Fred Miranda wrote:
The FM hosted images are not the cause of the problem. The root of the problem is having a 300+ page thread that could be 1000 page along with thousands of images by the end of the month.
That is the "read problem"!
But that's only happened because:
Nobody ever exercised any control of the AIT thread before locking it. It could have been much smaller than its current size with a little direction and control.
You don't have any limits on your host members postings. They are free to post, post, post. That works as long as a thread is here, then gone. It looks like that's going to be the fix.
First it was "The DMR Bible" thread (which was much larger at 1000 pages), and now this thread. At least we could blame the last thread deletion on Guy. The AIS thread is just going to fade away by choice.
These longstanding threads are what has kept the Alternative group interesting and alive for me.
I'd like to suggest that the AIT2 not be a sticky. I have in the past worked to make a shot that is worthy or interesting enough for posting just because the thread had dropped to the bottom of the page. It seems much more alive and stimulating if it is up to the contributors to keep it going.
TeamSK jay wrote:
I'd like to suggest that the AIT2 not be a sticky. I have in the past worked to make a shot that is worthy or interesting enough for posting just because the thread had dropped to the bottom of the page. It seems much more alive and stimulating if it is up to the contributors to keep it going.
Thanks for the suggestion. Let's see how it works.
I think if Fred sees a problem, then we should look to address it and not question the reasoning. He is nice enough to let us continue with it!
If some sort of limitations were set on the images, say only one or two images per post, and only one post per week per person? Would that help at all? Or only delay the big hit once the thread eventually gets large?
I've been annoyed by the length of the thread myself. Well, not really annoyed, but frustrated I guess. I forget my place when viewing it (as I don't view it every day, every week, or even every few weeks when I get busy with work and other things). I'm not sure what would be best for functionality, but I do agree the huge thread is difficult, there have been other huge threads that I just stopped looking at because they were so long. The alternative thread however, I tried to keep up with because of the great images.
well, the Alt thread had something; the single thread to mix photos (maybe a little quiet bragging and also testing) as well as sharing "Hey this is what you can do with this equipment..."
I am glad the solution is to keep the format, not make it sticky (it will stay forward on MERIT now :-))
as for the legth, let's frace it, after 100 pages, we aren't really browsing but throwing dartys (unless you guys have MUCH better memories than me
ANyway, Thanls Fred for listening, and I endorse we try this compromise.
Kit Laughlin wrote:
I usually record the URLs of images I really like—Fred, will recorded URLs work once a thread is archived? cheers, KL
you may just need to save them to a folder on your machine, that's the best way to keep them viewable in the future. Some folks put watermarks on them, other folks don't. If they don't, you can always re-name the photos with the name of the photographer in case you ever want to contact them in the future.
What I meant was, 'would the SAME url still retrieve an image, if that thread has been archived in the meantime?' I was thinking that the archiving process might change the link. cheers, Kit
What I meant was, 'would the SAME url still retrieve an image, if that thread has been archived in the meantime?' I was thinking that the archiving process might change the link. cheers, Kit
I serve images to FM threads from my web server. According to the logs, FM does not access my server when I post images using the IMG UBBC. All traffic from my server is generated by browsers external to FM.
I believe the bandwidth hit to FM is caused by those images that are hosted by FM. Specifically, the PHP URL emits an HTTP header to suppress caching: this will cause all images to be refetched as readers flip between pages, or revisit the same page in a subsequent browser session.
Seems that Fred doesn't want to make any changes or rules for his paid members (like have time expirations on images posted, number of images posted,...). That's fine for them, and understandable. Too bad he doesn't come right out and say that instead of talking about the load his server carries processing externally hosted images. He should admit that point rather than say his server get overburden by externally hosted images.
pdmphoto wrote:
Seems that Fred doesn't want to make any changes or rules for his paid members (like have time expirations on images posted, number of images posted,...). That's fine for them, and understandable. Too bad he doesn't come right out and say that instead of talking about the load his server carries processing externally hosted images. He should admit that point rather than say his server get overburden by externally hosted images.
Although I still don't understand why exactly the code is generating undue bandwidth - Given that the solution is nothing more than splitting up the thread into chunks I see no basis for accusations of anything more than some convoluted technical process that needs to be worked around. In the end this is a real win-win situation. The AIT still exists in the familiar format, its history is retained and the turn page problem will be eliminated or significantly reduced.
TeamSK jay wrote:
Although I still don't understand why exactly the code is generating undue bandwidth - Given that the solution is nothing more than splitting up the thread into chunks I see little basis for accusations of anything more than some convoluted technical process that needs to be worked around. In the end this is a real win-win situation. The AIT still exists in the familiar format, its history is retained and the turn page problem will be eliminated or significantly reduced.
It comes down to honesty. It's something I try to have myself, and something I look for in others, especially if business is involved. And this is a business for Fred. Not to mention that I am submitting my images on a host I pay to have. Fred talks about a load; I think he's giving me a load!
That's OK, I've helped him out by changing all the filenames for the images I have posted. He won't have to worry about his server getting overloaded with my external images.
