f/stopblues
photo loner
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'm pleased!
Bike Tourist
Well-known
An intelligent, rational, reasonable, prudent, and yes, welcome solution.
oscroft
Veteran
Sounds like a great solution to me too.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.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Sounds like something is happening... I'll leave my 15 up until they are deleted or something else arises.
dmr
Registered Abuser
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.
Uh, 6mb is more like 20 images at 300kb each, correct? Somebody sanity check my math, please.
ChrisN
Striving
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.
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.
photogdave
Shops local
Interesting! I had never noticed this feature.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.
I have 169 photos, 168 comments, and have used 18.1 MB of space.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
ahhh what the heck, I chopped some more just for the fun of it! Now down to 13 images and 1.3mb of RFF space used.
raid
Dad Photographer
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
Thank you, Stephen. This is a "good solution" under these circumstances.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
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
Number of photos 770
Number of comments 478
Number of times photos viewed 72,861
Disk space used 131.4mb
jan normandale
Film is the other way
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
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
raid
Dad Photographer
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. 
ChrisN
Striving
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.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
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
I think this is a very good solution concept!
raid
Dad Photographer
If there exists a good way to quickly move many images [bulk load/bulk move], we could get a reduction done quickly and efficiently.
If there exists a good way to quickly move many images [bulk load/bulk move], we could get a reduction done quickly and efficiently.
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
raid
Dad Photographer
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
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.
raid
Dad Photographer
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.
Pitxu,
I will try this method also. Thanks.
I will end up with a better looking group of images.
photogdave
Shops local
60 MB? Now you're talking! I would be very happy with this as a solution.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
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.