firstrazor
Member
Why I can't find any photo attaching button in the editor?
Why attaching Photo function not available?
- Thread starter firstrazor
- Start date
- Status
Keenblade
New Member
Check out the newbies corner stickies... it's all there.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166739
Specific post:
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94574
Cheers.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166739
Specific post:
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94574
Cheers.
maybe he knows the function but asking why not make a 'attach photo' icon on the posting page like email...
And upload to where? Use up the forum bandwidth? Aiyaa, let's stick to the existing method.
Fully agree. It's not only bandwidth but also storage space. Flickr & co just have enough scale to offer space for free. For sites like CS the costs would be the killer.
CS has it's storage resources allocated in Gallery. Maybe TS is trying to ask if there is a easier way to post (i.e. using attach photo icon) rather than post in gallery then link.
Both are using CS bandwidth anyway.
how many people here really use the CS gallery?
most of members prefer linking their images from flickr, photobucket, smeamug....
ziploc
New Member
That is different from allowing attachment. CS Gallery is hosted on a different server then the main forum server, so that the resources of the main forum is not affected by the traffics on the Gallery. If attachment is allowed it will be using resources from the main server.
You will be pleasantly surprised.
The last time I checked, there is close to 100k pictures uploaded.
So technically, it cannot be done. To link the 2 server together?
ziploc
New Member
The servers are already linked, otherwise you would not be able to post pics from the Gallery server onto the forum. But again this is different from allowing attachment, of which the main forum server will need to index in the database.
There are good reasons for the forum to be set up this way. My question to you is, since there are already facilities provided (the CS Gallery is set up specifically for this purpose) to post your pics, what is your reason of insisting to have attachments?
Last edited:
The gallery shows a total of 99.657 pictures being hosted, file size ranging from 50k to 800k with sometimes multiple files per image. Do your own maths for storage space and resulting traffic. Also keep in mind that servers like those used for CS don't come with 500GB HDD for $99 from Sim Lim.
Flickr & co provide a level of service (in terms of availability and scaling) that cannot be matched by a hobby project like CS. So it's just better for you and the pictures of you use flickr and link into the posting here.
Hey! I didn't started this request but I think it is a good idea. Back off!
The reason I am for this suggestion is that it made it easier to attach photos. This forum is about sharing, ain't it?
If it can't be done, then it can't be done. No harm raising it since I am not really know how the backend of this forum works.
This is in response to catchlights remark that not a lot of people are using CS gallery. What are you hinting at?
when I view images post by members here, usually I will check the exif, hardly encounter images linking from CS gallery nowadays, perhaps I don't view some sub-forums which members prefer to use CS gallery.
ziploc
New Member
I don't like the tone of this. Back off? What does that mean? :nono:
And why are you so defensive when all I'm asking is a simple question? No one is blaming you for not knowing what is going on at the backscene. That is why we are here explaining it to you.
"My question to you is, since there are already facilities provided (the CS Gallery is set up specifically for this purpose) to post your pics, what is your reason of insisting to have attachments?"
Back off means to stand down. Your tone seem to be challenging me with the questions. Not simply asking one.
I am not insisting that this be implemented. Since it is brought up, I think it is a good idea to explore the possibility of it.
I'm hinting at the facts of the real storage / usage of gallery servers since you and catchlight both just made a guess. If you feel poked by this question you are alone with that emotion.
No emotion at all. I am aware that there is about 100k images hosted at the CS gallery.
There is a size cap on the upload.. 200 or 400kb per image and I don't think we can do multiple file in 1 image. Although I don't have a real figure, I know it is not cheap. Due to all the mirror, raid and backup etc. Bandwidth should be another big cost.
Is Kingston still the sponsor of the gallery disk space?
- Status
Similar threads
