You know that I'm not adding this many thumbnails just for the sake of crippling the server, right? I'm doing so because it is my style of contributing. Documenting a vehicle with a decent amount of shots reflecting how much it was seen in the film / episode.

I don't care whether it's a Ford Crown Victoria or a GMC Sprint, I treat the amount of thumbnails based on how frequently the vehicle appears. Many different angles are good, too.

Well, I don't add every single flipping frame of the vehicle as it appears, and I've toned it down since early 2013, when I must say I went a little ahead of myself with the amount of extra thumbs.

I believe most of the additional thumbs originate from the TV Series that I'm doing, where I document how a vehicle appears in each episode. It may seem a bit redundant to some, but I think it gives the contribution a more structured and proper look and reflects how much time and devotion a contributor spends on a contribution.

For instance, here - I could just leave the mainpic without a comment, "cos its a Crown Vic, just a common boring 90s car that appears in every movie of that time that everyone knows what looks like", or I could just post in a comment "appears in almost every episode" / "1.18 [*][*] role, 1.21 [*][*] role ... etc." - except that I don't. I think it displays laziness, unwillingness to embrace all vehicles, common/boring or not, and the perpetual need to have one's name appear on as many contribs as possible, and I almost certainly do not think that the vast majority of my thumbnails are a waste of space.

Just my five cents. Sorry for O.T.

That page is a good example of useless thumbnails.
What is the point of all these bad views from ep 1.18/1.21?
And in the next ones there are also some very partial views that have no interest, where the episode could just be mentioned.


Hence why I was asking you to stop posting useless pics and rather post links

btw Lateef you are using more than 800 MB, that's quite high
(not counting the pics previously hosted in imageshack, in the folders starting by "0is")

For the next version of the site we made much easier the addition of multiple pictures, but I am afraid that if it becomes easier the number of pictures will increase dangerously... There will be a time when disk space will become a problem. Even if we can split the site across several servers, it makes its management/backup more difficult and more expensive.

Well, at least I don't find them useless. Those first thumbnails were added early, when I wasn't sure how much this Crown Vic was going to appear in the next seasons.

Sorry, that's not the way I handle things. If a recurring vehicle is seen just once during an episode, I add it - no matter how partial it is. I feel that mentioning it here and there between sets of pics just leave holes, and that is not what I'm going for.

here for example

is it really neccesary so many views of this thing which often don't show anything more than the main pic ??? and again Golf 3 nothing special in any way
http://imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=707878

I only add thumbnail when they do reveal more of the car like here
http://imcdb.org/vehicle_488701-BMW-325i-E30-1991.html


or the car is very rare and special
http://imcdb.org/vehicle_488686-Amphi-Ranger-2800-SR.html


and if there is space problem I made a list of simple trucks which could be deleted for being too poorly visible and have no real chance to be ever ID
http://forum.imcdb.org/forum_topic-7749-58048-should_simple_trucks__from_behind_only_be_deleted___put_in_comments_.html#p58048

I could make such a list for every vehicle category

so if you did cap KNIGHT RIDER would you feel to add grabs of KITT from every episde for the whole 4 seasons ?

Yes ... and ... yes.

well the boss says you use too much space so I let you handle it between yourselfs


but if continue that way and space limits are reached doubt ANTP will be too happy

then delete useless thumbnails and enforce strict policies , better to avoid problem then having latter to scramble for more disc space and go thru all the pages and delete useless thumbnail

BTW ANTP if Lateef and some others does this thing does it mean when I may do shows like TJ Hooker that I could post thumbnails of his Dodge St. Regis from every episode that he used the last 3 seasons ? so essentialy 70 episodes x 5-6 thumbnails per episode means 300 + pics of this car ? ?
http://imcdb.org/vehicle_94979-Dodge-St-Regis-1979.html

or perhaps I should go back to DUKES of HAZZARD and upload 5-6 pics of the Dodge Charger from every episode

this means about 154 episodes x 5 thumbs = 770 pics of this car ? is it alright ?
http://imcdb.org/vehicle_2071-Dodge-Charger-R-T-1969.html

@mike962: You posting so many comments in a row having basically the same point is definitely useless

Knowing how few additional pictures you add (you only seem to add them when further ID is needed), I can understand why you find having many additional pictures ridiculous.

there should be strict clear and equal rules for everybody , either freebie for all or strict limitations due to disc space problems , that's it


if there are no limitations for in show thumbnails then there shouldn't be either fir reference photos of very rare old vehicles such as construction ones

I'm not going to comment directly on this ping-pong match between gladiators in case they both jump on me from a great height. But I use thumbs for the following situations
[1] to aid precise identification - perhaps more so when I don't know what I'm posting or what evidence is needed for a precise identification. Or to provide the evidence if I claim it's a 1993 only Bloggsmobile Porridgecar 1.6 GTXi Splodge edition.
[2] sometimes for reference of particular features which might help confirm future sightings of 1993 only Bloggsmobile Porridgecar 1.6 GTXi Splodge editions
[3] to reflect how a car appears onscreen during the broadcast for our legendary drop-in users who want to know what the grey thing was they saw after 30-27 of ep2.06, even if that's not the most obvious or first appearance
[4] to show what happens to the car during appearances - crashes, stunts etc - sometimes fun as it enables spotting substitutes/goofs/retakes etc
[5] particularly in series, to identify possible substitutes in later episodes etc which may be similar but not the same model/year

I've probably posted a few outside that list for style/fun/aesthetic reasons or whatever, but I hope not too many. If too many comment pictures are going to be problematic, maybe use those 5 points (or something similar) as guidelines for good practice. But please not enforced dictats where other people decide there are superfluous pictures and take unilateral action. And some leeway for individual style - imcdb has to be enjoyable to retain contributor enthusiasm.

I would like to add two cent worth here. What going to happens when we run out of space due to bunch of worthless pictures for every occasion. We may have to go back to outside sourced pictures to post it at the site knowing the odd of certain site may or may not disappear like imageshack. That is why we only have finite space here

Well, in some ways, I agree that Lateef tends to overdo it in adding thumbnails at times, but I myself am guilty of doing this too. At the same time, it's better to have thumbnails than none, because there are plenty of other users out there who don't bother in adding extra images that could be helpful for further identification. But still, I do think that those of us who like to add many thumbnails should try to cut it down a bit to save on server space and only post necessary or significant shots.

As for adding thumbnails for a reoccurring car seen and/or used in a TV show, I'm not entirely against the idea of posting a thumbnail for each episode it appears in as long as it's a good overall shot and is down to 1 or 2 images, unless it's used in a car chase, crash, explosion, etc.

How much does it normally cost?



He's right, that page is over-the-top. Especially with such mundane cars/vehicle use.



Like Sixcyl had his own style of contributing (tons of too-background cars, thumbs of nudity/women/buildings/views, ignoring any criticism...)

old server was 50 € per month VAT excluded, new one is 15 €. If it is not powerful enough, one around 20 or 25 € should be enough (but it would be annoying to have to move the site again... so I hope this one will be fine)

Why didn't you just pick the 20€-25€ one?

Even 50€ a month really isn't that expensive (equivalent to the cost of a gym membership) You could ditch the ads altogether and fund it with donations, if a few of us donated it wouldn't be asking much.