Subject:
|
Re: Brickshelf going away???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 31 May 2005 18:49:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6380 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Rick Clark wrote:
> I'd certainly be for micropayments for uploading images. I don't know how
> many images are uploaded each day/week/month, but at $.01 each, I should
> think the income might add up, yet wouldn't break anybody.
I think the issue has always been that it just doesn't work in practice. I mean
sure, I wouldn't mind paying a penny per picture, but actually having to go
through both paypal AND the upload process, I dunno. It would create more of a
bother. Same deal with a periodic subscription fee-- having to remember to pay
it, etc, would be difficult, as well as adding extra steps to the process.
Plus, one of the reasons why BrickShelf is so popular is that it's free. There
are plenty of pay services out there already-- and if you've got one, you're
probably using it for your Lego pictures. And if you don't have one, chances are
you'll aim for a free service rather than a pay service.
It seems that the general hinderance to newbies is 1) lack of digital camera 2)
lack of a place to put pictures. So an easy, *free* utility is what people look
for first. Adding money to the process would change things quite a bit.
Particularly for minors who wouldn't have means for payment.
I do recall advocating "premium service", however-- Like, allowing your pictures
to be public before being moderated, or giving you more detailed stats on your
images. Or maybe allowing some always-desired features like moving
folders/images around while maintaining the "viewed" statistics. Maybe even
(this is ugly) giving your folder/images a slightly higher precedence for
BrickShelf searches. But all of that requires lots of coding-- Boooo!
I would be interested to see how much traffic is generated thanks to avatars and
the like, however. From what I remember, the vast majority of files on
BrickShelf are little avatars and whatnot, NOT people's Lego creations. Granted
the avatars are smaller files than huge images, but they are probably pulled
quite a lot.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brickshelf going away???
|
| (...) I'd certainly be for micropayments for uploading images. I don't know how many images are uploaded each day/week/month, but at $.01 each, I should think the income might add up, yet wouldn't break anybody. It'd be nice to keep the ability to (...) (19 years ago, 28-May-05, to lugnet.general)
|
125 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
