Too many attachments

[DeSotoSky]

OK, I found the "attachments" link in my profile, never looked at it before....it says I have
2473/500 images and 211/200 MB
Gold membership says I'm allowed 20MB of gallery space.
So I'm totally confused. Is my limit the number of images or space? What is the true number or amount?
Gold membership does not list a image number that I can find. Where is that documented.
And why does it say I've used 211/200 MB which is different than the 20MB listed for Gold.

I think I would be willing to pay for more space. I'll wait for some direction from moderators.

A separate question, how can a hosting site like IMGUR offer free image hosting. What is the motivation?

 

[Chefget]

All well said. I don’t understand the rush to delete years worth of contributions to the forum so, what, you can post a couple more pics and then be in the same boat again? Wait and see, and in the meantime, use third party hosting.

Not so; live and learn

Besides, less traffic on the site will also help the servers run better

 

[jlauffer]

I have 144 pages of images (3599 total), and starting from the back, it took about 46 page to count 500 images that I can't delete due to threads being locked. So there's a good chance there's another 500+ images I can't delete in the remaining 98 pages, which means I could never get below my 1000 allotment. Don't mind there being a limit moving forward, but there's got to be a way to deal with the past stuff like this...some sort of "grandfathering" of existing images so they don't count against our total.

 

[joeradza]

I've always enjoyed taking and posting my photos. So much so that I'm up to 5,000 attachments and over 1,300mb of files. Whatever Spark eventually does will be what we adapt to. In the meantime I'll look at a hosting site that works and continue on.

 

[Fonedork]

OK, I found the "attachments" link in my profile, never looked at it before....it says I have
2473/500 images and 211/200 MB
Gold membership says I'm allowed 20MB of gallery space.
So I'm totally confused. Is my limit the number of images or space? What is the true number or amount?
Gold membership does not list a image number that I can find. Where is that documented.
And why does it say I've used 211/200 MB which is different than the 20MB listed for Gold.

I think I would be willing to pay for more space. I'll wait for some direction from moderators.

A separate question, how can a hosting site like IMGUR offer free image hosting. What is the motivation?

Imgur is filled with ads along with paid posts which look like posts but are actually ads/political propaganda

 

[Hammer67]

It's not opinion. The paid memberships had a stated direct image posting limit. That is what we all paid for. Now, since it wasn't being enforced, we were able to post more than the amount we paid for. I'm not dictating anything for you. Just explaining the actual situation. If you thought it was otherwise, I'm sorry, but it doesn't change the facts.

Thanks. You're not telling me anything I wasn't already aware of. I know the details. But suggesting "I've been getting more than I paid for" is still a matter of opinion.

The bottom line is that I have a hard time getting around the idea that for $30/year, I can't upload literally a few photos a day?! The vast majority of my pics are hosted elsewhere, so it truly is just a few pics a day (which I generally downsize significantly) that I'm uploading directly, and some days I have no direct uploads at all. There are a number of other forums I've belonged to for a long time that do not have this restriction, and especially not for paid memberships.

I plan to move forward with only sharing pics that are hosted elsewhere. But that will definitely limit what I share. And my bigger concern is loss of what has already been contributed, and the legacy and knowledge of this place, not all of which is simply text.

I fully understand that this was an oversight, and that we are where we are and we just need to move forward. I'm not pointing fingers, and I appreciate this place a great deal. I just bristle at the statement that, "if you want to upload pics then you need to pay for it," when many of us have already been paying for a long time. It's not like we've been freeloading.

 

[jakemex]

.

 

[LEGION 12]

OK, I found the "attachments" link in my profile, never looked at it before....it says I have
2473/500 images and 211/200 MB
Gold membership says I'm allowed 20MB of gallery space.
So I'm totally confused. Is my limit the number of images or space? What is the true number or amount?
Gold membership does not list a image number that I can find. Where is that documented.
And why does it say I've used 211/200 MB which is different than the 20MB listed for Gold.

I think I would be willing to pay for more space. I'll wait for some direction from moderators.

A separate question, how can a hosting site like IMGUR offer free image hosting. What is the motivation?

Post image has advertising .

 

[Kbrasmodeler]

I walk into a donut shop and order a dozen donuts. They hand me a box and there's 12 donuts in it. I say "Hey! You've always given me 14 donuts before! What gives"
The worker responds "Well, the owner told us to stop doing that. We can only give 12 when we charge for a dozen."
"But that's the reason I come here! If you don't give me 14 donuts when I order a dozen, I'm not getting what I paid for!"

Accurate?

 

[Chefget]

Ok, found a workaround to the page problem using the back button; got all my pics deleted 2019-2024

Now it's a mission because I can see attachments back to 2001

I would heartily recommend everybody do the same to help ol' Spark out

 

[Sharp & Fiery]

I walk into a donut shop and order a dozen donuts. They hand me a box and there's 12 donuts in it. I say "Hey! You've always given me 14 donuts before! What gives"
The worker responds "Well, the owner told us to stop doing that. We can only give 12 when we charge for a dozen."
"But that's the reason I come here! If you don't give me 14 donuts when I order a dozen, I'm not getting what I paid for!"

Accurate?

No and Yes. In the Busines/Union world it is called “setting precedence.” It cannot be changed without sufficient time of warning.

I’m not here to argue. I’m sure Spark will figure out something we can all live with.

 

[RoyalHolic]

I walk into a donut shop and order a dozen donuts. They hand me a box and there's 12 donuts in it. I say "Hey! You've always given me 14 donuts before! What gives"
The worker responds "Well, the owner told us to stop doing that. We can only give 12 when we charge for a dozen."
"But that's the reason I come here! If you don't give me 14 donuts when I order a dozen, I'm not getting what I paid for!"

Accurate?

Was literally gonna do a McDonald's chicken nugget rant about getting an extra one earlier.

Nobody ever gives back an extra that you weren't supposed to get.

 

[RoyalHolic]

No and Yes. In the Busines/Union world it is called “setting precedence.” It cannot be changed without sufficient time of warning.

I’m not here to argue. I’m sure Spark will figure out something we can all live with.

Setting precedence is always good practice but that's the point of the information when you buy your membership, it was right there all along.

The precedent was there but it wasn't being regulated or enforced.

 

[Sharp & Fiery]

Setting precedence is always good practice but that's the point of the information when you buy your membership, it was right there all along.

The precedent was there but it wasn't being regulated or enforced.

That is correct. However, if not enforced for a substantial amount of time, what has become non-enforced now becomes precedent.

Anyways. It’s off topic, so I don’t want to go further here in this thread. I probably shouldn’t have posted anyways.

Sorry Spark for the derailment. I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes right now, but have confidence that you will figure something out.

 

[hhmoore]

Wait and see, and in the meantime, use third party hosting.

You're the last person to say it, so you get the quote. This seems to fall under the "How soon we forget" heading. It bears reminding that many of us did just that, for years...then Photobucket - being in the same situation on a larger scale - wiped out many years worth of hosted images when they switched to pay for play. Many of us switched to imgur; and in relatively short order there came rumblings that they too might take similar action.
The loss of all that content from a major hosting site was the impetus behind direct attachments. I remember looking at the attachment/storage limitations; and recognized that pruning attachments would be a likely outcome. Like most of the others, since I never received notification of hitting the limit, I pretty much forgot about it.

 

[JJ_Colt45]

A bit of patience might go a long way here. If we just give the powers that be a bit of grace and time to figure out the best path forward it may be that no one has to delete pictures.

And to get angry and threaten to leave BF is zero help. If you really think so highly of this place and the people ... take a breath, relax, and give Spark some time to look at options and wait to hear what that's going to be before having a meltdown.

If this is the biggest problem you face this week ... be thankful not hateful.

 

[eveled]

I mostly post pictures to help people who ask a question. Or to document something for the community.

I get literally no benefit from posting my pictures. My pictures are stored on my computer. I don’t need to store pictures here.

A lot (most) of the people I help don’t even have paid memberships.

There are a lot of people who help the community a lot more than I do. Should they be held to the same amount of pictures as the guy who only uses the forum to sell?

The forum and the community benefit from the pictures. Not necessarily the members who post them.

First step IMHO get rid of the lurkers and make a paid membership mandatory.

Second step delete all of the locked threads with their images.

 

[btb01]

You're the last person to say it, so you get the quote. This seems to fall under the "How soon we forget" heading. It bears reminding that many of us did just that, for years...then Photobucket - being in the same situation on a larger scale - wiped out many years worth of hosted images when they switched to pay for play. Many of us switched to imgur; and in relatively short order there came rumblings that they too might take similar action.
The loss of all that content from a major hosting site was the impetus behind direct attachments. I remember looking at the attachment/storage limitations; and recognized that pruning attachments would be a likely outcome. Like most of the others, since I never received notification of hitting the limit, I pretty much forgot about it.

I get it. I used photobucket before the fiasco, and the result of that whole debacle did indeed suck. But if the choices are A) go with another photo hosting site that may go under at some point and all my old pics might go away, or B) host here with a limit that means after a year or so I will have to delete old pics in order to keep posting new ones, I’m going with option A.

Sure, option C (unlimited hosting here for paying members) would be fantastic, but it doesn’t sound like that’s going to happen.

 

[Blues]

Speaking only for myself, it's disappointing to see the level of kvetching here and willingness to essentially throw both Spark and the site under the bus before enough time and opportunity has elapsed to find a workable solution.

Abandon ship!

(I guess I should be asking for demanding a raise now. Oh...wait.)

My thanks to you guys that have managed to maintain a sense of equilibrium while Spark works through the issues facing the site.

ETA: Seems JJ and I were on the same wavelength.

 

[SpyderPhreak]

Indeed. This sucks big time, especially for those of us already well over our limit. But it isn't near the level of suckage as the Photobucket internet-breaking saga of 20xx. Spark has control of it this time, and I'm sure he will do his best to come up with an amicable outcome.