Posting pictures on this group

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote

I like the idea of the OP posting a URL instead. That way, we go right to the
content instead of having to find that newsgroup, then wade through it to find
the particular photos.

Without a doubt, that is the easy way to do it - If you have that option readily
available to you.
--
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)?

The best solution is for you to post them on your own web page... The
next best solution is for you to use http://www.tinypic.com and then
post the links in a message here if you needed to refer to them in a
message on this newsgroup... Some people might not have access to the
alt.* binary newsgroups, so I would say that should be your last
choice unless you're just wanting to post them and you don't care if
anyone actually sees them...

Grumman-581 wrote:
The best solution is for you to post them on your own web page... The
next best solution is for you to use http://www.tinypic.com and then
post the links in a message here if you needed to refer to them in a
message on this newsgroup... Some people might not have access to the
alt.* binary newsgroups, so I would say that should be your last
choice unless you're just wanting to post them and you don't care if
anyone actually sees them...


The problem with tinypic is you don't KNOW where you're going when you click on
their link. I've been mooned too many times in the past to bother with tinypic
URLs ever again. Better to post the whole link if you can. I've got my
wordwrap set to 80 characters and it wordwraps the links intact even if it
stretches out over more than one line.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

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)?


No it is not acceptable to post photos on a text newsgroup. Most servers
would strip them off anyway. There is a binary newsgroup associated with
this group but I don't have a clue as to what it is.

The easier way is to just put them on a website, and then just post
the URL. If you don't have your own webspace, Flickr, Photobucket
or one of the others works well enough.

Most ISP accounts include some server space for a personal web page, which
can be as complex as will fit the allocated disk space or as simple as a
list or display of your latest pictures.

The resulting URL tends to be a bit long and convoluted, but TinyURL solves
that problem rather nicely. It has good instructions, is easy and
intuitive, and is located at http://www.TinyURL.com/

Peter

"Marco Leon" wrote in message
ups.com...
This is considered by most a text-only group. Many folks post to
alt.binaries.pictures.aviation and let people know with a post to this
group.

That said, I wonder if feelings will change with the increasing
popularity of broadband connections. As long as this does not start
filling with SPAM, I personally would not mind a few aviation-related
pics from time to time.

Marco


It's not so much the broadband connection that come into play with this
issue, though it is part of it. The main thing is the news servers desire to
reduce storage on their servers. There are lots of USENET servers that don't
even have the binary newsgroups because of the amount of storage required.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

It's not so much the broadband connection that come into play with this
issue, though it is part of it. The main thing is the news servers desire to
reduce storage on their servers. There are lots of USENET servers that don't
even have the binary newsgroups because of the amount of storage required.

Well, OK, then if not broadband, then the increasing availability of
cheaper storage. Regardless, I don't think a non-binary titled
newsgroup will ever reach a critical mass of images being uploaded to
cause an issue (especially given the relatively low volume of messages
this group gets).

The volume of posts that the flight simmer wannabe/troll would probably
exceed the minimal size a few images take up.

But you know what? It ain't worth arguing because it's not a big issue
for me.

Marco

"Marco Leon" wrote in message
oups.com...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

It's not so much the broadband connection that come into play with this
issue, though it is part of it. The main thing is the news servers desire
to
reduce storage on their servers. There are lots of USENET servers that
don't
even have the binary newsgroups because of the amount of storage
required.

Well, OK, then if not broadband, then the increasing availability of
cheaper storage. Regardless, I don't think a non-binary titled
newsgroup will ever reach a critical mass of images being uploaded to
cause an issue (especially given the relatively low volume of messages
this group gets).

The volume of posts that the flight simmer wannabe/troll would probably
exceed the minimal size a few images take up.

But you know what? It ain't worth arguing because it's not a big issue
for me.

Marco


The cost of storage has dropped but the amount of volume on USENET has
increased just as fast if not faster. Binaries are one reason for this
increase. Below are the DAILY volumes on USENET and the source of the info.

4.5 GB 1996-12 Altopia.com
9 GB 1997-07 Altopia.com
12 GB 1998-01 Altopia.com
26 GB 1999-01 Altopia.com
82 GB 2000-01 Altopia.com
181 GB 2001-01 Altopia.com
257 GB 2002-01 Altopia.com
492 GB 2003-01 Altopia.com
969 GB 2004-01 Altopia.com
1.30 TB 2004-09-30 Octanews.net
1.27 TB 2004-11-30 Octanews.net
1.38 TB 2004-12-31 Octanews.net
1.34 TB 2005-01-01 Octanews.net
1.30 TB 2005-01-01 Newsreader.com
1.67 TB 2005-01-31 Octanews.net
1.63 TB 2005-02-01 Newsreader.com
1.81 TB 2005-02-28 Octanews.net
1.87 TB 2005-03-08 Newsreader.com
2.00 TB 2005-03-11 Various sources

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
The cost of storage has dropped but the amount of volume on USENET has
increased just as fast if not faster. Binaries are one reason for this
increase. Below are the DAILY volumes on USENET and the source of the info.

4.5 GB 1996-12 Altopia.com
9 GB 1997-07 Altopia.com
12 GB 1998-01 Altopia.com
26 GB 1999-01 Altopia.com
82 GB 2000-01 Altopia.com
181 GB 2001-01 Altopia.com
257 GB 2002-01 Altopia.com
492 GB 2003-01 Altopia.com
969 GB 2004-01 Altopia.com
1.30 TB 2004-09-30 Octanews.net
1.27 TB 2004-11-30 Octanews.net
1.38 TB 2004-12-31 Octanews.net
1.34 TB 2005-01-01 Octanews.net
1.30 TB 2005-01-01 Newsreader.com
1.67 TB 2005-01-31 Octanews.net
1.63 TB 2005-02-01 Newsreader.com
1.81 TB 2005-02-28 Octanews.net
1.87 TB 2005-03-08 Newsreader.com
2.00 TB 2005-03-11 Various sources

Yeah, but you need to qualify "binaries." You know very well the
volume is more due to DVD and music posts rather than pictures. Good
research though.

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:16:19 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:
Most ISP accounts include some server space for a personal web page, which
can be as complex as will fit the allocated disk space or as simple as a
list or display of your latest pictures.

The resulting URL tends to be a bit long and convoluted, but TinyURL solves
that problem rather nicely. It has good instructions, is easy and
intuitive, and is located at http://www.TinyURL.com/

Or if you have a Gmail account, you can use GooglePages...

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/gators-gotta-eat-too

I don't necessarily like the fact that GooglePages does not have the
concept of subdirectories (aka folders) and instead basically uses a
flat file system, but it's possible to at least somewhat get used to
those limitations...

"Marco Leon" wrote in message
ups.com...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
The cost of storage has dropped but the amount of volume on USENET has
increased just as fast if not faster. Binaries are one reason for this
increase. Below are the DAILY volumes on USENET and the source of the
info.

4.5 GB 1996-12 Altopia.com
9 GB 1997-07 Altopia.com
12 GB 1998-01 Altopia.com
26 GB 1999-01 Altopia.com
82 GB 2000-01 Altopia.com
181 GB 2001-01 Altopia.com
257 GB 2002-01 Altopia.com
492 GB 2003-01 Altopia.com
969 GB 2004-01 Altopia.com
1.30 TB 2004-09-30 Octanews.net
1.27 TB 2004-11-30 Octanews.net
1.38 TB 2004-12-31 Octanews.net
1.34 TB 2005-01-01 Octanews.net
1.30 TB 2005-01-01 Newsreader.com
1.67 TB 2005-01-31 Octanews.net
1.63 TB 2005-02-01 Newsreader.com
1.81 TB 2005-02-28 Octanews.net
1.87 TB 2005-03-08 Newsreader.com
2.00 TB 2005-03-11 Various sources

Yeah, but you need to qualify "binaries." You know very well the
volume is more due to DVD and music posts rather than pictures. Good
research though.


Of cause it is that doesn't change the fact that the newsgroup server
providers still have to more space to have binaries and virtually all of
them have decided against allowing binary data in the "text" newsgroups. DO
you expect them to check each file and see if it a picture of my airplane or
a copy of "Top Gun"?

Plus with the number of free website and photo upload places it just doesn't
make since to have to have the photo of my airplane stored on each and every
news server when I can upload it to a web site and post a link.