View Single Post
  #18   IP: 128.220.159.8
Old 02-03-2020, 12:22 PM
ernst ernst is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 148
Thanks: 59
Thanked 14 Times in 10 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndutton View Post
Actually, it can be. Just last week on another forum the admin received a notification from the hosting service that they were approaching the maximum storage on their plan saying the pictures were the biggest load. They had few choices:
  • Delete pictures themselves. This would have to be done by each poster editing their own content.
  • The hosting service would delete them as necessary, oldest first to remain in plan.
  • Go to an offsite image hosting service.
  • Pay for higher storage capacity.
This forum has been struggling for a few years for a number of reasons IMHO. It's membership is small because it's for a single model of boat and is barely funded by Class Association dues which also partially funds a quarterly magazine. Registered forum membership is around 1900, paid Association membership is around 250. They are at a crossroads, either reduce the storage or find a way to feed the beast.

While our precious resource here does not suffer such malaise, it is still an example of how little things can add up. The forum limits your picture size to 1280 px for a reason. My suggestion of limiting attachment sizes further was intended as a courtesy to our host. There is nothing in a 1280 px (one dimension) picture you can't see in a 640 px pic.
Yes, small things do add up, and I agree with you that it is unlikely that anybody will miss details in my pictures if they were displayed with slightly lower resolution.

But we are talking about things nearly immeasurable small. Storing a picture in max resolution takes less than a MB (with compression). The cost of disk storage to do that is on the order of one-thousands of a cent. Are we really concerned about that?

But if it helps, I will in the future reduce the size of my images.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote