Subject:
|
Re: Update news on BrickShelf.com
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:36:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4025 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Tony Kilaras wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
One thing that does worry me about the new system is this part of the
message: ‘without reducing functionality for free users’. The current system
for free users wastes disk space and bandwidth, as well as the nerves and
time of people using BS. Without a change to this system I would find it
hard to justify me paying $60US a year in order to allow these idiots to
waste my time (and up until this point I have been donating regularly so I’m
not just trying to be cheap).
This is not really a criticism of Kevin as he has made a system which allows
people to post what they like. This system has, unfortunately, been abused
(and that abuse supported to a degree) by ignorance, laziness and stupidity.
I would really like to see free users forbidden from uploading any images
with a filesize greater than 256Kb. That size still allows people to post
accurate and clear images of their work but stops the pointless 2048x1568
barely compressed straight-from-the-camera rubbish that everyone I have
spoken to about it are sick of.
Please, please, please let this be done as a service for all users, paying
or otherwise, and if not for them as a service to BS itself to reduce its
costs.
Tim
|
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 like space ships. However, you do raise a legitimate concern that
I share. Instead of a blanket restriction, perhaps these would work better:
(1) a ban on bmp files;
(2) a customizable “filter” whereby the user can set a limit as to what size
images can be viewed;
(3) a customizable “filter” whereby a border is placed around large
images/folders so that the user can avoid them if desired;
(4) a blacklist/killfile feature whereby a user can add users who upload
content of no interest to them.
|
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
resolution, while conserving bandwidth when a visitor doesn’t want to see a
wallpaper sized picture.
--Jack
AFOL, St. Louis
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (17 years ago, 20-Jul-07, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
