mrv3000 | (no subject)

Current Mood: cranky

Entry tags:

(no subject)

Okay look, LJ. 142 icon spaces are really not enough. By a long shot. You give me 10 GB of space, why can't some of that be used for icons?? So far I've only used 89 MB of my 10 GB, and this is with over 2,300 pictures in my gallery. (1,479 of which are of Doctor Who. What?)

I'd happily knock off some of my server space for the ability to have more icons. Hmph.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I've lodged this complaint with LJ m'self, previously. The space is there anyway, so if we want to allocate a rather healthy chunk to icons, shouldn't that be our business?

Yeah, no kidding. Like I'll never use phone posting space or whatever. I'd totally give that up in place of it.

I wish I could give you some of my empty icon spaces. I have, like, 30 of them at the moment. :)

I don't think that the 10G space and the number of icons are related, really. That is, icons are stored in and callled from a database and the pictures in the gallery are just files on a server. Sure. Everything is just files on a server, but expanding the database code to allow for more icons is probably more complicated and taxing on the machines than partitioning off space on hard drives.

Or. At least that's what they tell me here at Cornell when I want to change how things in our database function.

I wish I could give you some of my empty icon spaces. I have, like, 30 of them at the moment. :)

They would immediately be filled up with DW icons. :D

I don't think that the 10G space and the number of icons are related, really. That is, icons are stored in and callled from a database and the pictures in the gallery are just files on a server. Sure. Everything is just files on a server, but expanding the database code to allow for more icons is probably more complicated and taxing on the machines than partitioning off space on hard drives.

Hmph.

Scrapbook photos are stored in a database just like icons. (I mean, the actual image files of each are stored on a server, but the metadata about them--filenames, keywords, descriptions, which gallery they're filed in, etc--is in a database). There's really no difference.

LJ won't let you allocate photo storage space to icon space because it would screw up their business model. In real terms icons barely take up any space at all, in either the database or server space sense. But people are willing to pay far more for them than they're actually worth. (The really weird part is that they don't let people spend massive money buying more and more icons. They could do it, and a lot of people would pay. I suspect it's just another example of them being out of touch with their userbase, though, or being more interested in selling ads to advertisers than in selling features to their users.)

BAH! Stoopid people.

Ditto. There can never be enough icons!

I need waaaaay more.

I agree! I need more icons, too! Though I fear no matter how many I had, they would just not be enough :P

That's probably true. I have a hard time getting rid of any of them. I'd just keep collecting. :D

You know, if they want to make good business sense (as they claim) they really should give paid and permanent accounts the ability to give up one feature for more of another. I would happily give up my picture space for fifty new icons or however many they want to give us. But no~

Bah.

More flexibility would really be fantastic. I just don't care about some of the "perks."

You know, it was only about a year and a half ago that I was happy with the 6 icons I got with a basic account...

Now I'm almost at the 142 icon limit.

I'll agree with the 'database restrictions' thing that has already been put forward but why did they pick 142? Why not 150, at least?

More to the point, even if they can't do that for the cited reasons, why don't they let people buy as many icons as they want to pay for? Seriously!

Or 200! (See how I keep pushing things up? :D)

YES OMG YES

GIMME!!

How come LJ tells me I can only have a max of 129 icons? *pout*

ETA: Oh, never mind. It's 'cause you have a permanent account. :)

Edited 2008-04-08 18:56 (UTC)

HEH! Yeah, I bought one of those suckers a couple of years ago. Or was it just a year? Eh, can't remember.

Gawd! I remember the days of "three" icons. How did we survive...

I have no idea.

I've got 40-something and there are times I just don't have the icon I need to represent my thoughts...

But I refuse to buy anymore.

I am an icon whore, so would totally support any plan that gave me more space to stock up on icons. As it is I have over 100 unused icons saved on my PC - sometimes when I need a little pick me up I just sit and stare at them.

Does this make me crazy? I think not.

Well, I sometimes look at my DW gallery when I need a pick-me-up, so I don't think I can be throwing the "crazy" label around... :D

Totally not crazy. I do the exact same thing (and I have A LOT more than 100....) :)

I'm there with you! I only have 121 and have been forced to weed out icons a LOT lately, because I just don't have the space!

I get that the servers allocate differently, but there are other journal sites out there that allocate MUCH MORE SPACE to icons, and I WANTS!

I would happily give up all of my voice post space if I could have more icons...

I know, don't other sites let you have hundreds? MEH.

Yes! There are! it's very unfair *pouts*

Amen to that sister. I'm not even using ANY of my space, but would LOVE it for more icons.

Way more icons.

you have 142 icons?!
I'm kinda hating you right now
I have 15- damn my plus account

A small perk to having a permanent account.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only