|
Post by CampKohler (Sacramento CA) on Apr 28, 2018 0:24:33 GMT -5
...Does a link count towards attachment [storage] size? Or a video link?.... Nope.
|
|
|
Post by sneakers (Metro Houston) on May 5, 2018 17:13:17 GMT -5
Oh, no! Someone chose the name of "gbo?" That makes things clear as mud! How do we distinguish between the forum and His Royal Highness? Dang it, I should have put that on the list of unavailable names. I still might delete the account and do that unless someone comes up with a bright idea in a hurry that will prevent confusion. I keep forgetting that people like to do that kind of wise-ass stuff. OK, you've had your fun. The CA DMV will kill your custom plate if they find out later that they don't like it for any reason, so why not here? Speaking of "wise-ass," the user named "gbo" seems to continue on the wise-assed commenting style of (at first) "GasBuddy" and then "GasBuddy_Member." I'd say to modify his name to "gbo_member" and be done with it. If you ever read the interminable collection of lawyer-approved prose provided as the "Terms of Service" they have a prohibition against faking people out.
Kind of like two chains of convenience stores in Metro Houston. There's one named "Buc-ee's" and another named "Bucky's." Phonetically pronounced the same way. "Buc-ee's" (based in Texas) is throwing a legal hissy fit about "Bucky's" (based in Nebraska). I'd pull for the Texans, especially since "Bucky's" only has one station in Texas at the present time (more of the Nebraska invader stations are on the way here).
|
|
|
Post by hwy60 (Milwaukee) on May 6, 2018 10:56:13 GMT -5
How would I go about deleting photos here that I marked "SAVE". Since this is a newer site and I am still trying to get a handle, I think now that I shouldn't have saved anything; what's the point. All I wanted is for my intended photos to be visible here at the time. (not available here indefinitely). ALSO, WHERE are those saved photos? HOW do I get to them? WHY does the point of saving even exist here? IS IT the USING or the SAVING that uses up the space? PLEASE enlighten me!
|
|
lind
Champion Member
Slaying system bugs
Posts: 2,629
|
Post by lind on May 6, 2018 20:50:41 GMT -5
There seems to be a common area that keeps all the pictures but can only be referenced by the post in which the photos were uploaded to (seems that you can't refer to a picture in a different post, at least it seemed to have failed when I tried). I suspect it automatically deletes photos that no longer have a reflink. It's the actual saving of the photos/attachments that is counting against the space allotted - having thousands of people download the photo does not count against it. 200MB is space, space was meant to be used... I was kind of disappointed after finding out it's only 200MB, I was getting ready to upload tons of automated attachments to see how much space we *really* have... Next I wonder how big of a post can we have, and whether uuencoded or base64 pictures (or even worse aa or caca picture). Before people get excited about caca, though better than aa, it's still pretty crappy [pun intended].
|
|
|
Post by yjsk2100 on May 9, 2018 12:50:31 GMT -5
I may not exactly know what is being talked about but if we are talking about the pictures that are posted (for e.g: one of the answers in games may be eggs and the poster puts in a picture of eggs). Am I right in assuming this is what is being talked about? Isn't it possible for all those pictures to just be deleted? Do we really need them?
|
|
|
Post by Zoe (Illinois) on May 9, 2018 16:02:24 GMT -5
yjsk2100, some of those pictures are hosted elsewhere, so they do not count towards the total site space being used. Every photo I have posted on GBO is hosted elsewhere, so they do not need to be purged from the site.
However, there are still many members who are posting pictures as attachments. Those are what is taking up the limited storage space we have for GBO.
|
|
|
Post by yjsk2100 on May 9, 2018 22:34:29 GMT -5
Can't those members who have posted those pictures just delete them? I don't think they are necessary. But that would be up to the member to do. Just a thought is all. And if we have used all the allotted storage space then I guess no more posting pictures. Our loss....
|
|
|
Post by Zoe (Illinois) on May 10, 2018 5:48:16 GMT -5
yjsk2100, if people are still posting pictures as attachments, those members need to stop or they need to host their pictures off of the GBO site.
Members who are not using any of the site storage allotment because they are using pictures hosted elsewhere should not have their pictures removed, since they are following what should be done and not using up ANY of the GBO site storage space.
Which also means those members will continue to be allowed to post pictures on GBO since they are not taking up any of the limited storage space.
|
|
|
Post by johnr17 on May 10, 2018 6:04:47 GMT -5
I just need to find my old picture from the old place. It came from a computer long gone.
|
|
|
Post by Chris46 on May 10, 2018 10:11:07 GMT -5
No more pictures.
|
|
|
Post by hwy60 (Milwaukee) on May 10, 2018 17:34:42 GMT -5
RE: Photo usage...
Where are the 1, 2, 3 instructions in going to what site and doing what?
|
|
|
Post by johnr17 on May 11, 2018 6:01:28 GMT -5
I'm still searching
|
|
TomB
Full Member
Posts: 291
|
Post by TomB on May 14, 2018 1:33:10 GMT -5
?
|
|
goldie
All Star Member
Posts: 19,851
|
Post by goldie on May 14, 2018 14:50:12 GMT -5
Most of the pictures people post in the forums are forgettable and useless, entirely too large, and often nothing more than a poor imitation of a Hallmark card. I'd rather they not be here at all. If they're hosted elsewhere, why not just post a link and those who want to look at them will, and those who don't won't.
Save the space for real photos, that people shoot themselves, ie. require that they have the copyright to publish them. And limit the file size. When I was first learning about the internet and photography, we were advised to use files at or smaller than 72 dpi (if I'm recalling what it was called.) I never really made the "digital leap" so I don't know if that standard is still in use, but whatever is today's equivalent should be appropriate. It was large enough to look good on the internet, but not large enough to be enlarged into a decent print, and therefor less likely to be stolen (ie, "ripped").
I think some people just want attention and making huge posts is a way they think they'll get it. Let them find some other way. I tend to scroll right past overly large print or pictures, possibly muttering some negative phrases under my breath for having to do so. I think that font size #3 (seen here) is optimal for this site, and sizes larger than that are distracting and aggravating. Smaller is ok.
OTOH there are some intriguing looking avatars that I'd like to see larger to see the detail, but they don't enlarge. Too bad. But that doesn't mean I think they should all be larger. NO! Just a choice. And choice is what I'd like regarding overly large type and pictures in the forums. The choice for them to not come on so large automatically. And hopefully that would save some memory space, too. (Hmm, I wonder if I can do that in my brain?)
The question just occurred to me, do larger font sizes also take up more memory space, or only graphics?
OK, that's my rant for today.
|
|
|
Post by picturefreak on May 14, 2018 20:02:25 GMT -5
Normally when pictures are at 640x480 or 800x600 in resolution, the resolution is poor enough to not encourage people to steal. These are still from 100K to 150K compressed for each, respectively. Today's digital cameras however tend to be in the tens of megapixels, which tend to generate multi megabyte files. As these files exceed the 1MB limit, people are definitely not uploading these.
There's also the issue that 640x480 and 800x600 pictures are a small fraction of a 1080P screen, which people end up frowning upon. As more people use their "retina" phones these small 640x480 pictures are a little dot on their screens, making it tough to actually "see" the picture.
However I think that we're dying by a thousand paper cuts, so to speak. It also makes it tougher to go and zap all the pictures when they time out, perhaps a computer program or automaton can do it if there is no feature within the administrative console.
Font sizes do not increase disk space utilization on the server, or at least marginally (because the tag uses space; however, both reduced and enlarged, i.e. non default, have the same overhead). Non-default color or font text also use that marginal more memory as well. In any case these do not count towards the freeforums disk space, the limit only counts the sum of all attachment sizes.
|
|