Re : "I do not have permission to view photos"

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I am speculating, but there could be another reason for the current policy of who can view images, and it relates to bandwidth. Keith uses his own server and pays for the bandwidth we consume, and since all images uploaded to the SMC server must be downloaded each time they are viewed, this costs Keith. Restricting the viewing, and thus the downloading, reduces the bandwidth requirement. But I could be wrong.

This does not appear to be the case for images hosted externally, since the user's computer fetches the image from the external hosting site and there is no burden on the SMC server.

As a test, I am adding two images to this post. The first is from my external hosting site and the second is one I uploaded to the SMC server.

Everyone should be able to see this image of a car:




Only paying members should be able to see this image of a truck:

Ranger-1.jpeg

With all due respect Frederick, why are you and Ken doing all the representations for Keith here and talking like you really know what's going on? If you in fact know what's going on then please explain how my $6 contribution is going to keep this site alive? My opinion is that the site is limited significantly by the lack of technical knowledge and thusly, the site is withering due to not having the where-with-all to effectively manage the site. I paid my $6 because I thought it was a reasonable value, but I do think this place is not for long. I asked earlier about the cost to operate this place and never will get an answer I know because I'm just a customer and not a part-owner. Lots of talk last year about new site software and that never happened because there aren't the proper technical resources. Dealing with lost ad revenue similarly is probably due to technical capabilities. Other places manage this, why not here?

Pat, I believe Mike's on to something here.

The reason that I defend Keith's decision is because so many people without any investment, responsibilities or liabilities are quick to condemn his decisions. It's his business to do with as he wants. More importantly while he could have on several occasions sold SMC to a company hasn't done so and has said he will never sell our personal information here at SMC. I tire of so many people amplifying the "value" of their "important" contribution of information without realizing that without a website their information has no value or recognizing/appreciating the amount of labor that goes on in the background at SMC by all the staff, Keith, Jackie, and the Moderators. A couple people have relentlessly criticized his decision. There comes a time when continued, repeated public criticism by the same people becomes nothing more than public harassment. I won't stand by and watch a public chastisement of someone who had the courage to take the corpse of the Badger Pond (that I never knew existed), breath life into it and provide for over 15 years, a woodworking and related forums website where civility is not only expected, demanded but enforced, where from beginners to pros we can share information and in some cases develop friendships.

He has no responsibility to provide business expense, accounting, or financial reports/information to anyone but the IRS.

The new software has been in beta testing IIRC and the Moderators have been testing it but it's unseen by the general public. Moderators correct me if I'm wrong.

So Keith has made his decision. If he switched to that format and software tomorrow, locking out non-contributors, I suspect the same critics would be at other websites screaming they had no warning, claim they would have been happy to contribute but feel slighted and aren't going to join. Instead, he did what the current software allows him to do and removed viewing privileges for Members. This allows them to get a glimpse of what will happen next. And they claim "it's childish"? Really? Once the conversion is complete where it's Contributors only, they will have to pay to criticize him in his own house. One should not embarrass someone in their own house, IMO.

And while, yeah, Google is showing a huge growth, they are doing it by selling personal information that will allow a broader spectrum of companies to develop customized advertising and polling projection data based on a person's internet use and personal data. I read the book "1984" IIRC in the summer of 1970 while going to a US Navy school in Brunswick, GA. We are rapidly approaching a similar state, at least as far as "Big Brother" knowing what and where we are and what we are doing.

I don't know if Jackie is retired yet but Keith retired and is still operating his sign shop the last I heard. Consider this. If SMC does cease to exist, he has one less LARGE headache to worry about, he gets rid of the public criticisms, public questioning of his business practices, his business skills, "his technical skills" and the personal attacks that are experienced by the staff including the Moderators here. He'll have more time to spend with his growing family.

Harold may think I'm being emotional but I'm not. I just tire of watching people repeatedly, publicly criticize Keith for his business decision.