Gallery Trimming to Save Storage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen, that seems like a very reasonable solution. Users can choose which photos need to go if they have reached their limit instead of the oldest ones being shuffled off.

I'm pleased!
 
I have 121 images, 15.5MB. (Go to Gallery - My Photos - Profile - Statistics to check.)

I'd prefer to select and keep my favourites, not have software do it by views or comments. My favourites are not necessarily those that are most popular.
 
ChrisN said:
I have 121 images, 15.5MB. (Go to Gallery - My Photos - Profile - Statistics to check.)

I'd prefer to select and keep my favourites, not have software do it by views or comments. My favourites are not necessarily those that are most popular.
Click to expand...
Interesting! I had never noticed this feature.
I have 169 photos, 168 comments, and have used 18.1 MB of space.
 
CameraQuest said:
There are over 25,000 registered members, but the number of members posting to the RFF gallery is slightly less than 2,000.

I am considering a 6MB limit of storage gallery space. This would be enough for about 200 images at 300KB size, or 400 images 150 KB size.

If that limit went into effect, about 300 members would be given 45 days to reduce their gallery to the above size. I don't want to charge extra for extra gallery storage as it would likely end up being more trouble than it is worth. Once the storage limit was met, it would not be possible to post more images until others were deleted.

Stephen
Click to expand...


Thank you, Stephen. This is a "good solution" under these circumstances.
 
Last edited:
My situation at the gallery:

Number of photos 770
Number of comments 478
Number of times photos viewed 72,861
Disk space used 131.4mb
 
CameraQuest said:
There are over 25,000 registered members, but the number of members posting to the RFF gallery is slightly less than 2,000.

I am considering a 6MB limit of storage gallery space. This would be enough for about 200 images at 300KB size, or 400 images 150 KB size.

If that limit went into effect, about 300 members would be given 45 days to reduce their gallery to the above size. I don't want to charge extra for extra gallery storage as it would likely end up being more trouble than it is worth. Once the storage limit was met, it would not be possible to post more images until others were deleted.

Stephen
Click to expand...

ummm Stephen, you might want to check yer math there... 200 x 300kb is 60.0mb not 6mb so the number is off by a power of 10 ie its 20 images max per member not 200 if the allocation is 6.0mb for each RFF member's gallery
 
I am using 131MB space, so a reduction to 6MB would be a 95% reduction for me. I am having 770 images at 131 MB, so each image is roughly 1/6 MB. With 6MB space, I have room for about 36 images. This includes some images with very small file size.
 
Last edited:
Yes, there's a factor of 10 off in the calcs... I'm currently using 62122487 bytes = 59MB for 483 pics all just under 150KB each. I can see a 60MB limit as workable, but 6MB would run me down to 41 pics. 🙁
 
SG - would it also be possible, in the period before this action is taken, to remove the "right click" block? At the moment we do not have the option of right-clicking on the image to save a copy to the member's local hard disk. Some members have images here but have not saved copies on their own hard disks.
 
CameraQuest said:
There are over 25,000 registered members, but the number of members posting to the RFF gallery is slightly less than 2,000.

I am considering a 6MB limit of storage gallery space. This would be enough for about 200 images at 300KB size, or 400 images 150 KB size.

If that limit went into effect, about 300 members would be given 45 days to reduce their gallery to the above size. I don't want to charge extra for extra gallery storage as it would likely end up being more trouble than it is worth. Once the storage limit was met, it would not be possible to post more images until others were deleted.

Stephen
Click to expand...

I think this is a very good solution concept!
 
If there exists a good way to quickly move many images [bulk load/bulk move], we could get a reduction done quickly and efficiently.
 
raid said:
If there exists a good way to quickly move many images [bulk load/bulk move], we could get a reduction done quickly and efficiently.
Click to expand...

The site software does not allow many options for the Admins on gallery deletions, its either delete all content of a member's gallery, or delete system wide older than x amount of days.

For members to selectively delete images to get down to the 60 MB limit (previous post a typo), you will have to do it one at a time, or perhaps you will be able to delete a gallery subfolder and all its contents, I am not sure.

Stephen
 
CameraQuest said:
The site software does not allow many options for the Admins on gallery deletions, its either delete all content of a member's gallery, or delete system wide older than x amount of days.

For members to selectively delete images to get down to the 60 MB limit (previous post a typo), you will have to do it one at a time, or perhaps you will be able to delete a gallery subfolder and all its contents, I am not sure.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Stephen,

The 60MB limit is very reasonable. Thanks.
I can work with such a limit and bring down the number of images in my gallery.
 
Pitxu said:
Not sure if it would be much quicker, but you could "favorite" the photos which you want to download. "Favorites" are downloadable as a zip file.
Click to expand...

Pitxu,

I will try this method also. Thanks.
I will end up with a better looking group of images.
 
CameraQuest said:
The site software does not allow many options for the Admins on gallery deletions, its either delete all content of a member's gallery, or delete system wide older than x amount of days.

For members to selectively delete images to get down to the 60 MB limit (previous post a typo), you will have to do it one at a time, or perhaps you will be able to delete a gallery subfolder and all its contents, I am not sure.

Stephen
Click to expand...
60 MB? Now you're talking! I would be very happy with this as a solution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom