Suggested allocated space for usergroups

ChefTalk · January 2nd, 2007, 09:08 AM

I am new to photopost and I am incorporating this into my exisiting forums. After doing some searching I have not found anything in regards to the recommended space you should allocated your members?

I have a community of about 2,000 active members and was wondering would others are allowing their members to have?

Thanks,

Michael P · January 2nd, 2007, 09:14 AM

I've offered 5mb of space for registered users (about 100 images at 50kb) and then offered more to "supporters" of the site (those who contributed monies to support the site) at much higher levels (20mb, 100mb, 200mb, etc).

ChefTalk · January 2nd, 2007, 10:22 AM

Thanks Michael. I have currently set my moderators to 30 mb but I think I will offer the community members 5 mb as well. Would you mind sharing what you are charing for the various memberships?

Michael P · January 2nd, 2007, 11:52 AM

I don't recall offhand; I think I have one site set to $15 for 3 months of Silver; $30 for 3 months of Gold and so forth up to $250/month for Diamond which lasts 3 years.

Steve_UK · January 12th, 2007, 11:06 PM

Cheftalk,

Just as an alternative way to look at things...

Modern digital SLR photos are often about 6mb-8mb per .jpg photo. Most people into taking photos will have hundreds of those to show/share.

There seem to be more and more places where you can store gigabytes of photos for free.

Do sites that only have tiny cut down versions of photos to try and save space and bandwidth serve any real purpose? Such sites seem to be saying to their members 'take great photos with your super new camera - and then make us a special cut down version that has a lower resolution/quality than your mobile phone can produce'.... isn't that a complete waste of time.

Just an alternative way to look at things as I say.

On our site new members can upload photos up to 8mb PER PHOTO, and subscribers up to 12mb PER PHOTO.

Videos will generally be much larger still of course.

Total upload limits and photo sizes/megapixels are forever growing....and all the momentum is for larger files/more and more storage.

Hope the thoughts help.

Steve

paradice · January 28th, 2007, 11:46 PM

Steve,

Could you give specifics on setting those limits? I admit to being new enough that all the settings are now running together.

Thanks

Steve_UK · January 29th, 2007, 12:13 AM

Paradice,

My comment was really about considering what the aims/purpose of the Web site are..

So many photo related sites seem to have almost no real purpose to them at all these days.. and as resolutions keep increasing the tiny photos they insist are uploaded tend to look more and more like postage stamps on modern monitors.

So, my only purpose in writing was to suggest that Cheftalk consider carefully what he is doing before he creates a site that says users can upload a total of less than 1 original photo from a modern digital camera.

If you need advice on setting up Photopost the support folks here are great at explaining anything you are unsure about.. and it is just a matter of looking at the software/settings, trying to do what you want, and if you get stuck explaining exactly where to the support folks here.. so they can walk you past any problems you encounter.

If you do set the limits I mentioned do translate that into the server/bandwidth you'll need won't you....most systems can't do that sort of thing due to the limitations of their hosting.

Many systems would still argue that they only need small images anyway... and what anyone does is up to them at the end of the day...each system operates just as it wants to etc.

Steve

paradice · January 29th, 2007, 01:35 AM

LOL - since I run my own server I was just trying to get an idea of which limit in which section to be concerned with.

Thanks.