Server sace

[john e. holliday]

Isn't it time the administrators start removing some of the garbage on the forum?  I know I see a lot of repeat stuff on here.

[Ty Marcucci]

Well Doc, you can go to all of your olde posts and remove yours.  I have removed many of mine that are no longer of use or significant, such as"hope it flies as good as it looks " kind of stuff.  Just saying.

[944_Jim]

Mr. John,
I mean no disrespect by what I'm about to say. Please don't think I'm being a jerk. Digital spread happens on all systems and platforms. While I'll take several paragraphs to describe the fix to the problem, those paragraphs barely begin to scratch the surface on how to shrink the creep. There is a lot more to it. Even employing AI to do the work would take a lot of effort.

Cleaning up servers is tough if one wants to prune old messages and files. Looking for duplicate or obsolete information isn't something that happens at the push of one button.

The only easy way is to pick an arbitrary date in time and delete everything "to the left" or "older than" said date. But that deletes a lot of historical references that hold value for any guys showing up. Deleting pictures will be the same way.

Give it a try on your PC or phone...look at all those files you downloaded and determine which of them should be deleted to make room for newer files. A file by file "search and destroy" takes a  certain ham-fistedness that flat cold means "lose the old and keep the new," or a slower, much more meticulous labor intensive investigation to triage and toss redundant or obsolete files. Consider just our messages as files, and you'll.see.just how painful cleaning up a hard drive can be. This is what usually drives people to buy more hard drives for an existing PC, or buying a new phone for more storage.

I'm not trying to be a smart @$$, but which of all of your posts do you want to delete from the server? And I ask that of each of us (including the guy in the mirror). We all post because we believe those posts add value to the site. None of us wants the task of deleting any of our own earlier questions posed, and answers received or given. Now multiply that by the number of current users, and this becomes impossible for one man to perform.

I feel for Sparky. While we consume his resource, few of us help pay for his resource and the services he does basically for free. Yes, I do see you are a sponsor this year, as am I. Unless Admin declares no more free accounts, this will become.an unsustainable model. Only the generosity of Admin and donation providers (you, me-twice this year already, others too) keeps this site funded. Ads don't really help if we as consumers run ad-blockers against the site. An advertiser is a sponsor. A sponsor won't sponsor if his ads don't bring customers/revenue.

For Sparky...I feel your pain! Thanks so much for your labor of love.

[Motorman]

I tried to delete all my posts since no one seemed to value the information just negative comments. Found out by outside reasearch I had to do it one by one by one. So, I did a bunch everytime I used my computer. Got allot of BS about it from the usual bullies that like getting digs in on people. Got about half way through deleting thousands of posts and somebody changed this site so I couldn't delete anymore LOL. Now I can only edit content in the post which is why you see some of my posts with just one word "deleted". I believe this was some attempt to make me look bad by showing I deleted it instead of just having it disappear, pretty F'd up don't 'cha think. I guess I'm supposed to feel humiliated for deleting a post or two (4486) I don't. So you want to remove posts to help the site by freeing up server space? Good luck with that Capt'n.     

[Ken Culbertson]

 

Mr. John,
I feel for Sparky. While we consume his resource, few of us help pay for his resource and the services he does basically for free.

to all of what you said.  Especially the part I quoted.  Another way to save space is to cut down on the copying of a complete quote to respond to it, especially if it has imbedded pictures.  Something I have found useful is to have the latest posts be displayed at the top. It makes it much easier to read (for me) and I am less likely to post if someone has already offered what I was about to.

Another thing I would like to add.  I am in the computer business although I got out of hardware years ago, I am still sensitive to data storage.  "Text" takes up very little space.  Modern data compression technology reduces it to next to nothing.  Pictures and video are Pigs by comparison and cell phones are the worst.  I can't take a picture that is not at least 4mb on my phone.  Same picture edited for posting here is about 200k and I can get it down to about 75k if you don't need to see the dust on the inside of the cockpit.  I for one am going to post smaller pictures.  Compare the zoom on these.  One is 144kb, the second 72kb and the last 25kb. All three were edited/cropped in one quick step from a cell phone picture that was 4.7mb. How much resolution did I lose by making it 32 to 188 times smaller?   They are all the same unless you expand them.

If we can just learn to downsize our pictures perhaps Sparky will get a longer life from the new drive.

Ken
 

[Dave Rigotti]

Maybe limiting Dan to a few hundred sentences per post would help?   

[Steve Dwyer]

John,

Are you referring to Topic "garbage" or Kilobytes?

Steve

[Steve Helmick]

Pictures take a LOT more kb (computer space) than a few dozen lines of text. A cropped, resized, and compressed picture doesn't take a lot of effort or time, and doesn't have to be totally useless, like Ken's last one. The first one was bigger (in kb) than it needed to be. The second was a reasonable file size, but could have been as large (in pixel width and height) as the first one without any noticeable reduction in clarity. Let's work on that!

Motorman, for awhile, would start a new topic with a statement or question, and then delete it, after multiple folks gave their suggestions, information, etc. That made the whole thread a mystery and total waste of everybody's time and effort. It's too bad he took offense. Perhaps those who complained weren't diplomatic enough to suit him? On the fishing forums, that's commonly referred to as being "butt hurt". Nobody cares. Don't do that and all will be fine.  Steve

[Ken Culbertson]

The first one was bigger (in kb) than it needed to be. The second was a reasonable file size.

That was my point in posting all three.  In many cases #3 will make the point you are wanting to make.  #2 adds a little size and #1 lets you view it without your magnifying glass.  For those of you who are using the internet .png format, these files are nearly double in size when converted to .png.  So far .jpg is the smallest.  If your goal is to drill down and look for dings in the fillets then make the sucker 950kb.  No need for that with mine, you can see them at 25kb. 

Whole point - let's give Sparky a break.

Ken

[944_Jim]

SH limits Max size at 1 Mb give or take. It took learning the resizer tool available, but I can reduce to half that (and smaller). Of course, setting Max file size to 512kb is pretty extreme...and it isn't retro-active.
I can live with it at 1 Mb...I can live with it smaller. I won't say I can't live without SH. But it sure would sting for a while!

[Ken Culbertson]

setting Max file size to 512kb is pretty extreme.

Where did that come from?  I for one am not talking about cutting the limit (and I hope no one else is either), just not abusing it.

Something else that might be worth knowing.  If you post a picture and later delete it, is it actually deleted from the server or is the link to it just removed from your post.?  Also, is the 1000kb in reality 1024?

Ken

[944_Jim]

No one said anything about potentially reducing the max file size. I'm just saying 1 MB is tough...and as you indicated even smaller is doable. However, setting it lower will only affect future images...and pretty extreme.

[Ken Culbertson]

I wonder what happened yesterday.  Were we attacked by Clowns?

ken

[RC Storick]

Mr. John,
I mean no disrespect by what I'm about to say. Please don't think I'm being a jerk. Digital spread happens on all systems and platforms. While I'll take several paragraphs to describe the fix to the problem, those paragraphs barely begin to scratch the surface on how to shrink the creep. There is a lot more to it. Even employing AI to do the work would take a lot of effort.

Cleaning up servers is tough if one wants to prune old messages and files. Looking for duplicate or obsolete information isn't something that happens at the push of one button.

The only easy way is to pick an arbitrary date in time and delete everything "to the left" or "older than" said date. But that deletes a lot of historical references that hold value for any guys showing up. Deleting pictures will be the same way.

Give it a try on your PC or phone...look at all those files you downloaded and determine which of them should be deleted to make room for newer files. A file by file "search and destroy" takes a  certain ham-fistedness that flat cold means "lose the old and keep the new," or a slower, much more meticulous labor intensive investigation to triage and toss redundant or obsolete files. Consider just our messages as files, and you'll.see.just how painful cleaning up a hard drive can be. This is what usually drives people to buy more hard drives for an existing PC, or buying a new phone for more storage.

I'm not trying to be a smart @$$, but which of all of your posts do you want to delete from the server? And I ask that of each of us (including the guy in the mirror). We all post because we believe those posts add value to the site. None of us wants the task of deleting any of our own earlier questions posed, and answers received or given. Now multiply that by the number of current users, and this becomes impossible for one man to perform.

I feel for Sparky. While we consume his resource, few of us help pay for his resource and the services he does basically for free. Yes, I do see you are a sponsor this year, as am I. Unless Admin declares no more free accounts, this will become.an unsustainable model. Only the generosity of Admin and donation providers (you, me-twice this year already, others too) keeps this site funded. Ads don't really help if we as consumers run ad-blockers against the site. An advertiser is a sponsor. A sponsor won't sponsor if his ads don't bring customers/revenue.

For Sparky...I feel your pain! Thanks so much for your labor of love.

AFTER 200 messages and 50 phone calls from people who were jonesing from not getting their Stunt Hangar fix while I am on the road most have no idea of what a PITA this is. Texts and posts take up very little space. Photos are the driving source of server space. That is why if everyone remembers SSW only allowed half of what SH allows, 50 as opposed to 100MG. So true about ad blockers. Ad revenue is almost zero. I might try something else as far as allowed viewing without allowing ads.

Thanks for everyone who helps keep this site going.

[Al Ferraro]

 Sparky should clean out the classified old posts. There are ones going back to 2017.
Al

[RC Storick]

Sparky should clean out the classified old posts. There are ones going back to 2017.
Al

That is not what takes up space

[Steve Helmick]

"That is why if everyone remembers SSW only allowed half of what SH allows, 50 as opposed to 100MG."

SSW was 50kb per picture, while SH is 1,000kb per picture or 1,000kb total per post, if I remember right. I'm not hip enough to the MB and GB stuff to know what that's all about...some more metric stuff, though. No idea what a MG is, if it isn't an acronym for Morris Garage.

I think a lot of guys can't post pictures because they don't even try to reduce the file sizes to make the maximum size constraints. I could be wrong, but not likely. There was a thread on how to post pictures years ago. Not sure if it still exists, or where to find it.  Steve

[Steve Helmick]

I saved Ken's biggest jpg to my computer and called it "Ken's Endgame 3". Then, I right-clicked on it in my picture file and selected "resize" in the dropdown menu. I left the dimensions the same (in pixels width & height), and changed the quality to 60% from 74% (IIRC) and pushed "save", and added the "A" to the file name, so I'd know which was which. Bingo. Look and see what the numbers of kb both pictures are, and see if you can see any significant difference in photo quality. Roughly 90kb smaller, same physical size when opened, virtually no quality degradation. Just do it. Steve

[Ken Culbertson]

Steve, that is the same thing I do in MS Paint.  There is a "resize" button where you can take a picture up or down.  I normally use 60% reduction (40% of actual size) for pictures showing detail that you might want to zoom in on and 20% on just plane stuff.

Cameras save the pictures in as much space as possible so you will run out of space and buy a new one.  If you use inches as the size indicator the reduction is non-linear.  At 20% of original size the file is almost 200 times smaller.

It is a really simple process.  Hook up the phone, open paint and load the pictures directly from the phone, click on resize and "save as" on the computer.  About 10 seconds.  Download the originals from the phone later.

Another space saver although not as much.  Posts take up a minimum space even if they are empty.  I see a lot of contest pictures that have multiple posts to get all of the pictures in.  Sometimes one per post.  Downsize the originals to under 100k and get them all in one post.  Don't worry so much about text, Ted is safe.  You can fit a text version of "War and Peace" in the size of an average graphic file.

Ken

[EricV]

Sparky - one unsolicited idea or at least concept I will throw at you with some background...

I am a bit of photographer and belonged to many photography forums for years. Server space is ALWAYS a big deal. Even Amazon can't afford to give it away for free, and just sold off DPReview, one of the oldest and largest photo community sites on the internet.

As you noticed, the issue is pictures, not text. The way most forums handle the issue is this:

1) Membership and posting is free, BUT, if they want to house pictures on the site and post them from there, they get a VERY basic storage allowance with their free account, if they go over, they can't post more until they delete some of their pics, or go with...

2) an annual paid upgraded account that includes storage upgrade to the basic free account.

3) MOST sites, including yours, allow you to embed photo links. I use this method a lot. This allows to me store my photo's wherever (Flickr, etc) and embed a link to them in my post. This takes up ZERO space on your forum. The only downside here is if I close my Flickr account someday, then my posted pics using links go bye bye. Well, so be it. Not the end of the world for the forum.

So that gives a typical forum user 3 options, use the free account, pay for an upgrade, or host your own files elsewhere and link them here. This is pretty much industry standard practice.

You can tweak the concept 9 ways to Sunday, but you get the general idea.

Hope that helps triggers some idea's for you.

EricV

[Brett Buck]

Steve, that is the same thing I do in MS Paint.  There is a "resize" button where you can take a picture up or down.  I normally use 60% reduction (40% of actual size) for pictures showing detail that you might want to zoom in on and 20% on just plane stuff.

Cameras save the pictures in as much space as possible so you will run out of space and buy a new one.  If you use inches as the size indicator the reduction is non-linear.  At 20% of original size the file is almost 200 times smaller.

   Cameras save pictures based on *settings you have in the camera*, anywhere from 640x480 JPEG to arbitrarily large raw formats. There are a huge number of variations on these settings. And in any case, take an example - Nikon D7200. I save both a 44.1 meg raw file and the maximum resolution and quality JPEG. I have around 370 shots on a clean card, which is far more than I have ever used. You don't "run out of space and buy a new one", you transfer it to your computer and then delete it from the camera, or, buy a second SD card.

   Scaling down photos is definitely not "linear". Unless you also use compression, it goes as the *square* of the linear dimensions, for exactly the same reason the wing area goes down as the scale of the linear dimensions.

  There is also compression, which can have remarkable additional effects, both "lossless" and "lossy".

    The issue of how to compress pictures for publication is a basic digitial photography skill. For our purposes (or earlier for SSW) scaling them down is a matter of learning how to use very basic tools, you don't just upload stuff straight from the camera to the site, process it first, size/compress it to a target size (like 100k) and done properly, it will be big enough and clear enough for any useful purposes.

      Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

   Cameras save pictures based on *settings you have in the camera*

Sorry I should have been clearer, I was talking about cell phone cameras.  I am sure they have some settings but I tend to just grab the phone and take the picture.  Deal with size on my computer.

Ken


Ken

[944_Jim]

I'm an Android phone user. I won't flipflop my camera settings based on who my intended picture consumer is.  However, I installed PixResizer so I can (and do) resize to 900 Kilo-Bytes (Kb), which is shortly under The One Mega-Byte file size as used here (MB...or 1024 Kilo-Bytes...or colloquially known as 1000 times 1000 Bytes...roughly one million Bytes.). I like the APP so much that I use the computer version on my Windows 7 laptop. I imagine there are similar apps for iThingies.

It is common to use capital B for Bytes (file size as in storage) and lower b for bits (data as transmitted as a speed-think back to dial-up days of past).

[Brett Buck]

Sorry I should have been clearer, I was talking about cell phone cameras.  I am sure they have some settings but I tend to just grab the phone and take the picture.  Deal with size on my computer.

   But you also have a photo manager program, transfer them to your computer, then delete then off the phone.

     Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

   But you also have a photo manager program, transfer them to your computer, then delete then off the phone.

     Brett

That is what I do after I trim them.  I need to find a simple video trimmer for the computer.  Takes too long on the phone.

Ken

[Dan McEntee]

Maybe limiting Dan to a few hundred sentences per post would help?   

 Washu talkin' 'bout, Willis?

  Type at you later,
    Dan

[Steve Helmick]

That is what I do after I trim them.  I need to find a simple video trimmer for the computer.  Takes too long on the phone.

Ken

Irfanview is about as good as it gets for processing digital photos. Yes, there are other programs you can use. Once did a test against the stopwatch and got it done in 15 seconds. About half that was just typing the photo's title. Not that hard.

FWIW, SSW had a 50kb limit, and Leonard did NOT like links to pictures on sites like PhotoBucket, because when the picture was deleted from such a site, the thread lost the picture and sometimes made no sense at all.

The absolute worst things can be solved when you are taking the picture. Avoid detailed background, like blades of grass or exposed aggregate concrete! CROP the picture to show what you WANT to show and as little else as possible!
  Steve