PROPOSAL: Gallery Individual Filesize Increase/Storage Cap
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> League Business
   

How should we proceed?
Option 1: 100kb Max Image Size/Unlimited Storage
37%
 37%  [ 19 ]
Option 2: Unlimited Image Size/5 or 10Mb Max Storage
33%
 33%  [ 17 ]
I'm not really bothered either way...
29%
 29%  [ 15 ]
Total Votes : 51

Author Message

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 2827
Submissions: 20
Location: Cambridge, ON, Canada

PROPOSAL: Gallery Individual Filesize Increase/Storage Cap
Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:32 pm || Last edited by Daemon_Lotos on Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

Okay, please read thoroughly before voting:

Discussion prior to the creation of the vote on this topic can be found: http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=16179

There are three options presented above, that represent the two options that you (the membership) have for the Gallery, going forward, as well as a choice to abstain. (Essentially registering your vote, while stating that you have no preference.
I will be abstaining, as I'm really not bothered either way, I just like to present options to the membership.

This poll will run for a week, at which time I'll consider the outcome to be roughly the direction the membership would like to steer, and we can work out the finer details.
As always, things are never set in stone, and we can always revisit as nessecary.

Option 1-Maintain the Status Quo... That is, a 100kb max image size for gallery items, while allowing an unlimited number of gallery items per user.
Option 2-Upgrade to a 5 or 10Mb Overall 'Storage Tank' that you can fill with images of whatever file size you like, thumbnails or desktop wallpapers. This will come with a storage tracker, as well as a prompt when you upload an image to shrink to several 'common' sizes, should you so choose.

Questions or comments, please post in this thread... I will be checking in frequently!


Useful Links
Site Help: [ BBCode Help | Weave AR/Ring Size Popup | Login Issues ]
Weave AR Search is back: Try it out!

Joined: August 25, 2010
Posts: 167
Submissions: 0

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:48 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I personally think that having the ability to choose the size of the images you upload is a good idea since there are plenty of detailed pieces that don't get the size needed within the current limits. And even those who would want to keep it to the settings it is at now wouldn't really be effected with the changes as they can continue to upload the smaller images and having 100 small images still is plenty for them.

I have items I would like to put up in my gallery at some point but feel the current size limits don't show them off well enough for my liking.

My two rings worth.

Joined: October 02, 2003
Posts: 117
Submissions: 16
Location: Troy, NY

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:09 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I thought there was going to be an option 1.5) Status quo with larger images, i.e. 200kb or something else reasonable, and the option of the script recompressing for you if you wish.

It's still "future proof" in the sense that jpeg is here to stay and the file size for one of a given size/quality isn't looking to change anytime soon, and it's a good enough format for any use we have here. (no need for png/tiff in the gallery, nobody's printing this stuff and who needs transparency?)


If not, I vote 2), it's still perfectly reasonable. I have had many instances of going to upload something (gallery or weaveDB) and had to fiddle with it in gimp to figure out how small the dimensions would have to get to have acceptable image quality and still be under 100kB, for most maille 100kB at 800x600px is quite blocky and artifact-y


Maille Code V2.0 T5.9 R5.1 En.o Fcir MFe.s Wgm$ Cab$w G0.2-2.0 I1.2-14.1 N(many).~25 Pdjs Dacdejst Xg(many)t1w5 S03
deviantArt

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 2827
Submissions: 20
Location: Cambridge, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:29 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

CShake wrote:
I thought there was going to be an option 1.5) Status quo with larger images, i.e. 200kb or something else reasonable


I pondered it, as it was suggested... And I take everything into consideration...

But it comes down to space... Let's face it, 100kb @ infinity is a lot... So 200kb @ infinity is twice as much.

While I'd love to be able to compromise, I'm not convinced that doubling the current limit would achieve significantly desireable results in the constantly evolving world...
And getting much larger than that, infinity just isn't an option... Thus we have what is laid out before us.


Useful Links
Site Help: [ BBCode Help | Weave AR/Ring Size Popup | Login Issues ]
Weave AR Search is back: Try it out!

Joined: June 21, 2006
Posts: 1278
Submissions: 10
Location: The Philippines

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Feb 27, 2011 6:08 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I'm going with the status quo. Looking through the images in the gallery, they do for the most part look good. Compressing down to 100kb isn't too much of a problem, unless of course you want extremely high-res photos of some spectacular work.

Would an option to have both be possible? For example, run-of-the-mill average Juan dela Cruzes like myself who aren't exactly known for our amazing work would have the 100kb limit. Whereas more well-known and professional people who are 1. Long-time members, 2. Regular contributors, and 3. Known very well in the community, could have the option to upload images at larger file-sizes, albeit with an overall limit.

Not sure if that would actually solve anything though.


_________

Being from the third world, BMR claims the right to speak in the third person.

Joined: September 02, 2010
Posts: 380
Submissions: 16
Location: Freiburg (Germany)

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:41 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I still think that the idea of 100kb pics without limit and limited big pictures (like 10 200kb pics or something like that) would be great... maybe with the possibility to make the limit bigger for someone who can give a good reason.

@CShake
I love transparency ^^ but yeah, it's not really necessary

@BMR
It's not a bad idea, but I don't really like all this thinking about "two classes of users".

Joined: July 16, 2008
Posts: 447
Submissions: 2

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:18 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I don't know about Unlimited picture size. Its not likely we would need 1000x+ Pixel images in the gallery, but even going through some of my older photo's I've taken the 1000x images are usually under 800kb.

I think this is what is scaring some people into trying to get as many photo's into the gallery now as possible. That 5-10 MB can be used up rather quickly. Personally, I think even increasing the max file size to 300-500kb would go a long way to improving the gallery, while still being able to keep a reasonable hold on the storage size needed.


<a href="http://www.mailleartisans.org/articles/articledisplay.cgi?key=55086"> Maille Code</a> V2.0 T4.7 R4.1 Ep~f Fds MNb.a&Ag.a Wh Capw G1.6/0.6 I6.4/2.0 N28.26 Pj Djs S08
<a href="http://chubbs-99.deviantart.com">Deviant Art</a>

Joined: January 21, 2004
Posts: 1047
Submissions: 73

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:31 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I'm late to the party, but in the other post I just made I suggested a sort of 1.5 option as well. Raise the file size limit, introduce a file dimension limit, and introduce a total storage cap if necessary. I'm not sure which if any of the poll options here best represent that.

-phong



Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4372
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:14 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

i wouldn't mind a dimension limit just to keep giant images from being posted...

i'm voting yes for the storage space under the condition that we review it when someone hits that number. not saying raise it then, just review it.

i feel that this option gives members the most options on managing their content.

i have to wonder if this kind of policy would encourage articles.. instead of 10 images of a hauberk in the gallery, you may get an article on "how i made my hauberk", since it seems that article and weave uploads would still be unlimited... (do i read correct?)


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 2827
Submissions: 20
Location: Cambridge, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:31 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

sakredchao wrote:
i have to wonder if this kind of policy would encourage articles.. instead of 10 images of a hauberk in the gallery, you may get an article on "how i made my hauberk", since it seems that article and weave uploads would still be unlimited... (do i read correct?)


I would love to see the Article system used this way...


Useful Links
Site Help: [ BBCode Help | Weave AR/Ring Size Popup | Login Issues ]
Weave AR Search is back: Try it out!

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3612
Submissions: 150
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:33 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Just a note: We actually HAVE already a dimensional limit for Gallery entries to 800px maximum for the wider image dimension, to be seen HERE. In contrast to the filesize limit it's just not enforced technically. But it IS a 'MUST' rule, nevertheless.

Maybe (to follow trends to higher screen resolutions and faster internet connections) this limit should be upped to maybe 1024 or 1280px, alongside with a filesize limit increase to maybe 200 or 250kB, and BOTH limits enforced technically by the upload manager this time, and we'd be well for a foreseeable time. A valid counter-argument for limit increases is the growing number of mobile users - these hate larger than necessary images...

Please never forget that MAIL is primarily a specialized archive for a particular topic, and not an 'image storage dump' like flickr & Co. Who really needs storage space for larger images, will always find some. I'll maybe annoy some people with my opinion, but it's NOT MAIL's obligation to pamper its users - it's a tool to be used and not a toy. So imho some restrictions should remain.

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper Mfe.s Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Pj Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hi

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4372
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:41 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

i would disagree, zili. we are here to pamper our users and provide them with the best maillle resource that we can.

imo, they are not indebted to us. we are indebted to them.
without our members we have an empty, useless site.


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 2827
Submissions: 20
Location: Cambridge, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:44 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

sakredchao wrote:
i would disagree, zili. we are here to pamper our users and provide them with the best maillle resource that we can.

imo, they are not indebted to us. we are indebted to them.
without our members we have an empty, useless site.


Very true!

But while I agree with this, I feel that in order to be the best resource we can to the membership as a whole, we must ocasionally impose rules upon individuals.


Useful Links
Site Help: [ BBCode Help | Weave AR/Ring Size Popup | Login Issues ]
Weave AR Search is back: Try it out!

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3612
Submissions: 150
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:51 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

OK, I'll try to describe my opinion a bit more precise: It's not the obligation to pamper the LAZY users, that use mail as 'self-service' shop, to take but not give in exchange, or expecting a totally effortless use. So if there's e.g. a solution to be built into our software that allows users to upload their 'raw' camera images, and stores them in a reasonable, handleable format, I'm well with. But we should expect a little bit maturity from our usership, and being able to deal with limits that make sense. The example of mobile users is such a matter that some people like to neglect. I try to have such users' needs in mind.

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper Mfe.s Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Pj Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hi

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: June 21, 2006
Posts: 1278
Submissions: 10
Location: The Philippines

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:17 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Just throwing this out there, would it be possible to continue with the status quo or 1.5, and have an option open to users to use offsite image hosting? e.g. if I'm submitting a picture, I have the option of either 1. uploading a file (with all the restrictions in place) or 2. linking to the image which is hosted either on my own personal hosting service or an image hosting provider like Flickr or Photobucket.


I know rather little about web development, so I'm not sure if this is possible, plausible, or even a good idea. Just thinking it might deal with some bandwith and storage problems. But then again, it might also create problems in the future with broken links, copyright, and what-have-you.


_________

Being from the third world, BMR claims the right to speak in the third person.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2. Goto page 1, 2  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:22 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> League Business
Display posts from previous: