Slightly O.T. - Keith's Concern Raises A Question

[George Summers]

I really know nothing about 'photo sharing' websites except that a lot of people use them to show their photos on the web (WW related so I can show projects and shop pics). Keith's concern has started me thinking again about using one but being a computer illiterate I need help. A Google search brings up several and I don't know what to look for in features (except 'FREE'). Which do you use, why, what are the advantages of one over the other?

George

[Jason Roehl]

George, there are some issues with photo-hosting sites, and when it comes to a site like this, some reasons NOT to use them. For one, photos hosted elsewhere do not get archived here. Plus, folks generally do not leave their pics on those hostings sites long-term, so they end up being broken links, which makes for a bunch of worthless posts. Another issue is the bandwith of other sites hosting linked-to pics. With the sheer number of members/viewers on SMC, if someone links to pics on their own webspace or a hosting site (which will often have a small daily or monthly bandwidth limit), their bandwidth limit can be quickly exceeded and they may be shut down or charged by their ISP (or other host).

The bottom line is: TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). Right now, we are eating the crumbs that are falling from the Hampton Roads table. But at some point something's going to have to give. The pic size here will have to be cut to reduce bandwidth, or be disallowed entirely as Keith alluded to in his other post, or somebody somehow somewhere will have to pay for greater bandwidth capacity for SMC. Either that or we should be sending Keith Lottery tickets so that he can become independently wealthy and underwrite this whole thing indefinitely.

My suggestion (trying to offer solutions here, not just point out problems!) would be that the pic size limit be cut to something like 40-50k, as one can still view quality pics at that size. Personally, I have DSL, so I it's no big deal for me to look at pics that are up to 500k in size, but that eats ALOT of bandwidth, and there's no need if the same result can be accomplished with a pic a tenth that size. Also, I think it would help if only logged-in members could view pics, but I don't know if that is feasible, or if there is alot of bandwidth going to non-logged-in-members viewing pics.

[Kelly C. Hanna]

The people who host my websites have a package for everyone and they are the cheapest I've ever seen for hosting. I pay only $35 a year for 1000MB of space and 10GB of bandwidth (transfer). There's even a package that costs less than that. It's very easy to upload files via Cute FTP and you can even register a domain name through them. I don't know if it's ok to post the link here, so email me or PM me and I'll send you the link if you're interested. Very few of the free sites allow remote loading (ability to view them from outside the system).

[Keith Outten]

We currently have plenty of bandwidth to support SMC and all of our members. We don't have enough bandwidth to support all of the other woodworking forums.

[Jim Engel]

This is a guess, and perhaps Keith will correct me if
it is wrong.

The problem is that when his host starts running
slow it creates an immediate crisis in that paying
customers, who have many other venders who
would love their money, get real unhappy real fast.

You have to drop everything and look for the problem,
which could be hardware, software glitches or, as in
this case, someone dropping a huge load on the
system.

You can't put it off until tomorrow, you can't stop
for dinner, you have to find and fix the problem if
it takes all night, and the next day if necessary.

While you are looking the problem, the boss is
looking over your shoulder, and pretty soon
you wonder if he is thinking "Hey, there are a
million unemployed computer jocks out there,
I wonder if one of them would like a shot at
fixing this...."

And, one way or another, everybody has a boss,
even if he owns the shop, because then the bosses
are his customers.

So, when you finally find the problem there might
be just a tiny, tiny tendancy to be a little bit
tense.......

[Aaron Koehl]

Just to clarify, it's not an issue of bandwidth for SawmillCreek--we have plenty of resources to host content on our servers.

However, the only problem is when the pictures are viewed independently of the actual posts--linked externally.

We prefer that pictures that are used at SawmillCreek be attached here, but when linking from other sites, that the post be linked and not the individual attachments.

The size of the pictures don't really pose an issue. In addition, we would like for guests to continue to be able to view attachments--this is a feature we could turn off, but would rather not.

[Lawrence See]

Just to clarify, it's not an issue of bandwidth for SawmillCreek--we have plenty of resources to host content on our servers.

However, the only problem is when the pictures are viewed independently of the actual posts--linked externally.

We prefer that pictures that are used at SawmillCreek be attached here, but when linking from other sites, that the post be linked and not the individual attachments.

The size of the pictures don't really pose an issue. In addition, we would like for guests to continue to be able to view attachments--this is a feature we could turn off, but would rather not.

Aaron, I finally get it. It's the link to the attachment that chokes your server. It's one thing for interested people to visit and look at a picture in a posted message, that's what we are here for. But, when many people on another site look at a message there, each viewing is another request to SMC's server. Multiply that by the number of other sites that link that picture and the server is handling hundreds or thousands of requests and now there is a real problem.

Did I get that right?
Regards, Larry

[Aaron Koehl]

That's it exactly-- and multiply again if the post had more than one picture.

_Aaron_