Weekly Release: March 24th, 2009

This is not a blog.

I used the term BLOB. A blob is a different technical term. Sorry if I used terminology you did not understand. Perhaps perusing the wikipedia entry would prove enlightening.

This is a message board. The closest thing to a blog here would be the group About Us pages. Why should people be unable to quote images on a message board just to satisfy your misunderstanding?

The (up to 5mb) photo might be one that will be wanted by, Oh, lets say a photography group for example. The message board conversation (No, not a blog) might be pertinent to that image, or indeed a series of images taken at an event. Perhaps the users might be discussing different photographers treatment of the subject, lighting etc. (It IS what MESSAGE BOARDS are for, after all.)

Blogs are one person's diary, or Web-Log. Usually written by one person, and possibly commented on by others. A web-Log, or blog does not involve a conversation between users, though there might also be an incidental conversation held alongside the original content, to discuss that content

Len

That sir is called an http://en.wikipedia.o... attack... means you are out of good reasons to defend your position. Also means it probably isn't worth trying to explain why your idea is not a good one. (see next reply for an even better example of ad hominem)

Conversing about photos is exactly why being able to upload directly rather than requiring obtuse linkage is why I want the board to be smart enough to manage the images (in an appropriate database or blob as you refer to it).

The uploader simply places the image into your "blob" for you. Why do you need or even want to manage that aspect? In a message, a user wants to upload then discuss an image. You are asking for Meetup to make the user first upload to an arcane location that is difficult to find and now a bit easier to upload many files rather than one; and then understand html well enough to know what a URL is and how to use them effectively to manage images they want to show off or ask for opinions of.

So please, what is your understanding of the use case for images that requires html links to many different sizes? I'd really like to understand. And if you can explain it to me, maybe Meetup is listening and they'll understand.

Tim
Organizer, PDX Vancouver Photo

That is NOT an Ad hominem attack as you so nearly managed to say. Your post however IS an ad hominem fallacy. (See the article you attempted to use yourself, but this time, take the time to read it.) You may be surprised to learn there was a very good reason why I gave the example I did. I figured you may be able to relate to it.

I know what I am talking about; If you don't understand, just say so. There is a difference between an image hosting server and a database. Even though binary large objects may be used to upload to both.
One does not need to understand HTML in order to use BBCode, nor to understand what a URL is. If you are going to use faux technical arguments on someone, please do it on someone who thinks you know what you are talking about. I don't talk about exposure, aperture, or focal lengths, because I do not know enough to use the information correctly, let alone spout about the Scheimpflug principle.

For me, you just shot yourself down in flames. - No need to respond, the discussion is at an end. I shall continue to help those more deserving. Yes, that was indeed dismissive and rude. I apologise in advance to anyone who found it offensive.


Len

Not sure what this argument is about exactly, but I can say that:

- it costs us fractions of a penny to store a photo in various sizes; drive space is cheap, and we currently store close to 20TB of photos and can add more space cheaply and easily
- we do not store our photos in a blob in the db
- we exposed the links so that people who want to link directly to the various sizes from anywhere they want to, can do so w/out having to figure out the url

Just my 2 cents, the new uploader is great.

The bigger default size for the photo album is good too.

The new viewer itself though isn't working for me.

One user's suggestion about selecting compatiblity view under the browser tool bar was useful. That scroll bar covering up the bottom of the picture definately needs to be moved below the picture. The new upload feature seems to be more efficient and an improvement to the previous upload.

Hey all,

We do have some significant fixes and tweaks launching tomorrow morning that will address a lot of your concerns.

Thanks for all the feedback -- we are listening!