Image folder quota

[sknowles]

<p>I'm curious if folks thought about having a quota on the number of images in a single folder. I asked this because I went to view some images of a photographer and didn't when it noted there were over 15,000 images in the one (single) folder. That's a bunch to download and view, and caused me not to view the folder and consider there should be a quota to help viewers.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>I see your point. But I really think it's up to the photographer to be smart enough not to overload viewers. I'm open to the idea. But my initial thought is that setting a limit is just going to trade one set of annoyed users for another.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Scott, I've experienced what you have. On several occasions, instead of viewing the folder or portfolio, I've dropped the photographer a line stating that I was turned away from the portfolio simply because of the amount of photos I'd have to wade through in order to get a sense of the work. As with any critique, it is then up to the individual photographer to take it or leave it.</p>

[sknowles]

<p>Thanks for the response. So, how about an adviory or warning statement when the number of images in a folder reaches a certain level? Such as, "For better efficiency for viewing images, it is recommended that the number of images in a folder not exceed XXX.", or some such words. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Scott, why look for imposed or even suggested limits? I certainly don't want or need the site's advice on the matter of how many photos I show. Can't we each simply take responsibility for ourselves? The site also doesn't suggest that we don't post photos with blown highlights. I'd much prefer allowing individuals to express themselves or use their portfolios the way they want. Some are using them to show clients proofs. Assuming that's not against the rules of the site, there may be good reasons why someone would have hundreds if not thousands of similar photos in their portfolios, and those reasons may not include my own viewing convenience when going to their photos. They may not care much about whether or not I have the patience to wade through their stuff. The administration shouldn't and doesn't seem to assume that everyone here has the same goals or needs. I say, the less suggesting or advising by the site itself, the better. Surely, they have to make certain rules for better running of the site, but those should be the hard and fast things that keep the site afloat, keep it a civil place to come, and keep it making a profit. </p>

[sknowles]

<p>Fred, interesting view, but remember, we don't own the Website, they do, and like any Website, have the right to impose whatever rules and limits they want. We only subscribe, or not, and accept the rules and limits. I was only suggesting for the efficiency of the viewer, that a notice be displayed reminding the photographer that more photos means more download time and an excessive number of photos in one folder won't encourage viewers to download the folder to view the images. It still is, as you note, the user's responsibility. It's also the viewer choice too, and I thought 15,000+ images in one folder is a bit much to wait to download. And it is the Website owners' right to decide for all users and visitors.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"And it is the Website owners' right to decide for all users and visitors."</em></p>

<p>Yes, and one of the reasons I patronize PN is that they decide relatively little for me. I prefer to keep it that way. It's your right to advocate for this kind of suggestion and I'm glad you did. I was just giving my opinion that I'd rather it not be done. My guess is that most people with 15,000 photos in a folder know about the access time, because they experience it whenever they go to their own folders. That ought to clue them in!</p>

[JohnWebster]

<p>There is a frequent poster from the middle-east who has 15,000 plus images in his folder and must be ignorant of the fact that no one can view them. Why would anyone intentionally do this? Someone who speaks and writes his language should communicate with him to inform him. I believe this man is highly educated so he should be smart---but he is ignorant of some internet details and someone should educate him. If he informs us, through an interpreter, that he wants to keep his procedures as they are we can accept it and forget about trying to visit his gallery. In the meantime I would suggest that anyone who is trying to view a gallery with more than a thousand images in it be prepared to have their computer crash or time out.</p>

<p> </p>

[sgust]

<p>I would be all for a reasonable limit to number of images allowed in a folder. While some may actually want to create enormous folders, fully understanding the issues involved, I believe in most cases it's just a matter of the not knowing that it causes problems for those wishing to view their images. And by the time they start getting comments that it is causing problems the folder has reached such proportions that reorganizing their portfolio seems like too much hassle. So they leave the folder as is and just start new ones. This could be avoided a combination of both of Scott's ideas. At a certain size, say the size that 90% of all folders fall below, give a warning that you are approaching practical limits and that there is a site imposed limit of xxx. Or leave everything as is and I'll continue to ignore the folders of ridiculous proportions.</p>