 | | Re: Brickshelf Status
|
|
Kevin, it's really good to hear from you, but please don't shock us like that again. Some thoughts and suggestions: Remember you don't have to shoulder all the burden of running Brickshelf yourself - if it's becoming difficult then send out a call (...) (18 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com
|
|
(...) Perhaps the file size restriction could be on non-paying accounts, kind of "you get what you pay for" mentality. The value added feature for paying users could be a Flickr-like "view all sizes" option so pix could be seen at a higher (...) (18 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf Status
|
|
(...) I think people are somewhat more open to paying for Internet content than they used to be. While it's easy to shrug off requests for donations, $5/month is pretty nominal. (...) Will paying users be able to customize their accounts? I posted a (...) (18 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com
|
|
What does this mean? "Allister McLaren" <allistermclaren@opt...et.com.au> wrote in message news:JLGLzv.G44@lugnet.com... (...) (18 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com
|
|
(...) Tim, I have to disagree with a blanket restriction regarding filesize restrictions for images. While a 256K limit is fine for single MOCs (like your dazzling creations), it can be inadequate for other things like train displays and larger MOCs (...) (18 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
