it for so long.
-Gaurav
(remove the capital S's in the email)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Smith wrote:
> >
> > For those of you saying that the site had ads (and I do remember the uproar when
> > they appeared), ads only work if people click on them. Given the fact that the
> > bulk of the content was pictures, it would be hard to get well-targeted ads on
> > the pages. Poorly targeted ads = poor clickthrough rates = less money.
>
> Thanks for the information, Eric. It's hard for most people (including myself)
> to get a grasp on just what resources are needed to run such a site.
>
> With respect to targeted ads, Kevin was using Google Adsense, and I believe
> (from seeing different ads for different folders) he was feeding the folder
> keywords and maybe the description text to Google to get better targeted ads.
Feeding keywords, in the AdSense context is incredibly ineffective. This isn't a
jab at Kevin, simply a bit of reality about how AdSense works. One of the
reasons AdSense favors well trafficked blogs, forums, and news sites is that
they post a metric ton of independent textual content entries and thus pump
hundreds or thousands of words into a single entry. Compare that against a
brickshelf image page with maybe 2-10 keywords. The lack of context would kill
Brickshelf AdSense success.
AdSense can, however, but used effectively. The dating site PlentyOfFish.com (a
Canadian site run and coded by one guy) is doing quite nicely with it, netting
$900,000 in 2 months, according to the owner's blog post:
http://tinyurl.com/ew6fr
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Private Citizen
"Keeping hope alive"
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I would like to thank Kevin.
Brickshelf has meant alot to me since the nineties as a resource for ideas.
I look at brickshelf on a daily basis for inspiration.
I'm just not that creative and learned alot about techniques.
Lugnet and brickshelf are so closely tied together I always considered them
inseperable.
most posts have links refering to brickshelf.
many of the posts are unreadable now.
I looked at some of the alternatives and one was good but it doesn't have the
volume of information that was previously available.
I don't know how to fix the problem (get all that data back online) but I would
pay for a subscription to a site.
for my AFOL experience I am totally dependant on LUGNET and Brickshelf to stay
in touch and to be inspired.
Patty Van Dyke
| | | | | | |
