> Please be assured that we are still proceeding with our plans to
> progress beyond the temporary solution provided by this group. As you
> have no doubt noticed, the 100MB limit to this group will not be
> adequate for any kind of an extended observation campaign. The tying
> of data to images also leaves a lot to be desired.
I wonder if the archived e-mail attachments count towards the group's
storage total?
As others have undoubtedly noticed, Google Groups permanently archives
all e-mails sent to the group address, including the attachments, and
they are publicly viewable, and can be linked to, much the same as
images uploaded to the Files area. If the provision for group e-mail
archiving is at all similar to the 2.5GB+ allowed for personal Gmail
accounts, submitting images by attachments directly connected to an
e-mail message describing them might be an easy way to solve the
storage space problem.
This would also solve the problem of keeping the file permanently
linked to its description, and it might even encourage greater
participation by casual visitors since the use of e-mail attachments
is a very simple and well-established way of exchanging files. Anyone
who has joined the group is, I believe, allowed to send an e-mail with
attachments to the group address. This suggestion would also make the
submitted files available to members who subscribe to the e-mail
service but do not like to visit the group website.
Objects in the Files area have greater permanent visibility and can be
easily sorted by submission date. They are also easier to link to on
web pages (linking directly to the archived version of an e-mail
attachment seems to require using an extraordinarily long
Google-generated URL). But the advantages enjoyed by objects placed
in the Files area seem, to me, to be outweighed both by the limited
storage space available and by the loss of connection with the text
explaining the object.
Does the present method of uploading files to the limited-space Group
Files area and posting a separate Discussion message have some other
advantages I am forgetting? Or should we change the Image Submission
Guidelines to recommend submitting images (and other file types) as
attachments to the message describing them?
-- Jim