Sorry Mel, I don't know why, but I for some reason jumped to the conclusion that the Guild would already be operating its own server and only buying access and bandwidth.
Maybe it's the professional quality of the web site that did it?
Could I assume that we are not running out of bandwidth,
That's correct. I estimate we're only using about 10-15% of the allocated bandwidth.
just storage space,
Since the most recent upgrade, even storage isn't such a pressing problem. We now have over 1 Gig of total space - which is why I was able to increase the forum image archive to 500mb the other day. Longer term, I may be able to increase it yet further but I'd like to keep a significant amount of space 'in hand' for future site developments for the time being.
and if that is the case, do the providers offer a package which gives more storage without extra bandwidth? Just because we are wanting to store more legacy images does not translate to an equivalent increase in traffic does it.
igkt.net is currently using the lowest package that their hosting company offers. There are 3 packages above this with the highest offering 6 Gig of space and 1 Gig monthly bandwidth allowance. The cost of the largest package is around 100ukp per year. So I think that, from a purely technical standpoint, there's plenty of room for manoeuvre. From a financial perspective, I assume it depends upon what the IGKT Council consider to be value-for-money in terms of investment. I imagine that they have many calls on fairly limited funds and, like every other non-profit organisation, they have to prioritise their financial outgoings. The web site and this forum is only going to be one of many outlets that they may want to support.
With respect to the bandwidth question, I appreciate what you mean but from a commercial hosting company's perspective, more space usually means more web-based resource with greater bandwidth demands. So the monthly bandwidth allowance tends to rise in direct proportion to the space allocated to each package. Offering these fixed packages is also probably more cost-effective than trying to provide 'mix and match' services which, in turn, keeps the overall price tag down.
Given that the Guild should be starting to work towards building an online reference of knotomabilia, and that this will essentially require an ever growing requirement for storage space, what route would you suggest the Guild be going along? Given that as users we are saying that we want access to more content and not restricting it, how would you as our Webmistress advise us to progress?
When/if the consumption of of resources provided by the current package exceed 50%, I'd recommend that the Council considers upgrading the hosting package. As it stands, we're not even half way there yet but, if that point is ever reached, I'd also suggest that the Council re-evaluate the site and this forum and develop a long term web strategy. Defining that strategy and the kinds of resources that might be required in the future would go a long way to determining what level of hosting would be needed and the likely annual cost.
As I understand it, and please correct me Mel if I am wrong, but the Guild site is effectively closed to all of us, members of the Guild and the Forum alike. To store images on the Guild server space would require you to send the file to Mel and for her to incorporate it into the website for you.
That's correct - well almost...
The photos are sent to the Web Admin who (I assume) confirms Guild membership and then forwards them to me for addition to the gallery. Sometimes with advice as to which sub-gallery would be most suitable as I am not a knottyer - although I've learnt a lot over the years. I now know what a chest becket is and what a turkshead looks like!
The web site isn't so much closed as not run via any content management system. All of the pages are currently handcoded and uploaded via FTP but this could be changed if necessary.
When composing a Forum post, it is unlikely that any of us will have had the forethought to have had the image uploaded to the Guild website in advance, so this is not really a practical solution to being able to attach image files straight into a post.
I agree. To be honest, I was just hoping to stimulate some renewed interest in the gallery as a potential public image archive.
I find the easiest route to solving this problem is simply to make a free PBWiki at pbwiki.com and simply use it to put my iimage files onto the free storage space and then just link them into a post. The main advantage being that I can put the image into the body of the post rather than just attach it at the end of the post.
I'd also considered the possibility of adding a wiki to the web site but the biggest stumbling block was the fact that even a wiki entails a technical learning curve. You have to learn/follow the syntax for that particular wiki application - which tends deter a lot of, otherwise non-technical, people from adding their contributions. So I'm a little unsure how successful it would be.
Another option might be a blog like Wordpress which has the added option of a Word-like WYSIWYG interface for those who don't want to learn special syntax rules.
For me though, the perfect solution would be for the Guild to make upload space available to any Forum or Guild member that lets me upload images directly into it like my PBWiki space does, so I could use the images within a post. The really big advantage here is that the images would then all be being looked after by the Guild and we could be sure that they would be safeguarded for the future as long as the Guild continues to exist (and hopefully prosper)...
Wikis, blogs or even image galleries like Coppermine are available for free, so the cost of the application isn't an issue. But the management of exactly who has access to what could be (Guild members only or Forum+ Guild?). There is no online database of Guild members and creating it would incur a cost. Linking that into a 3rd party application like a wiki would also be costly as it would, almost certainly, have to be custom built (usually the most expensive of development routes). Ditto trying to link this forum's membership into another system. The alternative is to use manual moderation of access/upload privileges but that can be very time-consuming and volunteer time can often be a limited resource too.
In my experience, what tends to limit development of new web facilities isn't technical constraints but limited finances and time.
whereas today, if I close my PBWiki accounts, or if PBWiki go bankrupt, then all my images files will be lost and the links in the posts will be broken.
Yes - that's always an issue - especially with a free service.
At some point in its development, the Guild will have to give some serious thought to this problem and decide how best to serve members both present and future. Perhaps now is an appropriate time to do this, so your guidance Mel is going to be key for the future effectiveness of the Guild internet service.
I think it's important to bear in mind that the Web/Internet is a relatively new field and that the Guild has to provide for the needs of all its members. Not just those on here who may represent only a small fraction of its member base. We haven't yet reached the point where everyone automatically turns to the computer for information - especially within a craft that is so rooted in practical, hands-on, methodology. As such, I personally think that the Guild is right to adopt a fairly conservative attitude towards web-based resources. They should be just one of many potential routes open to members and non-members alike and shouldn't, as yet, be favoured over and above more traditional methods of promotion. Longer term, this may change but, for now, small, well-considered steps offer the least risk of disenfranchising some members.
At the end of the day, the Guild is a member organisation and, I assume, has well-tried avenues for members to express what they would like to see in the way of future resources. If a Council member approaches me with a new development idea, I'll do my best to find the most cost-effective technical solution for consideration.
