FAA listens to contributors

[stockastic]

A contributor recently started a thread on the FAA forum, suggesting that the maximum file size (25mb) should be increased.   He asked that contributors who agreed with him post "+1"

An admin quickly jumped in with this reply:

"You do know that this is not a democracy and that the size isn't changing, don't you? Good, as long as you realise that......"


Even for FAA,  this is a new low.  And yes I know 25mb is still big enough for prints; it's just the tone of the response that made me angry.  But, the rude and defensive forum administrators actually fit in with the overall dated, unsophisticated look of the site - which is one of the things they're most defensive about.

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest.  I'm really frustrated with clunky, lowbrow online businesses like FAA that think they control the market and will never need to change.   I hope they get some competition in 2016.   

[PaulieWalnuts]

It's their business and they can do what they want. Maybe they're tired of people complaining. If I had to guess why there's a limit it's probably because their hosting either costs too much to increase or is too much of a hassle to change.

But I'd agree the 25MB limit is behind the times. They can't expect to sell gigantic prints with a 25MB limit. And I'm done creating multiple files for for different companies. I used to do that way back when I first started. Now I create one set of files. Any company that has a limit that excludes certain files I'm not changing them to meet the requirement. I just don't have the time to create and manage multiple versions of thousands of images.

[stockastic]

It's not about the limit.  It's about a contributor politely making a suggestion and receiving a snide, patronizing putdown from a so-called "moderator" representing the company.   

[noodle]

I wonder if the moderater is "batman"

That doofus is a brown noser moderater and a sub par photographer