02-12-2021, 05:28 PM
(02-12-2021, 12:46 PM)ac3r Wrote: I wonder what and where the admin pays for hosting. My website is on a $11.00 a month hosting service and has unlimited bandwidth/storage space/SQL etc. It's not a dedicated server, but I doubt WRC has enough traffic to justify running on Xeon's either.
The small hosts that advertise these all around unlimited options will never actually let a customer take full advantage of that. They might play the numbers game and assume that 99% of customers will be thoroughly profitable, and let 1% go slightly beyond what is profitable. But anyone trying to take true advantage of the unlimited options will find themselves throttled to the point of unusability, or in violation of some policy that gets their account terminated. Even companies like Google and Amazon learned the hard way that they can't support any unlimited storage options, although they draw much more attention from those looking to abuse the policies.
(02-12-2021, 01:02 PM)tomh009 Wrote: It all depends on the size that you want to post. I resize mine down to 1200px which is (in my view) a decent size for most screens and yet loads quickly, including on mobile devices (my last DTK post, at 1200x1900, is about 350 KB). At that size 200 MB is enough for 500-600 photos. The elite members have no limit, I think. @dtkvictim, are these too small in your opinion?
I suppose it all depends on the specific photo. To be clear, I'm grateful for people posting whatever they choose to post, so don't worry about changing your habits just because I'm whining. I never know what sort of details people might be interested in zooming in on, so I just leave them in the original resolution, especially since it's less effort than down-scaling would be.
(02-12-2021, 01:02 PM)tomh009 Wrote: One reason I wish everyone were able to use the attachments is because at some point users will no longer be active here, and will let their imgur/whatever accounts lapse. And then we have no images, just broken links, losing our historical documentation.
This is fair, and I certainly wouldn't argue against that given the history of previous image hosting websites. That said, I've been a member of many small forums of this size, any very few seem to even make it past the 10 year mark, whereas Imgur is a borderline profitable (or maybe even profitable, hard to tell from Googling) company. So I figured the odds of it outlasting this website are decent enough that I would take the chance, but I could easily be wrong and look like an idiot.
I can't find it now, but I recall in one of the first reddit posts from the Imgur creator he said the strategy of old hosts putting those "This image is using too much bandwidth, and the uploader hasn't paid for a premium subscription" watermarks over the image just reflects poorly on the host, and not the image uploader who wouldn't care at all. Thus they have no interest in that approach. Accounts aren't required to upload there either, so there isn't any issue of accounts "lapsing".