"This user is no longer a member..." images

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/03/2008 10:05:13 AM · #1

Well lets kick the dust off this forum...

I sometimes find myself reading old posts in the forums - who would have thought that posts older than Yesterday have valuable information?! . But it's very disruptive to get the error message: This images is owned by a user who is no longer a member and is therefore not viewable at this time.

I find that the error message is detrimental to a forum site, particularly because the value of the site is at least partially derived from peoples' contributions - images and forum posts.

I understand the motivation is to get people to register, and there's nothing wrong with that. But the method itself erodes the value of the site itself by cutting off access to said user-contributions.

I think it would be better for the site, and still motivational for the member to register, if the images in place were still accessible but the member's access to their portfolio was cut off.

That is:
- Cannot upload new images
- Cannot organize old images
- Should provide one option to "delete my portfolio"
- Maybe even portfolio navigation on the left is removed

The only problem I see with this is that it opens access to members' portfolios who have long since left the site. However, with the "delete my portfolio" option, users have the option of removing their old images. If not that, perhaps some sort of opt-in to maintain your public portfolio.

What do you think?

glad2badad

DJI Mavic Air 2

Sears 55mm f/1.4 M42

09/03/2008 10:13:14 AM · #2

Actually, most of the time those images are still there - I think. The portfolio is available to that member if they decide at some point to come back. A friend of mine just did that...had been away for 18 months and recently renewed his membership. His portfolio was just as he left it.

The question then is why not allow those images to load when selected from a forum link? Maybe turn off the ability to comment on them, but let them remain visible at the larger size. ???

Good question smurfguy.

edit - typo.

Message edited by author 2008-09-03 10:13:40.

citymars

Nikon D700

09/03/2008 11:28:47 AM · #3

I have photos in my favorites that are no longer available full-size, however, I'm happy that at least the thumbnails remain. It would be bad if outdated references were stripped completely from the site, as happens elsewhere, or if we were left with a bunch of little red x's from broken links.

I agree there's still a level of frustration, but it could be worse.

09/03/2008 11:42:13 AM · #4

If a user leaves with badblood, they request the images be removed. (or for other reasons) I personally believe this is a horrible idea because of this. If I requested that my images be removed, I would like the site to honor this request and not keep them around after being booted.

What you say to me is wrong. It sucks, but the images were removed at the request of the user and as such we should respect that. Seems, you just want a pool of images kept forever.

09/03/2008 11:54:20 AM · #5

littlegett, this has nothing to do with removal requests, which are (and should continue to be) honored.

My point, in a nutshell, is that when a user's membership expires (they're not even necessarily inactive, just not paid), it is detrimental to the value of the site to hide their portfolio images. The value of the site (and any social site) is in it's user's contributions.

09/03/2008 12:45:36 PM · #6

So than you are saying you want to take away one of the reasons of being a paid member.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

09/03/2008 12:54:29 PM · #7

Allow me to quote a portion of my original post. Those who paid attention from the start can skip this.

Originally posted by smurfguy:

I understand the motivation is to get people to register, and there's nothing wrong with that. But the method itself erodes the value of the site itself by cutting off access to said user-contributions.

I think it would be better for the site, and still motivational for the member to register, if the images in place were still accessible but the member's access to their portfolio was cut off.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

09/03/2008 01:04:42 PM · #8

Originally posted by littlegett:

So than you are saying you want to take away one of the reasons of being a paid member.

I don't think that's the point.

What the OP is getting at is that when images become unavailable they can leave holes in threads where they were referenced. There, even the thumbnail doesn't show up as it does in your favourite's list.

The idea is to leave the reference to the full size image available, just don't allow further commenting or even leave the comments hidden.

09/03/2008 01:07:54 PM · #9

Shy should I be any different to not pay attention? Seriously you insult me by doing that and not adding any additional argument.

But, to prove my point even more. Consider this if you can.

I spend 5 bucks and join for a month. I upload my 100mb worth of images. My one month membership runs out. Now I have a nice portfolio forever for 5 bucks. No worries of it leaving. What a great deal. I can see lots of people doing that instead of trying to get webspace somewhere or something. Why would any user want to spend more money if their Portfolio never goes away? User logs in once a year to keep the account active. Never participates in forums or challenges and they reap the benefits.

glad2badad

DJI Mavic Air 2

Sears 55mm f/1.4 M42

09/03/2008 01:18:46 PM · #10

Originally posted by littlegett:

If you spend $5, then leave, the way this is suggested is that you would NOT be able to access your portfolio - however - what you posted there would still show up anywhere you posted a thumb in a forum thread.

It's not like you'd have access to update, change, or even browse your old portfolio. No benefits to one month membership as you've laid it out IMO.

09/03/2008 02:03:28 PM · #11

Originally posted by littlegett:

I spend 5 bucks and join for a month. I upload my 100mb worth of images. My one month membership runs out. Now I have a nice portfolio forever for 5 bucks. No worries of it leaving. What a great deal. I can see lots of people doing that instead of trying to get webspace somewhere or something. Why would any user want to spend more money if their Portfolio never goes away? User logs in once a year to keep the account active. Never participates in forums or challenges and they reap the benefits.

So we agree that you've uploaded 100mb worth of images, and forever can link people to the individual images, but you do not have a "portfolio page" displaying all your images, and you cannot upload or change them. What's the result:

- Main point: If you linked those images in forum discussion, the discussion still exists and maintains value.
- If you're a site participant, you'll want to renew your registration to be able to post new images and participate in new forum discussions by linking new images.
- If you're not a site participant, you can still request your portfolio be removed.
- If your images drive traffic, the site benefits.
- Disks cost 16 cents per gigabyte, so your $5 for 100mb is in the site's favor.

ETA: I don't mean to insult you. My impression from your posts was that you didn't read the original post, which is frustrating. Instead, perhaps you didn't follow my argument or disagree with it, either of which is fine.

Message edited by author 2008-09-03 14:08:01.

09/03/2008 02:29:55 PM · #12

Question, are you only wanting to maintain a 'thumbnail' view, or the ability to click and view larger image?

Because, the flaw I still see if the thumbnail is clickable for a larger image is that a person can post their 'portfolio' within the forum as thumbs, and the images are all clickable, thus bypassing the 'normal' means to the portfolio but still making all images workable.

What is a 'site participant' to me, that is someone with an account. Is there not only users and registered users? or non-paying and paying members?

Personally, I think that the images within a 'portfolio' are only allowed for the paying members. Non-paying members do not have that added benefit and certainly it sucks not to be able to see images, but, if everything was given away for free, where would this site be?

When the bottom comes, there is a business here. The one thing I hate about business is that everyone wants everything for free. Yet, they want to charge for what they do. So tell me, how does someone pay your fees, if you are unwilling to pay for theirs?