Jump to content

Limits on Posting Photos


mottershead

Recommended Posts

Because of heavy traffic on the site, we are instituting the

following changes in the Gallery:

 

<p><ol>

<li>No Gallery photo over 600K pixels will be served. If a photo

over this limit is requested, the thumbnail will be sent instead.

Subscribers are subject to this limit along with non-subscribers.

 

<li>Non-subscribers will be limited to uploading a maximum of 20

photos. Photos that have received 10 or more ratings will not be

counted against the quota. Subscribers are not subject to this

limit, but remain subject to the previous 200-photo limit.

</ol>

 

<p>We urge all regular users of the Gallery to <a href="/photonet-

subscriptions">subscribe to photo.net.</a> The site needs your help

in order to be able to continue to provide a place for people to

share their photographs with the huge world-wide audience of

photo.net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think this is a good move - and you're more generous than I would have been!

 

600K is almost enough for 1024x768 uncompressed (790K), which is more than reasonable. I personally don't see the point in posting anything larger than 800x600 since most people won't be able to fit anything larger than that in their browser window. Very lightly compressed 800x600 makes a jpeg that's under 300K. I'd have at least limited non-subscribers to under 300K.

 

I wouldn't have had the ratings exemption for non-subscribers either. Just 20 images. That means less database checking and 20 is a more than reasonable number of images for users to display their talent. Users can cycle their images if they want to display more than 20 (or become Patrons!).

 

I certainly hope these changes drop the bandwidth and server loading. I just don't have a feeeling for how much of the load is the result of transfers of images over 600K in size or downloading of images from large portfolios belonging to non-subscribers. However even if it doesn't drop the load much, but encourages more subscriptions, it's still good!

 

Ironically enough, it took about 20 minutes before I could write this response, and another 20 minutes before the system would let me post it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The limit is 600K PIXELS not bytes.

This is enough for 800x600 (plus a little more to accomodate panoramas) and to provide some grace.

 

The reason for the exception for frequently-rated photos is that I don't want to lose photos from top photographers even if they are over the 20. I'd like them to become subscribers, but I want their photos in the Gallery more. What I'm trying to discourage of is the person who is not a subscriber and uploads the whole CF card of birthday party snaps. If he is a subscriber, then he is paying us to do that, and I don't mind. But if he isn't a subscriber, he is a freeloader, and I don't particularly see why I should work for a low salary so that photo.net can buy hardware and bandwidth for his snaps.

 

I might make some other exceptions as well, since ratings are somewhat defective in identifying valuable contributors to the Gallery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I've finally set up my PayPal account and paid for the subscription! I don't consider myself an average, let alone a good photographer and I normally use the forums to learn more about my hobby in the hope that one day I'll be better. I'm not too bothered about the upload limits or the gallery because I make little use of them, however I'd hate the site to go under because there is so much valuable advice on here and I find it genuinely useful.

 

Steve Coburn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

photo.net is simply the best online photographic resource there is. Would <b>you</b> miss it if it went belly up? I know I would. The photo.net subscription is cheap at the price, my only regret is that I didn�t subscribe sooner.<p> If anyone is anxious about subscribing using PayPal, don�t be. I must admit I was, but tried it and liked it so much that I am now using PayPal as the main payment method on my own website. photo.net really is worth supporting!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to this situation, I have begun deleting photos although I was sitting at around 100 photos, which is under my allowed 200 as a subscriber. I intend to remove more, been getting that unhappy server message, and to take a short break from posting photos.

 

I hope this message about posting limits goes on the home page, and whatever page the new user gets to see when they join.

 

photo.net is great, photo.net will keep on trucking

 

more subscribers are needed now more than ever

 

hang in there, Brian et al

 

regards, Bill Gibson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with all the other posts to this item. I also regreat having waited too long to subscribe, but that's water over the dam. I've belonged to ther sites which have far smaller allowable image sizes and far more space dedicated to advertisers. This is the best site for what we do, and I hope it continues. Great work everyone. --Rich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'm suitably chastised - I'll learn to read before I post!

 

Yes, 600K pixels is reasonable. 600x800 is only 480K pixels so a 600K pixel limit is good. That's around 100Kbytes at normal jpeg compression and only 300Kbytes even if you chose the least possible jpeg compression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian,

 

If you can limit the Freeloaders to 20 pictures in total, then I'd say more power to you. Of course, limiting them to 10 in total, not per day nor per week would be even better. How about further limiting them to no more than one (1) picture per day?

 

I disagree with exempting the 10 or more ratings against the quaota, because it can be easily beaten. If the Freeloaders care so much about how many pictures they can load up, well then, please pay up.

 

Even 200 pictures for the patrons is excessive, IMHO.

 

We are all behind you. Take care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good move Brian! I don't think you will regret this move, and if you do, well, I suppose you could reverse the policy.

 

So this means a 68 kb file that is 750 pixels by 750 pixels will display as a thumbnail if called up in the Gallery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great idea! I also don't see the reason for the exemption for non-subscribers with more than 10 ratings. Why would they lose photos? Wouldn't they just be prevented from posting new photos? And, if they are really that good and getting all the ratings, then it would stand to reason that they are getting some benefit from the site and should be willing to fork over the reasonable subscription fee in order to allow them to post more than 20 great photos with lots of ratings. Right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Brian, why not institute multiple levels of subscription/support. I'll bet there are quite a few photo.net subscribers who would step forward and put in $50 per year or even more. Since 1996 photo.net has been extremely useful to me. I've put in $25, but I'd be willing to double that per year. Just a thought.

Backups? We don’t need no stinking ba #.’  _ ,    J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Praise be! Brian, good decision made at a proper time as things were deteriorating.<p> Now my critique. I gotta agree with Bob Atkins <i>I wouldn't have had the ratings exemption for non-subscribers either. Just 20 images.</i> My reasoning is 10 ratings are not hard to get as a mater of fact several of my latest shots seemed to get that many 3/3�s. I think you should go either 20 shots period or 20/20�not counting any shot with 20 or more ratings.<p>One of the other photo sites, I believe it�s photosig, have put a timer into place where you could not skip through photo�s critiquing 4(?) or more a minute. Is this a good idea? Is it feasible?<p>And lastly I�d like to agree with Tony Rowlett about $25 being just a starting donation�I�m wondering if it�s worth having something like a Load Balancer Drive where existing members who want to contribute a couple of bucks extra can do so? <p>Bottom Line: Brian�thanks for doing a great (and sometime thankless) job�cheers�Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian,

 

$25 a year does not buy a whole lot of film, so it is NOT a lot of money to ask. Don't be scared. All these visitors spent hundreds and thousands of their dollars on equipment and film/development, your $25.00 a year is way TOO LOW!!! AOL asked almost that much PER MONTH, and you don't have half the fun there. Go do it, pay up or be restricted! Best regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will these limits apply to images posted in the forums, too? It doesn't look like they currently apply to a user's quota. (Maybe the "No Words" threads are insignificant in terms of traffic?)

 

Hang in there, Brian. This might be a crappy problem, but it's happened because you're running a great website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many sites have bronze/silver/gold type memberships where the more you pay, the more you get. Photo.net isn't setup like that, but I suppose it's possible that some future features could be made available in that way. Especially features that are likely to be hard on the server.

 

It's certainly conceivable that you could have a scheme whereby you get to store 100 images for $25/yr, 200 images for $35/yr or 400 images for $50/yr for example.

 

Even better would be a two tier download limit. 5MB/day for non-patrons, unlimited for patrons. This wouldn't affect forum users (or static article readers) since the bandwidth consumed there is pretty small but would hit those downloading large numbers of images. 5MB would be about 50 large images, which would be more than fair for non-patrons. The exact limit would need to be determined by looking at the logs. It should be at or below the point where it would have a significant impact on reducing bandwith consumption by non-subscribers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe we have a scheme in place where you can buy more space. I know there are people on photo.net with large portfolios and they are paying for it. I do not remember the amounts, but they were posted in a forum quite a while ago. So that some of the people are paying $25.00 per (for example) 200 more uploads. I do not know the exact terms, I did not save the forum I saw it in. At any rate those people are supporting as many freeloaders as they are paying their $25.00 increments. Can anyone confirm this?

 

I don't think the 10 ratings is any reason for being allowed more uploads. This site does not turn on the ratings, as you can see from the above postings. People come here for information. Unless you return rate and get caught up in the ratings balderdash you seldom get that many ratings. I would hate to see some of the top photo pages being touted as the best there is on photo.net. The best there is, is in the information. The information is on some photos, but it is also in articles and in forums. What about the people who contribute to forums and articles, wouldn't they be allowed a free ride, too? And so, it would go, on and on. Do not allow that ratings thing, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...