Aashenfox Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) Nope, still not seeing a valid reason to increase costs for the Club, sorry. How cheap do you think it should be? If it was a paid option here, would you take that offer up? Being in IT, I assume you have many different ways to store your pics already anyway. I have myriad ways of storing my images, as you correctly expect, however, none of those methods is easily available to me from my corporate office without changing network or doing some naughty trickery. But like I said, this is the requests forum and I'm requesting it, not only that, but in a nice way, citing my reasons and in no way expecting it. I don't really appreciate being addressed like an entitled child asking for something unreasonable (but I can deal with it, lol). Someone **** in your corn flakes this morning? You can be sure that the forum has an overhead of space, a lot more than is currently used, because that's the nature of relational databases, they get bigger. So, what I propose, that won't cost a thing in the short term, is the following... Increase the limit to 500KB and see how it goes. If it turns out to cost too much IN THE LONG TERM, then consider getting rid of it completely, cos 256KB is useful to nobody. Edited January 24, 2017 by Aashenfox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Suggestions are always welcome and it's something that has been suggested and considered previously, it's not lost on us that a degree of time and effort could be saved posting images directly on the forum. However, it's not currently viable under our free to members model. While image hosting sites continue to be free and support relatively easy to use image embedding, there is no dramatic need to change this and incur greater costs. That is not to say, like all the other forum arrangements, it's not under continuous review. We all want to ensure the balance of free and functionality is maintained. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aashenfox Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) Suggestions are always welcome and it's something that has been suggested and considered previously, it's not lost on us that a degree of time and effort could be saved posting images directly on the forum. However, it's not currently viable under our free to members model. While image hosting sites continue to be free and support relatively easy to use image embedding, there is no dramatic need to change this. That is not to say, like all the other forum arrangements, it's not under continuous review. We all want to ensure the balance of free and functionality is maintained. Understood, thanks for the consideration. Hope you may consider raising it in future, cos as it is, it's really almost unusable, might as well not exist (saving further storage). Ta! Edited January 24, 2017 by Aashenfox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Suggestions are always welcome and it's something that has been suggested and considered previously, it's not lost on us that a degree of time and effort could be saved posting images directly on the forum. However, it's not currently viable under our free to members model. While image hosting sites continue to be free and support relatively easy to use image embedding, there is no dramatic need to change this. That is not to say, like all the other forum arrangements, it's not under continuous review. We all want to ensure the balance of free and functionality is maintained. Understood, thanks for the consideration. Hope you may consider raising it in future, cos as it is, it's really almost unusable, might as well not exist (saving further storage). Ta! No problem. I think to say it's "almost unusable" is what is currently being described as an alternative fact and somewhat of an overstatement. However, if you do want to continue the discussion, I'm open to PMs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 It's usable, just not useful. Like eating soup with a fork - it'll do the job, but it's not worth the ballache. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aashenfox Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) I don't think a discussion with a single moderator would provide output useful to the management of the forum, but I appreciate the offer on a personal level. I also don't really think it's debatable (let alone an alternative fact or overstatement) that the feature is usable or not usable. The sheer number of people NOT using it is evidence enough, but here's an experiment you can conduct yourself...Take a photo of a car, then try to upload it to a post, let me know how long it takes you to get it down to the required size. Once again, if the upload limit is intended to discourage people from using it, that explains it, otherwise, it's just wrong, again not debatable, any IT professional will tell you that a file size limit of 256K is not intended for images of any kind. But, I appreciate things are tight, I know there isn't a lot of profit in these things, so here's another recommendation which I don't require or expect to be implemented, it's just a thought...have two levels of user, a platinum user and a free user, platinum membership costs 20 quid a year, and includes increased upload limits. I'd buy that! Everybody wins. Anyway, I have said everything I wanted to say on the subject, I won't beat the dead donkey, and once again, thanks for the acknowledgement that you are constantly reviewing this, no hard feelings whatever happens, this community is well maintained, well moderated and a genuinely nice place to be, NO CHANGES NEEDED! Well done to all the mods and management. EDIT: It's usable, just not useful. Like eating soup with a fork - it'll do the job, but it's not worth the ballache. That's a good way to put it. Edited January 24, 2017 by Aashenfox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Normally I wouldn't engage in this way but you've brought up a couple of items that could do with being addressed. but here's an experiment you can conduct yourself...Take a photo of a car, then try to upload it to a post, let me know how long it takes you to get it down to the required size. See below youtube, I make it 27 seconds from high res image to attached. any IT professional will tell you that a file size limit of 256K is not intended for images of any kind. I appreciate the suggestion but I don't need to ask an IT professional, I am one. That said, I recognise it's low but we're not printing out these images or displaying them on a jumbotron. There are also image hosting solutions available. This is done to minimise expense and keep the resource free. I know there isn't a lot of profit in these things There isn't any profit in it at all, no one profits, money goes on paying the bills, insurance and subsidising events for members. Would it be better if we couldn't afford to subsidise events, but image hosting was internal? I'd say no. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 And just for clarification, you can be sure if Stu offered to discuss this with you via PM he would have started a topic for discussion in the Team Area so that your comments were available for consideration by all the team. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts