Reintroducing photo.net Personal Home Pages

Michelle, your calculation is roughly the one we did -- about 50 to a 100 photos. We're kind of assuming that if people wanted to do more than that, we would be able to sell them more disk space (and probably bandwidth), and that it would still be very reasonable compared to a vanilla web hosting service.

I have played with the homepage (by checking some hidden documents in the archives) in the past few months. One day I decided that I should not add burdern on photo.net and I was tired of updating it and playing with HTML. I reduced that page to a simple link to my portfolio on another server.

<p>

I reaslized that the most valuable feature of the homepage is its address, such as

<p>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/users/SLIU/>

http://www.photo.net/users/SLIU/

</a>

<p>

it is much better than something like

<a href=http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=407444>

http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=407444

</a>

<p>

And I think it is not necessary to provide a full service homepage to the user (not veryone is interested in building homepage), the current member page is good enough for many purposes except for its two confusing and not-easy-to-remember addresses

<p>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=407444>

http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=407444

</a>

<p>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=407444>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=407444

</a>

<p>

So my suggestion is: instead of putting a lot of efforts to build home page service, why not improve the profile pages, remove useless information and hide more details in menus and links, and most importantly, give them nice addresses (aliases) such as

<p>

http://sliu.photo.net

<p>

or

<p>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/users/SLIU/>

http://www.photo.net/users/SLIU/

</a>

<p>

The current image managing system is good enough, why extend it to something people have to learn again and might not use it. Under my proposal, there is not extra system burden and you just simply sell the URLs, which I would buy with my $25 donation. (The email address sliu@photo.net is very nice.)

You can provide text only webpage buildup and forbid any image and non-text file upload. All images should be uploaded with the normal photodb system (which you should also enforce the quota). That would solve a lot of problems and trouble of getting into some unreliable new system. The one you have right now is quite efficient, just pay more attention on the disk space ;-)

<p class=MsoNormal>Brian,<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  </span></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal>I tried to communicate in my post that this is not a

question of �trust�.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  </span>It is not a

question about �intent�.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  </span>It is not about

what <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>will</b> be, but about what <b

style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>could</b> be.<span

style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  </span>It is not about what you <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:

normal'>would</b> do, but what you <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>could</b>

do.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  </span>It is a question about the law and

the <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>real meaning</b> of the legal

language that you use in your Terms of Use.</p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal>I understand the reasons for your Terms of Use.<span

style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  </span>I don�t have a problem with why you have

them.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  </span>For the most part, they all make

sense <span style='font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman";

mso-hansi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:

Symbol'><span style='mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'>¾</span></span>

except for the phrase that I specifically quoted.<span

style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  </span>The point of my post was to give you some feedback

from the marketplace as to how to craft the Terms of Use that, as you said,

would most likely be different for the <span class=SpellE>webspaces</span>.<o:p></o:p></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><u>Let me make it

crystal clear </u></b><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><u><span

style='font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:

"Times New Roman";mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'><span

style='mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'>¾</span></span>

again </u></b><b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><u><span style='font-family:

Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:"Times New Roman";

mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'><span style='mso-char-type:

symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'>¾</span></span> I was not trying to

suggest that this is a scheme of any kind</u></b>.<span

style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  </span></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal>It�s not a question of how <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:

normal'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>I</i></b> would read the Terms of

Use <span style='font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman";

mso-hansi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:

Symbol'><span style='mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Symbol'>¾</span></span>

it�s a question of <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>what they mean</b> in

a court of law.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  </span>It�s not about what

would be smart or stupid; or what you are planning to do today (in June of 2002

vs. a <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><i style='mso-bidi-font-style:

normal'>perpetual</i></b> license).</p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal>I always find it amazing when people say, �Well that�s not

what we really mean�we would never do that.�<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> 

</span>Then, why is it written that way in your contract?<span

style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  </span>I didn�t write it!<span

style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  </span>It�s not my imagination.<span

style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  </span>That�s how you had it written�they�re not my

words, so why are you offended?<o:p></o:p></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal>If you can�t see the cold, hard business logic and how the

law works, it�s no wonder that your answer is to tell members not to upload (or

even easier�to just leave), rather than go back to the lawyers and say, �Hey is

there another way we can accomplish what we�re trying to accomplish without

using this specific language that you�ve suggested?�</p>

Chris Hawkins,

<p>

This feature is available in

<a href=http://photos.yahoo.com/>

http://photos.yahoo.com

</a>, which is free for all yahoo users.

Ok Brian, just don't "clean up" any of mine, since I don't auction stuff anyway. ;)

"There is only one success--to be able to spend your life in your own way." - Christopher Morley

Is this still on the agenda?

 

If so, one feature that would be most beneficial to a number of subscribers

would be to somehow enable them to upload an Adobe Photoshop generated

website (Automate feature included under File from v5.5 onwards.) It's so

simple - all codes and sizing and banners etc. done for you - and the

navigation/UI is outstanding.

Some feedback - I inserted a screen name 'stuartson' and then the home

page URL as Fabian Gonzales has his done (my screen name, not his.) I then

thought I could start building but got this :

 

Server Error

The requested URL cannot be accessed due to a system error on this server.

 

AOLserver/3.3.1+ad13 on http://www.photo.net

I have been trying to find an answer to my question - which I did email to photo.net ........... 'why/ for how long is the Public Portfolio section going to be disabled for' because for some strange reason I did not get a direct reply.

I assume, having read this thread that this is probably the reason.

All I can say is - fine, if people want personal web space on photo.net then charge them.

To be quite honest, having used photo.net for quite some time I would be more than happy to pay $25 a year to be able to access the site (as it used to be I might add).

I had actually decided to subscribe and upload more photos until I came across the new message 'TEMPORARILY DISABLED'.

Newcomers on the site could be allowed a time sensitive membership - say two months (real photography - amateur I might add - people will get 'hooked' within that time)........ after that they have to pay.

Amateur photographers will probably not opt for web space - at least in their early days - so meanwhile photo.net could be taking advantage of the yearly subscriptions.

The majority of people will pay this.

Then they can have the choice of webspace.

If I have misinterpretated the thread then I apologise........ I just want the Public Portfolios back as normal ------- and I will gladly pay the $25 per annum charge.

I am totally hooked!!

But right now I don't need the websapce.

Just the Public Portfolios!!

M Fitzgerald