pryderi Suspended 26647 Posts user info edit post |
I wonder if people would buy them, and how many DVDs it would take to copy all images from the server. 10/27/2004 9:48:29 PM |
Perlith All American 7620 Posts user info edit post |
On a side note, I would love to see an "image analyzer" for the TWW image database. We can categorize our pr0n that way and have a forum just for that. 10/27/2004 10:56:40 PM |
V0LC0M All American 21263 Posts user info edit post |
interesting 11/18/2004 2:10:32 AM |
DILLICman All American 3857 Posts user info edit post |
I'm all for it as long as people agree to take out all the redundant pictures from their gallery.
ie you're not cool if you have the same 3 cute cat pictures, pictures to use on a n00b, the no guy, etc that everyone else has in their gallery 11/28/2004 6:24:53 AM |
pilgrimshoes Suspended 63151 Posts user info edit post |
consolidation of that was taken care of during the photogallery code updates about a year ago 11/28/2004 10:36:34 PM |
DILLICman All American 3857 Posts user info edit post |
not really, ill still see people with 50 pictures that suck... or even worse, people that still cling on to their old 678 picture galleries just so they can keep their massive stockpile of worthless pictures. 11/29/2004 2:57:34 AM |
pilgrimshoes Suspended 63151 Posts user info edit post |
meaning for server configuration.
there is only one instance of each picture saved on the servers, just mulitple copies in various galleries.
if you did a batch download, only one instance would be saved.
now as to somehow delegating which pictures suck in peoples galleries and should be removed, how could that be up to a person besides the gallery owner? its not up to your judgement as to what sucks and what should be in THEIR gallery. 11/29/2004 7:36:33 AM |
Mr Scrumples Suspended 61466 Posts user info edit post |
this is a creepy idea 11/29/2004 8:20:22 AM |
underPSI tillerman 14085 Posts user info edit post |
but interesting.
talking about bringing back old times. 11/29/2004 10:13:48 AM |