Gallery Trimming to Save Storage

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not use the gallery here. The links to images change with software upgrades, and attachments used to retain more resolution. I use a different forum's gallery for lens tests and such these days.

With that said, the biggest issue with the 18-month time-to-live is that it takes control of which pictures are selected for show in each members gallery away from them. Put a disk quota, or a maximum number of photo's per user, and they retain control. They can select their best work to show, and images favored by others along with the comments left about them intact. You can reload an image, you cannot reload the comments.

ANYWAY: my take is that an 18-month time-to-live on the gallery will drive most gallery users elsewhere. This will become more of a gear-oriented forum than it is now.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I do not use the gallery here. The links to images change with software upgrades, and attachments used to retain more resolution. I use a different forum's gallery for lens tests and such these days.

With that said, the biggest issue with the 18-month time-to-live is that it takes control of which pictures are selected for show in each members gallery away from them. Put a disk quota, or a maximum number of photo's per user, and they retain control. They can select their best work to show, and images favored by others along with the comments left about them intact. You can reload an image, you cannot reload the comments.

ANYWAY: my take is that an 18-month time-to-live on the gallery will drive most gallery users elsewhere. This will become more of a gear-oriented forum than it is now.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I really don't want to see the comments from my older photos disappear. I cherish them.
Let's hope the owner hears our concerns and initiates a maximum image cap instead.
 
Folks,

Thanks for your comments on the gallery trimming. The simple fact is that we will run out of storage within about 4 months at this rate unless images are cut back.

The question is how is best way to do that.

I'm not sure, and if this thread can convince me of a better, DOABLE way, we just might take that route.

Stephen
 
sepiareverb said:
What cheap shot post? Did somebody else delete it?

Am I alone or have the deletions gotten to the point of craziness? I've seen references to several posts that I can't find. If these deletions are a method of getting the thread to die I think they may have another effect and have a lot of the membership dry up. I've said it before- we are mostly adults here, I find it hard to fathom that these kind of threads can be so distasteful to the masses that they must be hacked to bits before being deleted altogether.
Click to expand...

i have deleted a couple of POSTS but no threads.
it seems the 'banned users' thread was deleted by the op.
 
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to make suggestions.
I think giving each gallery a maximum number of images would be the best for all around. If anyone has already exceeded the limit they can delete what they want before the deadline. I don't know how feasible this would be it seems fair and simple.
 
outsourced storage options considered?

outsourced storage options considered?

Stephen,

Have you considered low cost outsourced storage like Amazon's S3, which uses as little or as much extra as you need?

It costs, but very little, especially if it's true that existing gallery storage is currently at only 8GB, and will require some up front integration into this SW, but once it's implemented, it's fairly inexpensive, a cost you should be able to recoup and possibly profit by marking up the cost to users needing large gallery storage or even archiving options.

CameraQuest said:
Folks,

Thanks for your comments on the gallery trimming. The simple fact is that we will run out of storage within about 4 months at this rate unless images are cut back.

The question is how is best way to do that.

I'm not sure, and if this thread can convince me of a better, DOABLE way, we just might take that route.

Stephen
Click to expand...
 
House keeping first -
Delete all images stored in the gallery from members that haven’t logged onto RFF for over a year.
Limit the number of images per active members. This lets the individual manage which images remain, regardless of when they posted them.
Encourage off site hosting for images posted in w/nw threads.
 
When Jorge set up the original Gallery, the software provided for a "Disk Quota" on each members gallery, and was set to "unlimited".

If the latest version of software has that feature, activate it. Set a limit for free accounts, and allow users to up it with a fee per year if they so wish.
 
I have about 300 hundreds photos stored and no problem to delete a large number of them but, as already wrote by many memebers before, I'd like to choose the ones to keep and the ones to delete (it would be a good editing exercise!), so limiting the number of images per active member seems a good idea to me.
I'd like to ask Stephen to move the deadline, if possible, a little later like the 10th of july instead of 1st.
Thanks,
 
I would advocate a disk quota or maximum number of images limitation over a time-based solution. I do database work for a living; these should be doable solutions. It would also be more fair to the users ... wouldn't reward somebody for posting a gazillion images in 6 months, wouldn't penalize the guy who posts rarely but selectively.

Thanks are due to Mr. Gandy for being open to the options. He doesn't have to be.
 
Since this thread's start, I've deleted 3 years of my images and comments.

Since this thread's start, I've deleted 3 years of my images and comments.

I've about 6 percent of my original portfolio here at RFF left. I will begin additional deletion on the remaing 20 shots shortly.

I'd like to say a "thanks for looking and commenting" to those who looked at my photography. I enjoyed your individual comments and wish I could have figured out a time effective way to retain them.

What is becoming clear to me is despite long standing efforts by many of the photographically oriented members here at RFF there is a bias towards "gear". This "GAS" aspect seems to now be clearly dominant at RFF. Time to move on.

I'll stay here for some of the TLR and MF forums. I won't be uploading images that I have no control over. Below my name are two links one to flickr and my own website. My photography will be visible there.
 
raid said:
Yes Yes Yes

All I want is an easy way to bulk move almost all of my photos out of the gallery.
Click to expand...

Raid don't you have your photos developed & scanned to a cd? If so & you kept the cd's as back up then I wouldn't worry about it. But hopefully someone will show you an easy way. Why don't you open a flickr account.? Muck better than here & there is even a rff group there.😉
 
jan normandale said:
I've about 6 percent of my original portfolio here at RFF left. I will begin additional deletion on the remaing 20 shots shortly.

I'd like to say a "thanks for looking and commenting" to those who looked at my photography. I enjoyed your individual comments and wish I could have figured out a time effective way to retain them.

What is becoming clear to me is despite long standing efforts by many of the photographically oriented members here at RFF there is a bias towards "gear". This "GAS" aspect seems to now be clearly dominant at RFF. Time to move on.

I'll stay here for some of the TLR and MF forums. I won't be uploading images that I have no control over. Below my name are two links one to flickr and my own website. My photography will be visible there.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to see you taking such drastic action Jan. It seems, in this case, the site owner is willing to consider alternatives so the gallery may yet still be an exciting place to view new (and hopefully old) photography.
I'm not going to make any moves until I see the final outcome, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I'll be allowed to keep my archive.
 
I don't use the gallery at all, but a limit on disk space per user seems to be a much better idea than to delete all images older than a certain age.

One reason this makes makes more sense is because it's a permanent solution. I haven't seen this mentioned yet. If you just delete all images over x months old, then it's a one time deal (unless you have the deletion macro or whatever it may be run every single day). If you limit the amount of disk space a user can take up, then it lasts forever and can, presumably be scaled up, or down if that's the case, when RFF gets more disk space and is probably more of a low tech (less server intensive) solution.
 
Thanks to the warning, I am busy saving (to a text file) all the useful comments made on my gallery photos. Many of those photos were lost from the earlier gallery in one or another of the forum "migrations" before Jan 2006 and were reposted shortly after that. So those are older than 18 months and will be deleted once again... along with the comments, really unfortunate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom