Subject:
|
Re: One last BrickShelf suggestion...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Dec 2002 14:00:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
268 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> As I've seen no substantial effort by the BrickShelf administrator to
> interact with the community (which is VERY eager to help) in finding a
> solution to BrickShelf's bandwidth problem, I will offer one final suggestion.
>
> Not having statistics in front of me (for some reason, I can't find them on
> the main page of BrickShelf), I would imagine that a large part of the
> problem is allowing off-site deep linking for image hosting. People host
> their images for free on someone else's site, and allow traffic from their
> own pages to access the images. This multiplies the number of hits images
> are getting, because its not just people browsing at BrickShelf, but people
> browsing all of these other sites (which have varying degrees of
> popularity). I wonder how much bandwidth would be freed up if BrickShelf
> prevented off-site linking?
>
> LUGNET did this a couple years ago with set database images being used for
> Ebay auctions and the like. People directly linked to them versus
> downloading them and hosting on their own servers.
>
> I'm troubled with the BrickShelf admin's lack of interest in interacting
> with _his own user base_ to find a solution to the site's problems. The
> people of the community have shown they want to help, while BrickShelf
> doesn't appear to want it.
>
> -Tim
I know that a great many people use Brickshelf for image deep linking
(myself included). The bandwidth demands for a site with as many pictures
as Brickshelf can be pretty impressive for someone who has to pay for
bandwidth. As an example, before I switched my images to brickshelf (and
then again to Alex Cruz' mirror) the Star Wars ISD comic strip I wrote up
was pulling 5 gigs a day of bandwidth. And that was just 21 images. There
are 200,000 images on brickshelf. Even dropping deep linking, brickshelf is
still a very popular source.
I'm wondering, actually, if whichever hosting company is running brickshelf
for Kevin is maxing out the actual physical connection they have to the
internet. If said hosting company requires a physical upgrade of wires, no
amount of donation or payment scheme will make it worthwhile to do so. I
fear the only option would be to forbid deeplinking somehow, which would
force the burdon of paying for this bandwidth to the people who pass a lot
of data (like the Brick Testament). I for one can't afford to handle that
much bandwidth easily.
Adrian
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: One last BrickShelf suggestion...
|
| If only there was some way to donate unused bandwidth. I've paid for up to 400MB/day for 2 years on pair and filled about 25 of it on average. I would hate to have a surprise 5GB day to pay for though. Some kind of cgi that would serve only x copies (...) (22 years ago, 17-Dec-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | One last BrickShelf suggestion...
|
| As I've seen no substantial effort by the BrickShelf administrator to interact with the community (which is VERY eager to help) in finding a solution to BrickShelf's bandwidth problem, I will offer one final suggestion. Not having statistics in (...) (22 years ago, 16-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
|
|
|
|
