Suggested Topic sections.

[Karla]

Looks like we have more space than I first thought and I can increase the available quota for attachments. I'll need to figure out the easiest way to do regular backups, but if you want to be sure to keep it safe or find the size restrictions limiting then I suggest sharing it on a dropbox account or other cloud storage. So I have bumped up the quota to 100 megabytes but am not sure what we'll do when we inevitably reach that limit!

At the moment the settings are max 100kb per image, max 200 kb per post and a max of 4 images per post (I had knocked this down earlier but have restored it to the default now)

With our own pictures on the main site we generally keep the photos well below 100K. It's not just about storage but people downloading on poor wi-fi connections on their tablets or phones for example. It becomes more of a problem when you consider that there may be multiple images downloaded at once on a single page. We resize them to a suitable size and choose a level of compression where you don't lose any discernible quality which allows us to be quite parsimonious with the bandwidth.

[Bob Knows]

I'm not sure why anyone needs to post any photos here.  I always let Flickr host my photos and post a link here.    Its a convenience, perhaps, for some who aren't able to learn how to link from somewhere else. 

[eyesup]

Keep in mind that the image file may be 100k but when it is uploaded and stored more info is stored with it, e.g. if you insert a 100k photo in a Word document and save it you save the image and all the formatting of the document along with it.

It's not just a 100k file on the storage.

Duane

[jbeegoode]

Duane
Wow! I didn’t know that an image would be of quality at less than 100Kb! That explains the difficulties I was having.

If my math were used which was 300Kb per pic, would that cover the extra space that Duane is mentioning?

Was the 100 megabytes a typ-o? What was the 10 gigabyte figure, earlier? Was that bump to 100 gigs instead? 100 megs divided is only 500 to 1000 pics. Yea, over years, that wouldn’t hold up without another procedure.

AND, please, pardon and bare with (sic.) my ignorance.
Jbee

[nuduke]

Ok, with reference to my post elsewhere and just having read this post thread, whilst it would be nice to get back to illustrating our posts with pics, we should respect Karla's small data allocation.  I reckon posting picture urls is ok and uses no significant data.  It does mean that some will have to create a new picture site account - me included - but this is no terrible thing.  If anyone knows how we might have a common photo store for all our pics that we could all upload to, then let's hear about that.  Maybe we wouldn't even need to embed urls - just say 'see the pics I posted today' and we'd all know where to find them.

Karla (& Stuart) thank you so much for the warmth & generosity of your response.

You're welcome to stay for as long as you like, or to go off and start another forum if you think you have particular needs that can't be met here. A discussion forum is shaped by its members more than anything else. Don't feel that there is a danger of out staying your welcome, the forum would be dead otherwise. We started it as an alternative to a guest-book and on the off chance that something might develop. But I never intended putting in the work to build up a community, not after all the effort I put in for my sustainability forum. So if an existing community wanders in looking for a new home and wants to use the space as they see fit then I'm perfectly happy with that. It's been a delight to provide a home for you all and I am glad to have been able to help out.

I'd like to see SN having its own site/forum but perhaps looked at in the light of your remarks above, our aims seem entirely compatible, so perhaps our new home is indeed FRN Island after all and Karla is our new Lookee (the benefactor of the old site).

John

[eyesup]

Duane
I didn’t know that an image would be of quality at less than 100Kb! That explains the difficulties I was having.

If my math were used which was 300Kb per pic, would that cover the extra space that Duane is mentioning?

AND, please, pardon and bare with (sic.) my ignorance.
Jbee

You and me both. This is all new territory for me.

I do know that it depends on the compression algorithm used in the software. I have copied images off of the screen that were large and sharp and when I viewed them on my nifty old viewing program it looked terrible.

It depends on the software. This is where Karla would be the best to ask as she know her system and how it works.

Duane

[balead]

Karla,

Thank you! I would feel it was rude to turn up, use your forum and then flounce off somewhere else. If you are happy to have us here then I, for one, am more than happy to be here.

I agree entirely Ian, I see no reason why this shouldn't be our new permanent home.

[nudeytony]

I agree entirely Ian, I see no reason why this shouldn't be our new permanent home.

I also agree. It is fine for messages and I am sure we can find a way to include photos without using a lot of bandwidth. It is still early days for us here and new software always takes a bit of time to get used to.

Tony