Subject:
|
Re: One last BrickShelf suggestion...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Dec 2002 03:38:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
266 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> > If BrickShelf started making you pay for the service of off-site deep
> > linking, would you abandon it as well?
> >
> > There are (much faster, more reliable) image hosting services out there,
> > they just cost money.
>
> Personally, I think if BrickShelf became yet another pay-for-webhosting
> site, it wouldn't be what it is. People put their images on BrickShelf
> BECAUSE it's free, and because it's nicely unlimited (save moderation).
And nothing stops it from being a free AND paid site. Different levels of
access, and the paid accounts help offset the costs of maintaining the
server and connection.
> If Kevin made it a pay site, put in space limitations, prevented
> deep-linking, etc., you'd end up with a site that not many Lego fans would
> use. If I didn't have my own domain/website, I'd probably have started
> making use of it already. And sure, I personally would probably pay Kevin to
> use the site if I needed to. But I'm not your typical Lego fan. There are
> plenty of lurkers, college students, kids, and others who don't want to
> shell out for webspace.
Stuff can't be free forever. I'm not advocating BrickShelf going 100% paid;
but I am advocating adding that option to help the current situation.
> Anyway, the more restrictions go up, the more usage goes down.
Yup.
> It's Kevin's
> decision, ultimately, but I think (speaking for Kevin-- not that I know)
> that his preference is obviously for a slow, limitless site than a fast,
> limited site. It's perhaps an idealistic vision-- and an admirable one at
> that; but I fear it's becoming less realistic.
>
> To Kevin (assuming that's his opinion) I will say something needs to be
> done. If I didn't have my own site (given the existing bandwidth
> circumstances) I probably would think twice about starting to use BrickShelf
> given its current response time. I have to agree with Jon Palmer that I
> dread BrickShelf-hosted links and MOC's now. I stopped reading the Brick
> Testament because it was just too darn slow to load images. A new MOC comes
> up? If it's BrickShelf hosted, I won't visit it (unless it's sufficiently
> spotlighted or something). The slowness is beyond the point where I as a
> user would start to prefer the fast, limited site.
I couldn't agree more. I'm really amazed at how much criticism BrickShelf
takes with no reply from Kevin. Even the positive suggestions go
unacknowledged. What annoys me the most about BrickShelf, more than the
bandwidth problems, more than the moderation, is that its administrator
won't listen to the community when people want to help. I'm surprised more
haven't abandoned BrickShelf for other hosts, even if they do have to pay.
-Tim
(moving my images this week)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: One last BrickShelf suggestion...
|
| (...) Why not? (And that's a serious question). (...) Fine. I'll choose to be in the free section. (...) I think that any reply from Kevin would only net him more criticism. He took a lot of criticism when the building instructions went down...but (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: One last BrickShelf suggestion...
|
| (...) Personally, I think if BrickShelf became yet another pay-for-webhosting site, it wouldn't be what it is. People put their images on BrickShelf BECAUSE it's free, and because it's nicely unlimited (save moderation). If Kevin made it a pay site, (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
