Posting pictures on this group

Jose wrote:

Simplified a bit, the way Usenet works, you make a post. That post gets
copied again and again and again, making its way to umpteen servers all
over the world, so that it can be read. If it's a small binary it is
still lots bigger than a long post. No matter how cheap storage and
bandwidth is, it is still finite, and many servers will only hold so
much. Every single binary therefore kicks out lots of text posts.

The way the web works, you upload to your site, and it sits there. ONLY
when people come to look at the site is it transmitted to another
server. So even a =huge= binary on the web has far less impact as if it
were on Usenet.

Thanks Jose, but I realize how usenet works. The point I was making is
that compared to the other file sizes being posted (i.e. 4 GB+ DVD
images) pictures are small. Of course they are bigger than text, but
small relatively speaking.

"Marco Leon" wrote in message
ps.com...

Jose wrote:

Simplified a bit, the way Usenet works, you make a post. That post gets
copied again and again and again, making its way to umpteen servers all
over the world, so that it can be read. If it's a small binary it is
still lots bigger than a long post. No matter how cheap storage and
bandwidth is, it is still finite, and many servers will only hold so
much. Every single binary therefore kicks out lots of text posts.

The way the web works, you upload to your site, and it sits there. ONLY
when people come to look at the site is it transmitted to another
server. So even a =huge= binary on the web has far less impact as if it
were on Usenet.

Thanks Jose, but I realize how usenet works. The point I was making is
that compared to the other file sizes being posted (i.e. 4 GB+ DVD
images) pictures are small. Of course they are bigger than text, but
small relatively speaking.


Compared to a 4GB DVD yes but compared to this 3KB text message even the
smallest photos are huge.

Of course they are bigger than text

Right, and that is the issue. In a text newsgroup, things are optimized
for text. Anything that is not "text sized" gets in the way, whether on
the server, in the software required to view, or in the time people have
to wait for the unwanted image to be presented to them. "Things that
don't fit" should be segregated. This includes binaries (post to a
binaries group). It also includes topic drift (change the subject, use
prefixes) and HTML (put that anywhere else but Usenet).

Doing this makes the experience better for all.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote

Right, and that is the issue. In a text newsgroup, things are optimized for
text. Anything that is not "text sized" gets in the way, whether on the
server, in the software required to view, or in the time people have to wait
for the unwanted image to be presented to them. "Things that don't fit"
should be segregated.

For once, I totally agree!

It is all in what you expect to get.

I set my reader to download all of the headers and message bodies in a text only
group. It doesn't take long, with broadband.

Not so, with the binaries picture group, for example. Can you imagine how long
that would take, to download all of the message bodies (pictures), if you missed
a few days? g

A line has been drawn in the sand. No binaries in a text only group. It is
what you expect. If you let one or two pictures in, where do you draw the line,
now? It becomes significantly g less clear, then.
--
Jim in NC