MattKing
Moderator
Is it technically feasible to have slightly larger "thumbnails" visible to non-subscribers, and closer to "HD" images visable to subscribers?
You know you can put the watermark yourself and then upload. If you plaster a big watermark across the image, it really makes it useless visually, for me at least. I don't know how other people feel about that. If you make it smaller, Photoshop can remove it in 2 seconds. There are no easy answers, it seems.
We get this on APUG a lot already believe it or not. Posts like that get reported as "scanning" or "digital" and our mods remove it. Quite often it's an innocent mistake by a new member, and usually when the member's post is deleted and they are told to "take it to DPUG you don't belong here", they leave and never come back. One benefit we'll have on the new system is if someone posts a digital topic in the analog areas by accident, we can simply move it to the appropriate area without the usual dramas. We'll definitely need to expand our moderator teams, especially in the analog areas so anyone trying to crosspost digital content there is informed that it's 'not on'. Anyone abusing the system by crossposting, trolling or anything else can be removed. The analog areas should be considered by all as 100% analog and enforced the same way APUG was. All the scanning, digineg, photoshop etc can be discussed in the hybrid/digital areas.
Right now, as far as I can tell, there are 2 tangible reasons to subscribe. One is the ability to post/ view the Galleries. The other is to be able to sell equipment. I think the latter is of minimum interest to most. Most subscribers rarely, if ever, partake of that option. Altruism aside, the ability to participate in the Galleries is the true "value added" component of a subscription. I think it would be a mistake to open it up to everyone, potentially hurting the financial bottom line. As the saying goes, "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" ( I'm still a proponent of the annual or biannual "free peek/ subscription drive" week for members.) The subscription rate is very reasonable, and Sean should be compensated for the time and effort he puts in to this place.
... but just what in the heck is "trolling"? ...
I would suggest some sort of "paywall". Perhaps limiting non-subscribers to 100 (or some other number) posts. They could still read as much as they want and view the galleries. ...
I think the problem with this idea is it may limit participation. There are non-subscribers who contribute a lot, who may not be able to do so if there's a cap on "free" posting.I would suggest some sort of "paywall". Perhaps limiting non-subscribers to 100 (or some other number) posts.
I expect my stuff to be stolen if it's posted on the net. People need to get over themselves.
Quite true - 9/10 I can get into the "guts" of a page and find the image/video/mp3 that I want when it has been right-click disabled.It's pretty pointless tbh, there are multiple ways around right-click blocking anyway, and it just makes life hard for people who use context menus.
Cruise some of the big name photographers websites. Do you see any watermarks? No you don't. In my experience it's only amateurs who are concerned about getting images stolen from websites. If your concerned about your images getting lifted (really you expect to see your 850px image used on a billboard somewhere?) copyright your images and use a service that embeds a unique code into your image so you can track where they are being used on the web. Beyond that don't post any images you care about on facebook, flickr, instagram or pretty much any social media site. You are giving away your images to them.
Could I just remind everyone that all this talk of watermarking and right-clicking is digital territory and thus off-topic for APUG; Post at DPUG for that sort of thing PLEASE!
i have hoarded as much bad/ tainted KODAK tmy as i can afford and have decided to rephotograph my whole oeuvre MF
so i get a K ODAK F ILM watermar k as i can.
Could I just remind everyone that all this talk of watermarking and right-clicking is digital territory and thus off-topic for APUG; Post at DPUG for that sort of thing PLEASE!
Cruise some of the big name photographers websites. Do you see any watermarks? No you don't. In my experience it's only amateurs who are concerned about getting images stolen from websites. If your concerned about your images getting lifted (really you expect to see your 850px image used on a billboard somewhere?) copyright your images and use a service that embeds a unique code into your image so you can track where they are being used on the web. Beyond that don't post any images you care about on facebook, flickr, instagram or pretty much any social media site. You are giving away your images to them.
I think the problem with this idea is it may limit participation. There are non-subscribers who contribute a lot, who may not be able to do so if there's a cap on "free" posting.
My personal belief is, if you've hit 100 posts, the site is obviously providing something to you (and you to the site), so the $2/month cost is worth paying.
How do you propose that existing members (but who are not currently subscribers) whose posts already exceed the limit are treated?But I think a "read all you want" but a limit on posts accomplishes that
How do you propose that existing members (but who are not currently subscribers) whose posts already exceed the limit are treated?
Should they be made to pay before being able to post any more?
If they're allowed to continue without paying ("grandparented"), how will that look to the newcomers who are expected to pay to continue posting?
Whatever the answers, i think it is grossly overestimating the perceived 'importance' of Apug to the world at large, to believe that charging people to participate will increase the number of subscribers rather than just encourage newcomers to go "well fuck you" when asked for money to participate.
They'll just go elsewhere where talk is free.
i don't know man, some of them don't have watermarks cause they aren't big and famous enough, or maybe that is howCruise some of the big name photographers websites. Do you see any watermarks? No you don't.
How do you propose that existing members (but who are not currently subscribers) whose posts already exceed the limit are treated?
Should they be made to pay before being able to post any more?
If they're allowed to continue without paying ("grandparented"), how will that look to the newcomers who are expected to pay to continue posting?
Whatever the answers, i think it is grossly overestimating the perceived 'importance' of Apug to the world at large, to believe that charging people to participate will increase the number of subscribers rather than just encourage newcomers to go "well fuck you" when asked for money to participate.
They'll just go elsewhere where talk is free.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?