Poll about image hosting

It's not just a choice between a 3rd-party image hosting site and this site, but also those people who have their own websites (like revcollector and others).

I've had my own work-related (non-philatelic) site since 1999, and hosted my own stamp images on there for items for sale on eBay, etc., back in the day. Those images are still there. In 2008, when web-hosting and domain registration got even easier, I created philatarium.com, where I now have thousands of images stored, in all kinds of file sizes to meet a variety of needs.

When I started my first site, I had to optimize images for download times assuming a 28.8k baud modem, so I know the techniques to balance image size (both image dimensions (height and width) and actual file size (the amount of space it occupies on a disc, which also affects page-load times). It's much less of an issue now, but I'm trained on it from back when it was critical consideration, so I don't find it a credible argument as a reason for using this board's mandatory web-hosting now.

I have never deleted an image file from my sites on the web. That's getting close to 15 years now. So please consider cases such as mine, as it is needlessly complicated to reload and upload here, when I could simply paste in a url.

Additionally, as I stated on another thread, I'm very concerned about the small size of the thumbnail images when hosted on here. If they were reasonably larger, I'd have less of a problem.

Take a look at this thread on another stamp board, Stampbears. They allow optional image hosting, and when hosted on there, the images are quite a bit larger before they turn into a thumbnail representing a larger image. I think you can see this thread without joining the site:

www.stampbears.com/t4036-sotw-comp-1993-submit-your-images

I think this is much more enjoyable to look at, especially when looking at the designs on stamps. And when people here have posted images that represent covers, or full pages of an exhibit or an album page, it's often impossible to even see what the image is without having to click on it and look it in another tab. I don't look at the images most of the time now, because it requires a series of steps to look at them and to go back to the original page, when images of a reasonable size could be embedded within the post.

I'm concerned that, if you require mandatory hosting on this site (and I've never even heard of any site doing this before), and if you cannot significantly increase the default size of thumbnails, then, over time, people will grow irritated with how small the images are, and will participate less and less.

Also, if you want to continue to attract stamp professionals, specialists and experts, I think many of them, if they already have their own web resources, will resent this requirement.

As Jim/jkjblue said above, the more obstacles you put in people's way, the fewer will people jump over them.

It's a very noble effort to preserve images, and although I don't seem to have run into problems with broken images as much as Jack has, I think mandatory image-hosting here is a case where the cure is worse than the symptom.

I would please ask people to vote to allow "both".

-- Dave

I think that Jack's point of not losing images when a member goes or a member's image site goes is the most valid.

This happened on another site that I have belonged to for along time - the image host had some sort of spasm and all our images  were lost. The Admin was able to recover some after a lot of work, but most are lost to this day.

I think it's essential that, bandwidth, permitting we store all images on here. Please think about it and vote for "No2 - Do not allow outside image hosting. All images will be stored on TSF server so they won't be lost"


Thank you



Alex

I take at face value the statements that requiring hosting here will limit contributions. In the tug-of-war between more content that will likely be around as long as the site is around and some content that will almost certainly be around as long as the site is around, more content now wins out, for me.

'tis better to have looked and lost, than never to have looked at all. (Who knew Alfie was a stamp collector?)

On a practical level, has anyone done the math on the bandwidth that a successful site will need? Is it going to be cost effective to host everything here, if this takes off?

cjd, as far as bandwidth goes, I guess it might depend on how many of us will actually support(financially)its prolonged existence.

Thanks, Jack! I think this will prove to be a good solution for now.

-- Dave

The poll tells the story, so I am happy that we have both methods. Only time will tell which method is more reliable and effective. Personally I will continue with the attachment button as I view it as one of the best options on this board - it makes it unique.

Good job Jack,