Brickshelf will not be shutting down!

albero78 · Post by **albero78** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:42 am

5$ a moth seems expensive to me. What can they offer more to convince in paying?
If I have to pay I would rather upgrade my flickr account...

TsoAutTmo · Post by **TsoAutTmo** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:34 am

Aw, man that was one-hellofa-week!

I am so glad, and just want to say THANKYOU to all of those people who sent the e-mails!

Blueandwhite · Post by **Blueandwhite** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:29 am

Remyth wrote:
DARKspawn wrote:But then $60 a month?
I'm pretty sure you meant $60 a year...

Yeah, it seems to be a bit pricey. I don't think that it will endanger it, though, because free accounts are still available.

In Christ,

The potential problem with this is that I can't see alot of people paying in lieu of the fact that you can use the site for free. I mean, unless Brickshelf severely limits what you can do, the service right now is still excellent. I mean, it almost seems unfair that a small minority is going to pay the lion's share to keep the site running for the rest of us cheapskates.

Mr. D · Post by **Mr. D** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:18 pm

Quote from Brickshelf: "We have received hundreds of supportive emails in the past few days including many who said they would like to contribute financially but did not know how." This makes me think that quite a few people will be paying to keep BS running. Hey, if you want to help keep Brickshelf around but can't afford the $60 a year, sign up for the free account and just donate a small amount (say $10-$25 a year) to Brickshelf. I'm sure they wouldn't turn it down!

Awesome news! I wonder if a few of our local ambassadors had anything to do with this "rethink[ing] the practicality of charging for enhanced features."

D-Man

Blueandwhite · Post by **Blueandwhite** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:33 pm

Mr. D wrote:Quote from Brickshelf: "We have received hundreds of supportive emails in the past few days including many who said they would like to contribute financially but did not know how." This makes me think that quite a few people will be paying to keep BS running. Hey, if you want to help keep Brickshelf around but can't afford the $60 a year, sign up for the free account and just donate a small amount (say $10-$25 a year) to Brickshelf. I'm sure they wouldn't turn it down!

Awesome news! I wonder if a few of our local ambassadors had anything to do with this "rethink[ing] the practicality of charging for enhanced features."

D-Man

I don't really think that works. Brickshelf already accepted donations, yet Kevin was still pretty committed to shutting her down. I guess what I'm really concerned about is the fact that most users will likely continue to ride the site for nothing, while a few paying members basically fund the entire operation.

Even then, will Kevin get enough support at $60 a pop? There are alot of people who say that they're willing to pay, but when push comes to shove, they don't really have to. This makes me wonder if we'll be repeating this very process six months from now.

Mr. D · Post by **Mr. D** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:57 pm

Blueandwhite wrote:Even then, will Kevin get enough support at $60 a pop? There are alot of people who say that they're willing to pay, but when push comes to shove, they don't really have to. This makes me wonder if we'll be repeating this very process six months from now.

I guess we'll see, won't we? Actually, I think Kevin will learn from this experience and ask the community for help if he needs it. At the very least, there are many willing AFOLs who would gladly host Brickshelf and maintain it.

D-Man

Morgan19 · Post by **Morgan19** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:30 pm

If skyrocketing bandwidth or storage space is such an issue, the first step should really be implementing some sort of limit on huge files: the 2000-3000 pixel width/height photos taken straight from a user's camera, huge unoptimized bitmaps, etc. are problematic, not only for the site itself but for people trying to load them. There are enough free utilities, even online, that "I don't know how to resize" shouldn't be an excuse any more.

m19

Mr. D · Post by **Mr. D** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:34 pm

Morgan19 wrote:If skyrocketing bandwidth or storage space is such an issue, the first step should really be implementing some sort of limit on huge files: the 2000-3000 pixel width/height photos taken straight from a user's camera, huge unoptimized bitmaps, etc. are problematic, not only for the site itself but for people trying to load them. There are enough free utilities, even online, that "I don't know how to resize" shouldn't be an excuse any more.

m19

Your right - such large photos are even a pain to view! And if you don't know how to resize the photos, set the camera to take smaller photos in the first place!

D-Man

LEGO_KNIGHT · Post by **LEGO_KNIGHT** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:07 pm

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://news.lugnet.com/announce/brickshelf/?n=128

Regards

Shadowviking · Post by **Shadowviking** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:22 pm

Y'know... there are a lot of completely empty folders. Before this, too. I could search for a common word, and at least half would often be completely empty... couldn't those be deleted? It seems to me that they're taking up unnecessary bandwidth, and doesn't that contribute to the price of hosting the site?

Tedward · Post by **Tedward** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:27 pm

Part of a posting I just made on LUGNET applies here as well:

I don’t know the guy and I have always loved BrickShelf but frankly unless it passes into the control of a consortium of AFOL’s I am not at all assured one day it won’t just turn off again for good. No amount of reassurances from the current owner or any of his supporters is likely to change that opinion right now.

Quickblade22 · Post by **Quickblade22** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:59 pm

I just had a small question. Would it be helpful in some members were to clean up their folders, such as deleteting photos if you have multiple pics of a MOC from different angles but some are poor in quality? I don't know about all that 'band-width' stuff, but wouldn't every little bit help? I was asking in regards to cleaning up my own folder.

Lord_Of_The_LEGO · Post by **Lord_Of_The_LEGO** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:10 pm

Tedward wrote:I don’t know the guy and I have always loved BrickShelf but frankly unless it passes into the control of a consortium of AFOL’s I am not at all assured one day it won’t just turn off again for good. No amount of reassurances from the current owner or any of his supporters is likely to change that opinion right now.

I can't agree more. Kevin, despite all he has done for the community, bungled this whole thing. I've already upgraded my Flickr account.

RichardAM · Post by **RichardAM** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:23 pm

I appreciate the site has returned, and i'm not faulting it's contribution to the community whatsoever, but I will not be paying for something I can be getting somewhere else better, cheaper and with added reliability.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Post by **Athos** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:25 pm

As much as I appreciate the renewed life for Brickshelf, the price does seem a little steep, especially when you consider that if enough funds aren't received (which is a distinct possibility, given that people have already paid for upgraded flicker accounts now), then we might lose the site again. Then what would our $60/year have gotten us? There has to be a better solution....

Steve