Posting pictures on this group

"Marco Leon" wrote in message
ups.com...

As long as this does not start filling with SPAM,

Therein lies the problem.




-c

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

Speaking as a news administrator with 20 years experience, I say broadband
has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's server space, and you let in
one binary and soon the group will be nothing but pictures, and then I'll
have to boot it from my servers.

You too, eh?

The network provider I worked for had to outsource its newsfeed in about
1999 because it couldn't keep up with the server load associated with binary
usenet posts. Most of it was porn, (which, strangely, almost all sourced
from Salt Lake City.)

-c

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
An ISP committed to the idea could easily implement a per-newsgroup
policy.

And hire about 8 more full time news admins to keep these per-newsgroup
policy flags up to date.

Well, I *did* say "committed to the idea". I'm not saying it'd be a *good*
idea, just that there's no reason it can't be done.

[...]
Or they could put all the newsgroups that allow binaries in one place -
i.e.: alt.binaries.*, so we can control expire times, spool space and
feeds with one configuration.

Not if they want to implement a per-newsgroup policy, they couldn't.

Oh wait, that's what we already do.

Then you obviously don't implement a per-newsgroup policy. So?

Pete

Jose wrote:

Simplified a bit, the way Usenet works, you make a post. That post gets
copied again and again and again, making its way to umpteen servers all
over the world, so that it can be read. If it's a small binary it is
still lots bigger than a long post. No matter how cheap storage and
bandwidth is, it is still finite, and many servers will only hold so
much. Every single binary therefore kicks out lots of text posts.

The way the web works, you upload to your site, and it sits there. ONLY
when people come to look at the site is it transmitted to another
server. So even a =huge= binary on the web has far less impact as if it
were on Usenet.

Thanks Jose, but I realize how usenet works. The point I was making is
that compared to the other file sizes being posted (i.e. 4 GB+ DVD
images) pictures are small. Of course they are bigger than text, but
small relatively speaking.

Jose wrote:

Simplified a bit, the way Usenet works, you make a post. That post gets
copied again and again and again, making its way to umpteen servers all
over the world, so that it can be read. If it's a small binary it is
still lots bigger than a long post. No matter how cheap storage and
bandwidth is, it is still finite, and many servers will only hold so
much. Every single binary therefore kicks out lots of text posts.

The way the web works, you upload to your site, and it sits there. ONLY
when people come to look at the site is it transmitted to another
server. So even a =huge= binary on the web has far less impact as if it
were on Usenet.

Thanks Jose, but I realize how usenet works. The point I was making is
that compared to the other file sizes being posted (i.e. 4 GB+ DVD
images) pictures are small. Of course they are bigger than text, but
small relatively speaking.

"Marco Leon" wrote in message
ps.com...

Jose wrote:

Simplified a bit, the way Usenet works, you make a post. That post gets
copied again and again and again, making its way to umpteen servers all
over the world, so that it can be read. If it's a small binary it is
still lots bigger than a long post. No matter how cheap storage and
bandwidth is, it is still finite, and many servers will only hold so
much. Every single binary therefore kicks out lots of text posts.

The way the web works, you upload to your site, and it sits there. ONLY
when people come to look at the site is it transmitted to another
server. So even a =huge= binary on the web has far less impact as if it
were on Usenet.

Thanks Jose, but I realize how usenet works. The point I was making is
that compared to the other file sizes being posted (i.e. 4 GB+ DVD
images) pictures are small. Of course they are bigger than text, but
small relatively speaking.


Compared to a 4GB DVD yes but compared to this 3KB text message even the
smallest photos are huge.

Of course they are bigger than text

Right, and that is the issue. In a text newsgroup, things are optimized
for text. Anything that is not "text sized" gets in the way, whether on
the server, in the software required to view, or in the time people have
to wait for the unwanted image to be presented to them. "Things that
don't fit" should be segregated. This includes binaries (post to a
binaries group). It also includes topic drift (change the subject, use
prefixes) and HTML (put that anywhere else but Usenet).

Doing this makes the experience better for all.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote

Right, and that is the issue. In a text newsgroup, things are optimized for
text. Anything that is not "text sized" gets in the way, whether on the
server, in the software required to view, or in the time people have to wait
for the unwanted image to be presented to them. "Things that don't fit"
should be segregated.

For once, I totally agree!

It is all in what you expect to get.

I set my reader to download all of the headers and message bodies in a text only
group. It doesn't take long, with broadband.

Not so, with the binaries picture group, for example. Can you imagine how long
that would take, to download all of the message bodies (pictures), if you missed
a few days? g

A line has been drawn in the sand. No binaries in a text only group. It is
what you expect. If you let one or two pictures in, where do you draw the line,
now? It becomes significantly g less clear, then.
--
Jim in NC

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:37:07 -0500, Cody Dawg wrote:

Is picture posting not permitted on this group as I would like to post some
pictures I took from a recent flight down the Hudson Corridor (pre-Lidle)?

I've used quite a few free web based photo sites and still haven't found
one I like better than http://photobucket.com/

It's the only one I've found that will let you upload high res photos
without reducing the size of them.

Example:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...DeckPoster.jpg


--
Dallas

Dallas wrote:

It's the only one I've found that will let you upload high res photos
without reducing the size of them.

Example:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...DeckPoster.jpg


Dreamer........