2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I have some bad news. Go here to this thread. If you want to respond, please do. My post is a little further down the page. Shirley~ Just how many pictures have you posted that may need reposting? We have a LOT! Quote Link to comment
+NorthWes Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Professional surveyors aren't going to find miniphotos useful at all. However, my own angst comes over the scenic location photos that have become a signature item for many many benchmark recovery enthusiasts. There are arguably more scenic photos on the benchmark side of the site than on the caching side of the site, and those photos help shape my desire to visit a particular area and hunt both caches and benchmarks. Moun10bike appears to be seeking a solution - in fairness I'm reserving any other comments until he's had a chance to sort out an answer. I'm sure he's as interested as anyone, as he too likes to post scenic location photos with his benchmark recovery logs. Quote Link to comment
ArtMan Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I'm not sure about this, but maybe one answer is to let NGS handle the photos. I have some problems with how NGS implements photos, notably a utilitarian interface and a lack of free-form captions that could be helpful in interpreting the photos. But I believe they are now allowing images up to 1024 pixels (long side), and — most critically — I trust that they will be in business a lot longer than Geocaching.com and will be a better steward of the data. -ArtMan- Quote Link to comment
+LSUFan Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I'm not sure about this, but maybe one answer is to let NGS handle the photos. I have some problems with how NGS implements photos, notably a utilitarian interface and a lack of free-form captions that could be helpful in interpreting the photos. But I believe they are now allowing images up to 1024 pixels (long side), and — most critically — I trust that they will be in business a lot longer than Geocaching.com and will be a better steward of the data. -ArtMan- That does sounds good in theory ArtMan, but really how many casual geocachers actually upload to the NGS, or post recovery reports directly to the NGS. Even some of our diehard benchmarkers here in this forum do not file recovery reports with the NGS I would venture to say, that it is an extremely small percentage, especially when compared to all the benchmark photos on gc.com. I think DaveD has said in another forum post of the actual number of photos (thousands) he has harvested off the gc.com site. I do agree that they will be better off in the NGS computers....which is probably one of the reasons why DaveD goes to all the trouble he does. Hopefully, there will be some sort of solution found to allow the photos to stay like they always have been. Quote Link to comment
2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 Just saw this.... Quote Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 You'd think they would have at least had the decency to say 'Hey, were gonna trash your pictures. Would you like to download some full resolution copies?' Quote Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 You'd think they would have at least had the decency to say 'Hey, were gonna trash your pictures. Would you like to download some full resolution copies?' Posted that before seeing 2OF's post...so we may have a reprieve. After all this, I don't think I trust them anymore... I wonder how many TB (terabytes) I'll need to store all my BM images... Quote Link to comment
2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 You'd think they would have at least had the decency to say 'Hey, were gonna trash your pictures. Would you like to download some full resolution copies?' Posted that before seeing 2OF's post...so we may have a reprieve. After all this, I don't think I trust them anymore... I wonder how many TB (terabytes) I'll need to store all my BM images... Oh, we have 32,850 pictures at 53.4 GB right now on each of our computers. But, we do have a 1.5 TB Seagate GoFlex with all of our movie collection on it. But there is a Seagate Expansion 500 GB USB 3.0 Portable External Hard Drive STAX500102 at Amazon.com for $94.99 on sale. These small portable hard drives are the best for backing up your "Keepable Files" that might get trashed by any number of happenstances. Just a heads up. Shirley~ Quote Link to comment
foxtrot_xray Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I wonder how many TB (terabytes) I'll need to store all my BM images... You don't save your images on your system at all? Huh. That's surprising. You, with all the nice pictures you got, I'd expect you too. --Me.` Quote Link to comment
2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 Groundspeak headquarters almost was toast once, along with their servers. That means that all of the picture files would have been lost. We do not trust any on-line storage to have our files, we have stand-alone 2 TB hard drives with mirror images of our computers (Thanks to Acronis True Image) that John updates fairly frequently. You just never know what might happen to your computers or if you buy a new computer, you can download all files to the new. It makes life simpler for us. So any pictures we have taken and uploaded, we still have. It just would be soooo much trouble to have had to go into all of our finds and upload all of the previous years pictures once more. Here is hoping that they can fix things and our nice sized pictures will be restored. Shirley~ Quote Link to comment
ArtMan Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Checking a few random PIDs, it looks like the big (well, up to 600 px, anyway) are back! -ArtMan- Quote Link to comment
+LSUFan Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Checking a few random PIDs, it looks like the big (well, up to 600 px, anyway) are back! -ArtMan- Great news! Thanks for the status update, ArtMan Quote Link to comment
+Arizona Ranger Team Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Another thumbs up for fixing the pix! Much appreciated! Quote Link to comment
2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 Here is the official word. From Moun10bike himself. We should all thank him..... Shirley~ Quote Link to comment
+LSUFan Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 We should all thank him..... Shirley~ Yes we should..........As well as you, TillaMurphs, DragonsWest, and others for the effort ya placed into it. Salute Quote Link to comment
+Rotareneg Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) The photos I uploaded on the 9th are still small, but at least all the older ones are back to full size. Update -- They're all full sized now, might have just been my browser cache needing to be refreshed or something. Edited January 19, 2012 by Rotareneg Quote Link to comment
kayakbird Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) The photos that I have uploaded since the fix are large and when clicked on, they become larger with a + that make them HUGE - more than full screen, which have to be scrolled to see all the corners. Thank you, Thank You!!! except now I see a bunch of hours coming up to reload my favorite lichens!!!!! MEL reload igneous dike Edited January 19, 2012 by kayakbird Quote Link to comment
2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 Very nice kayakbird - I liken your lichens. I really like the purple flowers at the end of the main rock. What are they? Shirley~ Quote Link to comment
Wintertime Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The photos that I have uploaded since the fix are large and when clicked on, they become larger with a + that make them HUGE - more than full screen, which have to be scrolled to see all the corners. Gee, it sounds like they've now eliminated the file size limitation they used to have. I hope people don't get carried away and upload really big photos. I can't see any reason to upload one that's more than a few hundred kilobytes. If people need bigger ones for research or desktop wallpaper, they can always contact the owner and have the file emailed to them. Sometimes in the forums people post big files that really slow down the page loading, especially if it's a thread with a lot of pictures (such as the Favorite Benchmark Photos thread). Such pages can take several seconds to load on my old laptop; I can't imagine what it would be like to read those postings on a smartphone! Patty Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.