• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

What happened to "We will not be limiting the current site features for users who do not choose to subscribe"?

I

ieatbees123

New Member
High-res uploads aren't new, weren't paywalled, and really didn't need to be when this previous, much-better feature existed for well over a decade, for free. Yes, "feature." you really can't tell me that it's not one by now, after this much time and usage, AND the fact that the workaround was literally stated ON the upload page.
i2utTBt.png

(Edit: Including ^this up here as well.)
In order to "enable" high-res image uploads for the public, all you had to do was nothing. That's it. Literally nothing.
https://imgur.com/YLVXt5g
But hey, why do what y'all are great at when instead, for a few quick hyped-up subscription sales, you could make an objectively worse (paywall tier included) version of what we had previously, AND break the promise of leaving current already-free site features unaffected in the process, am I right?

Ranting and seething aside, I really am curious though. I'd like to read any actual reasoning behind this promise-breaking paywalled downgrade and why you think it's a remotely acceptable/agreeable course of action, if any higher-ups reading this are willing to share. Like, genuinely. ^^
 
Last edited:
vickers

vickers

Well-Known Member
They're probably just trying to cash in on the wave of twitter refugees. (and also scared for state of the servers... somebody's gotta pay for those if the userbase ends up doubling)
 
D

Deleted member 160111

Guest
I have a feeling that you no longer know what to find fault with. My submissions are now almost twice as large as before. I don't see a problem in increasing the resolution three times or more for subscribers. You have been living with a resolution of 1280*1280 all these years and it was fine. Do you want a resolution of 7000*7000? Why don't you use cloud storage and leave a link in your profile? I don't understand why you're looking for problems.
I used 47/50 folders. A subscriber can have 75. How unfair!
 
RestrainedRaptor

RestrainedRaptor

Well-Known Nuisance
I spy my journal up there... I already updated it.

I figured it was inevitable that they'd clamp down on this. I am surprised, however, that FA+ only upgrades image limits from 2K to 4K. Why not 8K?
 
F

fox_whisper85

Member
TyraWadman said:
People were exploiting the higher res uploads (if thats the correct term?) in the past. It was never intended to be that way.
Click to expand...

Well they certainly didn't do anything to stop people from bypassing the horrible low res limit.

Eyleifr said:
I have a feeling that you no longer know what to find fault with. My submissions are now almost twice as large as before. I don't see a problem in increasing the resolution three times or more for subscribers. You have been living with a resolution of 1280*1280 all these years and it was fine. Do you want a resolution of 7000*7000? Why don't you use cloud storage and leave a link in your profile? I don't understand why you're looking for problems.
I used 47/50 folders. A subscriber can have 75. How unfair!
Click to expand...
Totally not a condescending attitude at all.
 
I

ieatbees123

New Member
Again, really not sure why people are still calling this an "unintended" exploit when this line was literally ON the upload page until just recently.
i2utTBt.png

(Edited the OP to include this fact.)

Still open to reading the reasoning behind this thinly veiled, money-grabby objective downgrade, btw. Again, I'm genuinely willing to listen here.

https://imgur.com/AIjfXmU
Optional, but I'd also love to learn why you felt the need to hide this thread. (Did I strike a nerve by calling out the hypocrisy, or...?)
 
Last edited:
Dragoneer

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
We allowed the loophole to be used, but it was never intended to be a feature. 1280px was always the official cap. However, as time went on, the issue exacerbated and became progressively worse, and our storage requirements became extremely problematic as the file storage requirements doubled to tripled from where we expected.

We didn't mind it early on, but at some point the loophole usage became so common that years of planned additional storage were soaked up faster than anticipated.

Again, the site's limitations were always intended to be 1280x1280px, which I understand is no longer a desires web friendly resolution. It's vastly outdated, and a reason we updated it. We never promoted this option as a feature, nor was it ever intended. However, until such time we could roll out proper upgrades and high res support we allowed it.

I would love not to have caps, but the costs are prohibitive long term (at least at this time).

We vastly increased the default size with this update, and are monitoring and watching performance bandwidth, as well as stability. I would love to not have limits, and once we've had enough time to evaluate the limits we'll look into revisiting them. The reality is hosting the site, mass storage, stability, and bandwidth have very real costs. A lot of real costs. We spent nearly $20K upgrading our storage earlier this year, a cost we had not expected to shoulder the burden.
 
G

GuffinDoesArt

Member
Wouldn't use of the "loophole" not have had an effect on actual storage use, though? The "loophole" didn't change the file size limit, it only lifted the resolution limit, so every image uploaded through use of the "loophole" still followed the website's file size restriction.

Also very disappointed with the high res paywall, especially since high res was always allowed and even officially accepted with that upload page screencap. Image resolution is not something that should be put behind a paywall for an art gallery website.
 
Dragoneer

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
GuffinDoesArt said:
Wouldn't use of the "loophole" not have had an effect on actual storage use, though? The "loophole" didn't change the file size limit, it only lifted the resolution limit, so every image uploaded through use of the "loophole" still followed the website's file size restriction.

Also very disappointed with the high res paywall, especially since high res was always allowed and even officially accepted with that upload page screencap. Image resolution is not something that should be put behind a paywall for an art gallery website.
Click to expand...
Save a 6K PNG file with high detail vs the same image as JPG or even a more reasonable resolution. At higher resolutions the file sizes start to multiply greatly. We'd have to have multiple rules and size sets per file type.

File sizes drastically go up with resolution. 1280x1280 vs 2560x2560 is four times the amount of pixels and size. Now double that, and and four times more than 2560K.

File sizes start to balloon and grow, and with that the requirements to host and transmit them.

We don't want to have to paywall anything, but the costs to host the site still exist.

It's something we will monitor and review, especially as we have data usage. I'm not against lifting the caps further, but long term stability and storage are something we have to monitor.

Everything has a cost to it, and we have to try to find balance.
 
Flamingo

Flamingo

Moderator
Moderator
Administrator
Staff Member
ieatbees123 said:
Again, really not sure why people are still calling this an "unintended" exploit when this line was literally ON the upload page until just recently.
i2utTBt.png

(Edited the OP to include this fact.)

Still open to reading the reasoning behind this thinly veiled, money-grabby objective downgrade, btw. Again, I'm genuinely willing to listen here.

https://imgur.com/AIjfXmU
Optional, but I'd also love to learn why you felt the need to hide this thread. (Did I strike a nerve by calling out the hypocrisy, or...?)
Click to expand...
Forum flagged it on its own. Probably imbedded image/age of account. Nothing nefarious.
 
QuicksandAndPalmtrees

QuicksandAndPalmtrees

New Member
Seems fair to me. I wonder if images should be allowed anyway as long as they're under some file size limit, since file size is the bottleneck. It'd let people upload jpgs in large size rather than resizing it down for the site, at least. Jpgs at ~85% quality and above, the quality difference gets pretty subtle
 
F

fox_whisper85

Member
Dragoneer said:
Save a 6K PNG file with high detail vs the same image as JPG or even a more reasonable resolution. At higher resolutions the file sizes start to multiply greatly. We'd have to have multiple rules and size sets per file type.

File sizes drastically go up with resolution. 1280x1280 vs 2560x2560 is four times the amount of pixels and size. Now double that, and and four times more than 2560K.

File sizes start to balloon and grow, and with that the requirements to host and transmit them.

We don't want to have to paywall anything, but the costs to host the site still exist.

It's something we will monitor and review, especially as we have data usage. I'm not against lifting the caps further, but long term stability and storage are something we have to monitor.

Everything has a cost to it, and we have to try to find balance.
Click to expand...

Can PayPal be trusted to use on a furry site though? Surely,. PP would ban accounts tied to potentially NSFW sites or get flagged by PP? I'm wanting to sign up for FA+, but the fact PayPal has been rather...picky about furry/NSFW sites in the pass doesn't instill confidence in using them to pay for FA+, right?
 
G

GuffinDoesArt

Member
Dragoneer said:
Save a 6K PNG file with high detail vs the same image as JPG or even a more reasonable resolution. At higher resolutions the file sizes start to multiply greatly. We'd have to have multiple rules and size sets per file type.

File sizes drastically go up with resolution. 1280x1280 vs 2560x2560 is four times the amount of pixels and size. Now double that, and and four times more than 2560K.

File sizes start to balloon and grow, and with that the requirements to host and transmit them.

We don't want to have to paywall anything, but the costs to host the site still exist.

It's something we will monitor and review, especially as we have data usage. I'm not against lifting the caps further, but long term stability and storage are something we have to monitor.

Everything has a cost to it, and we have to try to find balance.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm misreading this response. You didn't really respond to my question about the "loophole", you just talked about how high resolution images means high file size, which isn't always true. If someone uploads an image that meets the file size requirements, it shouldn't matter what the resolution of the image is, because the file already has its file size, which meets the requirements. The only way I can see submissions gaining an unreasonable amount of file size after being uploaded would be if FA is converting uploaded images to different file types behind the scenes and bloating the file size due to bad compression or conversion (I'm guessing that's what you were saying in your response, you didn't really mention why you were comparing PNGs and JPGs, or how file size increase related to that). If that's the case, then I'd like to know if that's something that would be fixed in the future, since storing bloated versions of a small file size submission seems like a huge storage issue that would take up a lot more server space than is needed, especially if the resolution caps are pushed further in the future.

Dragoneer said:
We'd have to have multiple rules and size sets per file type.
Click to expand...

This also seems very easy to implement. I know other art gallery websites have separate restrictions for image types.
 
ben909

ben909

vaporeon character != mushroom characters
i thought they said "core site features " not "site features " posting or faving something is a core feature, posting at a higher resolution is not necessarily a core feature
 
Inferndragon

Inferndragon

Dragon Doodler with a Tail Snake
Probably people posting "Reminders" probably doesn't help with the bandwidth uploading costs...
Since it is usually posting the same image over and over again.

Maybe implimenting a system that literally does a reminder instead without people uploading another image to add into operating costs if that is the case?
 
Last edited:
ben909

ben909

vaporeon character != mushroom characters
F

fox_whisper85

Member
I didn't seem to get any answer regarding the fact FA + uses PayPal and PayPal are notorious for banning accounts tied to sites and other NSFW related activities. How is this NOT a concern worth addressing? I want to support FA, I want to sign up for FA+, but if PP is going to go full douche and ban accounts, what are we supposed to do?
 
luffy

luffy

Administrator
Moderator
Administrator
Staff Member
fox_whisper85 said:
Can PayPal be trusted to use on a furry site though? Surely,. PP would ban accounts tied to potentially NSFW sites or get flagged by PP? I'm wanting to sign up for FA+, but the fact PayPal has been rather...picky about furry/NSFW sites in the pass doesn't instill confidence in using them to pay for FA+, right?
Click to expand...
PayPal knows we're using them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top