30 or 300?
|
May 30, 2006, 12:20 PM
|
|
[Quate]...With your free 23 account you can upload 30 photos every month...[Quate]Check out http://www.23hq.com
[Quate]...You can upload 300 photos this month, of which you have used 0 photos...[Quate]
|
| |
|
Team 23
May 30, 2006, 12:24 PM
|
|
The scheme is:
- 30 photos per month for all eternity.
- 300 photos for the first two weeks after signing up.
But we wanted to give current non-Plus users some a summer present, so everyone has 300 free photos in their quota for another week.
Hope this makes sense.
|
| |
|
June 10, 2006, 03:33 PM
|
|
Not really! I want back my 20MB per month!
|
| |
|
June 10, 2006, 09:34 PM
|
|
I prefer the new 30 photos per month
|
| |
|
|
June 11, 2006, 11:57 AM
|
|
A sevice like 23 lives from the quality and quantity of photos.
OK - small calculation:
A photo (756×567) in good quality is max approx. 0.5MB large.
30 x 0.5 = 15MB (less than the 20MB)
-> for the people who want good quality.
But for the ones who have lots of photos to share:
20 MB / approx. 0,1MB (per photo) = 200 photos
|
| |
|
June 11, 2006, 04:02 PM
|
|
I also view 30 photos as a significant reduction to my free service, but - obviously - can't say that I'm not getting my money's worth :). What surprises me however, is that whatever the limit you decide to be reasonable for a free offering, you've decided to limit the number of photos instead of the volume. Your cost (storage+bandwidth) is mostly volume-sensitive, and your benefit is having the maximum possible number of pictures that are intersting for general audience to view. Shouldn't you therefore stimulate the free-service level users to downsize the images before uploading?
agm
|
| |
|
Team 23
June 11, 2006, 08:08 PM
|
|
Picking these levels is difficult.
The reason why we changed it is to make photo sharing accessible to people that don't think about megabytes, quotas or scaling of photos.
Looking at the average use of 23 30 photos is the equivalent of 20 Mb - and that's why we put it at that level instead of for example 20 or 40.
In most use cases this change will in effect be an upgrade if for example uploading 2-3 mb size photos on average.
That being said we're very interested in your thoughts since we by no means see this as the final definitive solution for the next 10 years...
|
| |
|
|
June 11, 2006, 10:11 PM
|
|
> is to make photo sharing accessible to people that don't think about megabytes, quotas or scaling of photos.
You seem to be drifting toward a too common gestalt nowadays: assume the user has near-zero level of technical competence ("No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people", H.L. Mencken :).
Two comments: this is not the direction I'd like to see, but then, I might be in the minority. However, if you are looking for characteristics that will distinguish your service from other similar ones, note that this is exactly what most of the competition does.
agm
|
| |
|
|
June 12, 2006, 11:38 AM
|
|
[quote]Looking at the average use of 23 30 photos is the equivalent of 20 Mb - and that's why we put it at that level instead of for example 20 or 40.[/quote]
OK, but in "the old days" you had the choice whether approx. 30 photos uncompressed or many to share.
This choice was taken!
BTW - even my granny can change dimension of picture and size down the MB for web and email.
|
| |
|
June 19, 2006, 10:01 AM
|
|
I can hardly complain about a free service!
|
| |
|
June 23, 2006, 10:47 PM
|
|
..as a free-account holder (since Oct 2005) any service provided is a gift that I sincerely appreciate
..when the monthly limit was 20M, I uploaded small (640x480 or 800x600), compressed versions of my photos, usually posting 130-150 pictures a month
..the first thing I did when I noticed the change to 30 per month was delete over 500 photos that I was never quite happy with in their too-small, low-resolution format
..now I'm using the 300 photo-upload gift to replace the 200 or so photos I left online with larger, higher-resolution versions (at least 1024x768 and uncompressed) and instead of posting a bunch of photos just to fit the 20M limit, I'm having to actually think about what I post each day and am much happier with the result
..I'll never be much of a photographer, but the change to "a picture a day" has renewed my interest in "23" and my small hobby
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
June 24, 2006, 09:48 AM
|
|
There are upsides and downsides to the new scheme, granted. But I actually really appreciate the most recent post, because that's the kind of behaviour we're encouraging. We want to make it easy to use 23 for immediate purposes -- and the restriction of 20 MB meant that many people would need to either resize before uploading and still need to keep their hi-res photos stored and backed up locally. This new scheme should make 23 more accessible and the scheme (to our minds at least) is equally fair (or unfair) to everyone ;-)
|
| |
|
|
July 01, 2006, 08:57 AM
|
|
I have a suggestion. How about everyone chooses for each month if they would like to upload 20MB or 30 pictures.
That way everyone would get the option they want. If you don´t care about the size of your pictures, you can choose the 30 pictures option and if you want to upload many pictures you choose the 20 MB option.
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
July 25, 2006, 11:56 AM
|
|
Mertens,
Your proposal is a great compromise, but would add more complexity and more code for us.
We really just want to have it as simple as possible - and if 23 works for you the upgrade to a plus account is pretty inexpensive (say compared to a couple of beers at a bar, the digital camera you're running around with, etc.).
|
| |
|
|
July 28, 2006, 04:16 PM
|
|
I have a server with 1GB storage, so disk space is not my problem.
I liked the possiblity to tag and to comment on a site like 23.
I am curious about how the other users will react when they realise that they can ONLY upload 30 pictures per month now.
Either use another site like picasaweb.google.com (250MB of free storage)/flickr. etc.
OR to open a new account every time (to get the 300 photos for the first two weeks after signing up)
OR pay for a plus account.
Time will show!
|
| |
|
|
Team 23
August 10, 2006, 06:04 PM
|
|
time will show. we'll off course hope they'll support three guys in a garage trying to help people share their photos.
|
| |
|
January 21, 2010, 02:34 AM
|
|
30 photos per month is fine, but since I joined Dec. 19, 2009, and it is now Jan. 20, 2010, shouldn't I be able to upload 30 photos now?
|
| |
|
January 21, 2010, 02:47 AM
|
|
It's 30 per calendar month. So you would have been able to upload 30 in December and 30 in January. (works the same way as Flickr... limits are reset on a calendar month basis)
|
| |
|
January 21, 2010, 03:05 AM
|
|
i think the limit should be 32 per calendar month ... 32!
23 backwards!
okay umn, i'll go hide in my hidey-hole now.
: ]
|
| |
|
|
January 21, 2010, 03:09 AM
|
|
I could go for that idea, @striatic! :-)
|
| |
|
