Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Server problems

Suggestions and comments about SummitPost's features, policies, and procedures. Post bugs here.
 

Postby Bubba Suess » Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:34 pm

Reading Aaron's history of Summitpost, it seems that there was a community wide purge of unnecessary/bad/repetitive/stupid photos. Perhaps it is time to have another one of those. I know there are pictures attached to some of my pages that add absolutely no insight or have no scenic quality and just clutter up the image gallery. Cutting these would be a great way to increase space.
User Avatar
Bubba Suess

 
Posts: 697
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:15 pm
Location: Mount Shasta, California, United States
Thanked: 174 times in 97 posts

Postby Saintgrizzly » Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:08 pm

Bubba Suess wrote:Reading Aaron's history of Summitpost, it seems that there was a community wide purge of unnecessary/bad/repetitive/stupid photos. Perhaps it is time to have another one of those. I know there are pictures attached to some of my pages that add absolutely no insight or have no scenic quality and just clutter up the image gallery. Cutting these would be a great way to increase space.


You can delete the offending images off your own pages. They'll still be on whatever other pages (if any) to which the author attached them, but at the least your pages will be better off for the effort. It's absolutely amazing how many pictures can accumulate on larger pages of popular mountains or areas (i.e., Mt. Rainier, Mt. Whitney, Glacier NP, Yellowstone NP, etc.), with many of those photos (redundently) appearing on several pages at the same time. Pruning one's own pages of unneeded/duplicate/not relevant visual material helps in several ways.
User Avatar
Saintgrizzly

 
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 9:38 am
Location: Missoula, Montana, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby Bubba Suess » Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:17 pm

saintgrizzly wrote:You can delete the offending images off your own pages. They'll still be on whatever other pages (if any) to which the author attached them, but at the least your pages will be better off for the effort. It's absolutely amazing how many pictures can accumulate on larger pages of popular mountains or areas (i.e., Mt. Rainier, Mt. Whitney, Glacier NP, Yellowstone NP, etc.), with many of those photos (redundently) appearing on several pages at the same time. Pruning one's own pages of unneeded/duplicate/not relevant visual material helps in several ways.


I agree, and I need to do that on some of my pages. I have hesitated thus far because I do not want to be perceived as a image tyrant. Still, I think a system wide purge of bad pics would help Summitpost in general.
User Avatar
Bubba Suess

 
Posts: 697
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:15 pm
Location: Mount Shasta, California, United States
Thanked: 174 times in 97 posts

Postby Bob Sihler » Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:49 pm

Bubba Suess wrote:Reading Aaron's history of Summitpost, it seems that there was a community wide purge of unnecessary/bad/repetitive/stupid photos. Perhaps it is time to have another one of those.


I would LOVE to do that. Would anyone like to fill in at work for me for about a year? It would probably take at least that long.
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 7501
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Herndon, Virginia
Thanked: 1979 times in 1114 posts

Postby Lolli » Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:09 pm

I can't upload any photos at all!!!!!!
They come out as red cross failures!
:evil: :cry:

There was also quite a lot of photos which didn't seem to be of very good quality but had a function, which went in that purge. That annoyed people, messed up some pages and created some general havoc. Most of the photos was good riddance though.
To not create that situation again, I guess it would take a year or so. :wink:
User Avatar
Lolli

 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:56 pm
Location: Sweden
Thanked: 108 times in 67 posts

Postby Lolli » Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:42 pm

There's 10.613 mountainpages on SP.
There's 1.119 areapages on SP.
There's 6.426 TRs on SP.

If 150 of the largest contributors removed their history versions but 1, it would likely free a lot of space.

Of 50.406 members, only more than a 1000 members have more than a few contribuitions, and from member 6190 onward there's no contributions whatsoever.
It's a small group of members who contributes, and if one could get at least some of them to purge versions and bad photos, likely a lot would be gained.

Not very optimistic about it, though. Maybe, when they too hit the brake with a new ccontribution...
User Avatar
Lolli

 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:56 pm
Location: Sweden
Thanked: 108 times in 67 posts

Postby surgent » Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:43 pm

I took the advice here and deleted many older versions of the pages that I own.

I daresay that many people have no idea that when a page is edited, a new object is created, and the old page just gets added to the pile. I certainly didn't at first.

Can older versions of pages simply be dropped after a given period of time? I know there's the argument that someone may want to go back and get info on an old page, but (a) how often does that really happen and (b) if the page is a year old or more, is it likely that that person will even miss the page, much less need it?

As for ephemeral members - those who sign on and never again participate, and which apparently cover a sizable percentage of SP members - how about a self-cleaning mechanism whereby anyone not active for 2+ years and who has no contributions other than their primary image photo be dropped?

This would free up space for the valuable photos of dirt roads and flowers.
User Avatar
surgent

 
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:45 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 89 times in 56 posts

Postby Bubba Suess » Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:37 pm

surgent wrote:This would free up space for the valuable photos of dirt roads and flowers.


Don't forget the butterflies and kitties!
User Avatar
Bubba Suess

 
Posts: 697
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:15 pm
Location: Mount Shasta, California, United States
Thanked: 174 times in 97 posts

Postby butitsadryheat » Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:18 pm

and leaves
User Avatar
butitsadryheat

 
Posts: 8247
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: Bakersfield, California, United States
Thanked: 1515 times in 1091 posts

Postby Castlereagh » Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:29 pm

I usually edit my pages quite a few times. While I usually go back in the end and delete past versions, I notice that there seems to be a limit as to how many versions of your page the system keeps (maybe 10 ish), and the oldest versions seem to automatically get deleted.

Would it make sense to lower that limit, so that anything older than, say, the last 2 or 3 versions of your page, are automatically wiped out? This will give you a chance to revert back to a previous version if you accidentally made some huge mistake or deleted a bunch of stuff, but it'll get rid of a lot of the older versions that you probably would never need.

I'm not sure if it would be technologically capable, but another idea: why not have the system automatically delete all but the newest version(s) of pages after it's been created and unedited for, I don't know, a few weeks? I'm sure there's a lot of people who don't know their older pages are still saved, and they might never know if they don't look at the forums.
User Avatar
Castlereagh

 
Posts: 702
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Holladay, Utah
Thanked: 115 times in 70 posts

Postby Saintgrizzly » Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:37 am

truchas wrote:Maybe if the elves delete pics of barely clothed hot chicks that have been uploaded to SP, that would free up some space.


Actually...that's not that bad an idea. Couldn't hurt.... After all, pics like "barely clothed hot chicks" are more readily available on a LOT of non-mountaineering web sites.
User Avatar
Saintgrizzly

 
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 9:38 am
Location: Missoula, Montana, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby Saintgrizzly » Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:53 am

Castlereagh wrote:...I notice that there seems to be a limit as to how many versions of your page the system keeps (maybe 10 ish), and the oldest versions seem to automatically get deleted.


Unless it has been changed, I don't think that's the case. When I first discovered the "View History" link on the "Editorial Options" bar, virtually all my pages had HUGE numbers of old stuff. I have a lot of trouble organizing pages visually (I'm not proficient at HTML, so do a lot of "trial and error" work—this after all the writing is prepared in advance off site), so end up with many, many older versions. I don't know, for example, upon first stumbling across the "View History" option, how many pages were stored in history for my GNP page, but it may well have been a couple hundred!

Although it is my understanding that those backup pages are nothing but writing and numbers, because all images are referenced by such-and-such a number, assigned at its initial inception on SP—meaning they don't take up as much server space as the most recent page, the one viewed in all its pictorial glory!

Just my couple cents worth, but I think that it would be good for the "View History" feature to be openly mentioned, and featured, as an invaluable tool for anyone putting up pages on SP. Even if "old" pages are entirely stored as letters/numbers, the server space saving would seem to be substantial.
User Avatar
Saintgrizzly

 
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 9:38 am
Location: Missoula, Montana, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby Bob Sihler » Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:59 am

saintgrizzly wrote:
Castlereagh wrote:...I notice that there seems to be a limit as to how many versions of your page the system keeps (maybe 10 ish), and the oldest versions seem to automatically get deleted.


Unless it has been changed, I don't think that's the case.


You're correct. When working on my construction page, I've sometimes had 30+ versions before the final was done. I do delete all those histories (except the last one, which would delete the page) when I'm done.
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 7501
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Herndon, Virginia
Thanked: 1979 times in 1114 posts

Postby Bob Sihler » Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:01 am

Would it be helpful if I used the tool to PM all members to send a brief note about histories and request them to clean them out as time permits?
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 7501
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Herndon, Virginia
Thanked: 1979 times in 1114 posts

PreviousNext

Return to Site Feedback

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.