 | | Re: One last BrickShelf suggestion...
|
|
(...) 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. (...) Stuff can't be free forever. I'm not advocating BrickShelf going 100% (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: One last BrickShelf suggestion...
|
|
(...) I'd have to compare the fee and services provided against other hosts. In general I have no problem paying for a good service. Currently, aside from the bandwidth problem, Brickshelf provides all the services I need, for the best price. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: One last BrickShelf suggestion...
|
|
(...) 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. -Tim (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: One last BrickShelf suggestion...
|
|
(...) Hmm...I just noticed that some of my images no longer show up on my FTX site, and that Brickshelf.com didn't register on my broswer at all. (The search turned up negative. Does anyone else have trouble loading the page?) Perhaps it's just my (...) (22 years ago, 16-Dec-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
