Gallery Trimming to Save Storage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raid why not just set up a file folder on your desktop, and then drag the full sized images into the folder. It would be a rote process you could do while watching TV or a movie.

I deleted more than 3 years of images and comments on them before the 'deadline' was extended beyond July 1st. What's unfortunate is the fact some members had 'favourited' these images and neither the photographs nor their comments are now available.

The flipside is, for a long time I had intended to 'cull' my images that had few or no comments. I just hadn't intended to be as extensive in my deletions.
 
ampguy said:
Also, deleting the attachments reduces the value of archived messages IMHO. Search tools will return links that no longer have the attachments there.
Click to expand...

Eek! I was just referring (for the 100th time) the Zorki 4K CLA thread, which contains many reference images - it would be terrible if the attachments for that thread were deleted.

Is there an easy way for me to save a copy of it, complete with full res attachments?
 
yes

yes

You can dig around for some free web scraping tools, and possibly even PDF the whole thread, but hopefully Stephen and Jorge will find a way to preserve these useful posts with attachments and even make or keep them sticky.

vladhed said:
Eek! I was just referring (for the 100th time) the Zorki 4K CLA thread, which contains many reference images - it would be terrible if the attachments for that thread were deleted.

Is there an easy way for me to save a copy of it, complete with full res attachments?
Click to expand...
 
jan normandale said:
Raid why not just set up a file folder on your desktop, and then drag the full sized images into the folder. It would be a rote process you could do while watching TV or a movie.

I deleted more than 3 years of images and comments on them before the 'deadline' was extended beyond July 1st. What's unfortunate is the fact some members had 'favourited' these images and neither the photographs nor their comments are now available.

The flipside is, for a long time I had intended to 'cull' my images that had few or no comments. I just hadn't intended to be as extensive in my deletions.
Click to expand...

I will try this approach. Thanks for the tip, Jan.

edit:

I am getting much smaller image files that way. I make the image 'large"on RFF,and then drag it over to a folder. The filze size shrinks to a very small file. What am I doing wrong here?
 
Last edited:
sad

sad

I am sad that this is happening. I also don't think it is the best solutution. But this isn't a democracy and you can do as you see fit. I pay an annula fee, I could I suppose end that.
 
First of all thanks for hosting this forum and service, I know it's a lot of work. This decision makes a lot of sense, even if it won't be popular. I think it's really difficult to run really good forums and gallery at the same level, if you have to make a call about what comes first, it should be forums.

I have my flickr link in the sig area - I haven't played with the flickr "badges" (the bits of code that allow you to show your last 5-10 flickr photos) recently ,but perhaps if it was possible to include these badges on the profile page or in the sig area would be a good band aid (and it might already be possible) for those that relied on the gallery.
 
wayneb said:
First of all thanks for hosting this forum and service, I know it's a lot of work. This decision makes a lot of sense, even if it won't be popular. I think it's really difficult to run really good forums and gallery at the same level, if you have to make a call about what comes first, it should be forums.
Click to expand...

A lot of us who have been here for a long time value the gallery as much as the forums. Especially when we have received important comments and criticisms of our work. It would be a shame just to trash it all.
Also not everybody as a Flickr account, or wants one.
Mr. Gandy is entertaining alternative suggestions to the original mass gallery deletions so hopefully a more agreeable solution is reached.
 
Hi Stephen,

In my view, it will be better if the limit goes by number of pictures, not by date. This way will enable each member to keep its best alive, and any of the viewers - view the best.

Now it is true that some members produce more pictures in a month than others - this factor should and could be taken into account too, in order to allocate each of us a different amount of space based in our different amounts of picture postings.

What I think will not enhance RFF is a kind of unsensible picture trimming. Let's use the need to raise the quality.

BTW, I myself am a low amount picture producer, and on top of it I use to continuously delete images from my gallery alongside posting new ones. Therefore, for me, a space of 150 willl be more than generous.

Others may need 500 - So why should I live at their expense ?

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
photogdave - I understand your frustration. The problem of image/photo hosting has existed since the beginning of the web's popularity. Does one invest their time and money to host their own or give control to somebody else?

I've spent countless hours setting up gallery software on personal servers, customizing it. And then dealing with the frustrating aspects of it, perhaps most of all the lack of the possibility for it to interface with any community. The only positive is I had total control and those galleries would remain up as long as I paid the domain and hosting bills.

I accepted flickr as the least bad solution, one a lot of friends already used. For loss of control over page design (and a fee), there are a lot of positives. But even flickr, owned by yahoo can get bought by microsoft and negative changes can happen. While getting photos and comments off flickr is possible (there is software to slurp the content), finding where to put it next and how to import the data would be probably something most people wouldn't want to deal with.

best regards...
 
wayneb said:
photogdave - I understand your frustration. The problem of image/photo hosting has existed since the beginning of the web's popularity. Does one invest their time and money to host their own or give control to somebody else?

I've spent countless hours setting up gallery software on personal servers, customizing it. And then dealing with the frustrating aspects of it, perhaps most of all the lack of the possibility for it to interface with any community. The only positive is I had total control and those galleries would remain up as long as I paid the domain and hosting bills.

I accepted flickr as the least bad solution, one a lot of friends already used. For loss of control over page design (and a fee), there are a lot of positives. But even flickr, owned by yahoo can get bought by microsoft and negative changes can happen. While getting photos and comments off flickr is possible (there is software to slurp the content), finding where to put it next and how to import the data would be probably something most people wouldn't want to deal with.

best regards...
Click to expand...
Exactly why we should do our best to keep THIS gallery alive.
 
RFF as a resource

RFF as a resource

Coming late to this thread, I must admit I'd be bit shocked to see some of the RFF's older material just simply deleted - and especially disappointed to lose the attachments in illustrated threads - eg Canon LTM lens disassembly and servicing, FSU camera viewfinder cleaning, etc, with relevant images. It's a great resource, and some members have gone to a lot of work and effort to help & assist others .....

And as others have said, I also value fellow members comments on gallery work.

I tend to use RFF for reference, technical info, advice etc rather than for displaying work, as there are far better sites, with more attractive and featured web display and storage methods eg smugmug, flickr, photobucket, etc.

What about a voluntary cull of members images before any blanket deletions? Some heavy users galleries are HUGE in size and dimensions, compared to my 1.67Mb worth of attachments and 64 images for 5.6Mb worth of gallery images, but a lot of my photos would disappear - and their comments - with a imposed 18 month/two year cut off. Are some folk using the galleries for storage as well as for display?

So what about a maximum number of images/per user? And to me, from the old school, 300Kb/image is more than ample for viewing online ......

b.rdgs
 
A suggestion....

A suggestion....

Stephen,

Being in the web business myself I totally understand the storage issue you are experiencing. If I may suggest you have dual criteria, age and activity. Possibly delete items that are more than 18 months old AND have less than, say, 5 comments. Or.... more than 18 months that have not been visited by a member in 3 months.

Using this type of methodology can achieve the result you desire while at the same time adding a nice dimension that will keep some valuable content up for the group to enjoy.

I have another idea that I'll send along in an private message.

Kent
 
This is a unique site. What happens to it will probably influence what equipment I choose to utilize. If I decide that the stock photo business is just getting worse all the time then I lose the one big incentive I have to shoot digital. I have been on the cusp of deciding to just shoot for fun and "art". If that happens, my weapon of choice would be a rangefinder.

But this site would contribute mightily to my enjoyment. I have 90 photos in my gallery, chosen because I wanted to share them and receive valuable opinions about them.

If Mr Gandy were to tell me 90's the limit I would say fine. If I want to put up a new one, I'll have to take down an old one.

But to arbitrarily chop them off by a time limit? That's the idea of someone without the best interests of this site and its members at heart. Is the expense just so onerous that it can't be borne? Well, then charge a small fee.

RFF is great site with some really worthwhile participants.

Please think before you act in a manner that alienates some of them.
 
i think 15 mb per account woul dbe fine. This would allow for 100 images of 156k each. Just my 3 cents.
 
FWIW , I deleted about 90 percent of my images here at RFF. I've about 15 left. I left them for the reason some people had commented and I had replied. It was a resource for RFF.

Based on Stephen's latest note, I'm going to delete the balance of my images. It's his forum and how it is used is his call. I will migrate some of the photographs to my flickr account which is friendly towards images. Sadly this move cannot not include the questions regarding film, camera, lens, or member comments. That information will be lost.

Interestingly flickr has it's own issues regarding it's inaction on 'third party image appropriation without compensation' . I may well move from flickr also.

Things come, things go, including RFF and flickr. TTYL
 
Jan,
If a sufficient number of RFF remove their images, as you have done, there should be enought space for the rest to be left intact. This is not a good solution.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom