Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Renderosity?
Renderosity doesn't offer preview images...they're thumbnails. Sometimes it's really difficult to see if the thing even looks good enough to bother with.
Dana
What's wrong with registration? As long as they don't charge for it, I see nothing wrong with that. The site I'm working on requires registration. It will have an order history, so you need to be logged in. But there's no charge for registration, nor at most of the sites that require it. I've never gotten spam from ShareCG, nor from Renderosity, RDNA, Content Paradise, etc. I only get emails that I want, info on sales and wishlist items that go on sale, etc.
Dana
I don't see anything wrong either (the only trouble is keeping track of your passwords, but there are software tools for this these days AFAIK), but I've read countless statements along the lines 'I am not going to register at a yet another site even if they promise me the moon for free'. OK exaggerration, but still.
Those are the same people who will bitch like hell when the site is hacked or when spammers overrun it.
Dana
Renderosity doesn't offer preview images...they're thumbnails. Sometimes it's really difficult to see if the thing even looks good enough to bother with.
Dana
You can always put a link to a picture in the description - in your Rero gallery or elsewhere. Today I used a link to youtube ...
Renderosity doesn't offer preview images...they're thumbnails. Sometimes it's really difficult to see if the thing even looks good enough to bother with.
Dana
You can always put a link to a picture in the description - in your Rero gallery or elsewhere. Today I used a link to youtube ...
Yes, well we were discussing the service each offered. I suppose they could do that at ShareCG, too. So the value to the uploaders is still not matched by Renderosity. This will be sad. I have a feeling that many will stop uploading. It's one thing to put something up for free. It's another thing to put all that hard work into something and then have to pay to put it up for others to grab for free. I fear many will not consider it worthwhile. Hopefully I'm wrong. But the Internet is full of people expecting every service to be free, and have lots of bells and whistles, too. Too many people feel entitled to everything being handed to them, and everything to be of high quality and value. And some still find something to complain about.
Dana
Hopefully, the subscription will be voluntary, or, e.g. 10-free-downloads-per year, 20 if you upload.
One thing that would really sell it - give subscribers faster downloads.
Pardon, there's new points, but there's repetition, to consolidate point/counterpoint.
Good question.
How many upload, but rarely download (if ever)? How many, who run a small text site, might do it to avoid increased bandwidth fees. And how many who run a lightweight download site might want to limit the amount and size stuff on their site?
Perhaps folks who upload could get a break. It'd be a nice incentive. Perhaps by volume of upload (but I think a flat discount for more-than-2 would be more sane. What happens when you get somebody uploads way more than the previous record? Do they adjust the whole scale, and degrade some folks' discounts? Or maybe a ceiling - more than 10 would get you a free sub).
Of course that would invite abuse (just upload any old crappy, broken, WIP work). So to prevent it, there could be some kind of rating system or a way for downloaders to give it a thumbs-down on quality (and be counted). And then all sorts of trolls, haters, enemys, and the like would leave false negatives.... So they could also add a thumbs-up, so anyone with a bunch of friends... or just automatically weigh the negatives against the total downloads.
So then they could hire people to check the negative-rated stuff themselves. But how much staff would they have to add? How many allegedly bunk uploads per day? Would it add to their costs, noticeably?
Guilty. With extenuating circumstanses. If I follow a link, and find "Download Now", I download. If I see "Add to cart", then likely no, I don't want their spam (depends on if I give a bleep about their store, too). If I see "Register", it'll probably be when I'm too busy, and I'll put it off... forever.
Most of them want to do email confirmation (and nobody tells you before you finish), and since that can fail on 1 or 2 or 3 of my email addys...
Too many ask personal questions.
True about the password manager (the ones that do usernames), it would save a ton of nuisance (along with a password generator).
If I find free ones, I'll set 'em up. (Skinflint-ish, yes, but I soon realized how fast those $15~$50 shareware added up, given that the average person needs a bunch of those simple utilities). [rant] And Google makes me wade thru pages of the payware/trialware/crippleware/nagware/malware-bundle-ware. It completely ignores the word "freeware". And those "Freeware" sites are sparsely populated with true freebies... [/rant] So what I'm saying is that I tend to put off that PITA, of hunting for freeware.
I'm rather ignorant of the site-hacking stuff.
That's not how I read it, myself. The ads don't pay enough, so they've been subsidizing it. They need to get more cash. They couldn't have been subsidizing it too heavily (unless they're rolling in dough), so it's likely the ad revenue came close.
Now I don't know him. If he's stupid, then maybe. Can't second-guess stupid. :lol:
Most ad-supported sites, of any size, also offer ad-free subscriptions. I'd expect him to try that tested model, first.
After all, subscription-only sites, aren't likely to attract enough people to pay the bills. Ad bandwidth is offset by ad revenue. And if they raised enough money, they could pay for better hosting speed. The advertizing chokes the user, not them, and if the web server allocates fixed bandwidth to each access-er, then the ad-free user will gain a speedup in page-load).
He invited discussion of his "proposal), but I'd bet he's made up his mind. However, I expect he's encouraging the discussion, to see if he can get any good ideas, for how to make it more attractive.
Also, if he has any sense, he'll find a way to keep and to continue attracting uploaders, if it is a forced-sub (otherwise, the site is screwed).
And, one would hope he' be sensible enough to be encouraging the first-time downloader, and casual downloaders, or he'll run out of new customers. The only ways I can think of are x-number-of-downloads-free, or optional-sub.
I'll probably actually pay *gasp* to get rid of the ad-slowdown there. I block the ads, but the less code they throw at the browser + plugins... And, heck, it'd make page-saving brisker. Plus, I do feel a twinge of guilt when I leech a site heavily, without even seeing their wretched scam ads.(That would be the first time I've popped for ad-free).
Before I comment on this, I'd like to say that for the most part I like ShareCG, there are some things that could use improvement but overall I like it.
I don't really download anything from SCG anymore... maybe four or five things this year, actually stuff that I could of found at Rendo's free stuff site... Mostly my CGI efforts go to making stuff to post on ShareCG.
I don't think I'd really want to PAY someone to give away my models... I pretty much could do that at a bunch of sites for free...
That is of course, if "vendors" or "contributors" are expected to pay too... I've seen other sites do something similar... I think SCG would lose like half their contributers if they charged them.
This might improve the overall quality of the models and content, but it would diminish the overall amount of models and content available.
I personally don't think I'd want to be charged to be a member... I have contributed about 73 items over four years to SCG (which is nothing compared to some folks), and I feel that based on downloads and views that should have earned me some "credit" there.
I think that people with at least 10 preexisting items with over 100 downloads or at least 5 with over 300 downloads should be exempt. Or at least some version of that concept.
If I had to pay to be a contributer, I'd just delete my account and post the better stuff to Rendo, or Mr. Sparky's site... Basically the best thing about the site for me is being able to have decent size promo images (not thumbnail size like Rendo) , the comments and a download and view tracker.
My payment for contributing to SCG is making folks snicker at the wacky promos and seeing what is popular or useful via the feedback and statistics... That helps me figure out if I'm on the right track and if my skills are improving... but I can live without it.
Nobody I know understands why I give away what I make, I have NO hobby budget, I earn peanuts from my "real world" occupation, and my wife and kids couldn't give a damn about what I do and only think my CGI interest is a time consuming nuisance... So, I don't know what I'll do when they change over, which they probably will...
I have no idea what it costs to run a site like SCG... I never knew they were struggling to get by... It would have been nice to know what was going on... you don't really see much input from the staff at the site... there are like 10 posts at the announcements section in their forums... it would have been nice to know before hand if they where in trouble... granted, most input from people in a situation like that is just panicky angry crap, but sometimes you DO get good suggestions, which may have helped... I get the distinct feeling, like some other sites, they just do whatever they are gonna do regardless of what the community suggests, even if it is a good idea or a needed step... so, what will be will be...
It was a fun ride I suppose.
Lordvicore, I didn't know that you are McGyver! I love your promos! They always make me smile, and sometimes laugh out loud! And your stuff seems to be quite cool, too!
Dana
I get Norton Security Suite free with my Comcast account, and I love their Identity Safe.
I'm rather ignorant of the site-hacking stuff.
On my site, even freebies will go through the checkout process and will go into your order history. This will allow you to redownload anything you've gotten in the past, without having to search for it, in the case of a fatal system crash, loss of hard drive, etc. But the other reason is, if the artist makes an update or bug fix, you will be notified and will be able to get it, without guessing what has been updated or if anything has been updated.
I have a strict privacy policy on my site, no personal information (what little I actually collect) will ever be shared with another site, business or person...except if law enforcement is involved of course. I have an SSL certificate, which gives you the padlock in the browser, which is in effect from log in until you leave. I am researching methods of increasing security for the user. When my site is 100% live, it is my intention that the user will have nothing to fear. And I will not spam my own customers/members, either! They will get notices that are important and relate to their use of the system. Other than that, when I start a newsletter, it will be announced and users will have to check a box to get it. Any notices they get, they will have to say they want. That goes for wishlist sale alerts and anything similar. Possibly they may get emails from the artists if there is a bonus for purchasing something, or for resolution of certain issues with a product. All sellers will have an email address at my domain, they will not be using a personal email address from yahoo or gmail or whatever other free email is out there. It will be used for business only, and will be recognizable as from my site
Registration will be to keep out bots and unsavory types (as much as that is possible) and to aid in giving the users the best experience at my site, not to amass an email list that can be sold. The thought of that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I will not subject my users to such a thing.
So you see, registration is not an evil thing...not always, anyway. ;-)
Dana
Basic 'enterprise'/business class webhosting starts somewhere between $1000 and $2000/ per month...depending on storage and bandwidth needs.
ShareCG is not a small operation...no, they aren't quite the size of Amazon or something but a 'basic' package isn't exactly going to cover their hosting needs.
Now, from one of my favorite hosting providers...a 'basic' package that allows 50GB/month transfer and 5 GB of storage is $10/month...that's pretty much the bare minimum you'd need to 'host it yourself' (with a high degree of reliability...most 'free hosts' are ad supported, not too reliable or both). The next step up doubles the cost, doubles the bandwidth and quadruples the storage.
Filehosting sites like Mediafire are limited and/or subscription for higher/less limited service.
There is no such thing as truly free file hosting. You are paying for it some how...whether it's your ISP provided webspace (yes that's a portion of your monthly bill), 'free' hosting that's usually ad supported or paid hosting you go out an buy on your own. ShareCG was not/is not FREE hosting.
The question is not whether you want to pay to give away free items (because one way or another, you already are), but rather HOW MUCH do you want to/can afford to pay, to do so...
Those are good reasons.
I've never objected to signing up if I'm going to buy something, by the way. Just that most freebie collections aren't worth a hassle, to me. But with username password management, the hassle would be greatly reduced.
I look forward to your site, glad to hear you're so vigilant about security, and the user experience.
No, not usually. It's the exceptions, (and lazyness). I never know what to expect.
I get spammed daily by a notorious fellow who I got two freebies from. And daily by a store I bought one thing at (nice store, so I need to go back and see if I can shut that off in my account, now that I'm thinking about it).
Also, there was a while when every confirmation email would fail on the first emal addy I picked. (And I picked at random). I haven't had that in a while, so I'm starting to relax about that.
T Jaiman, I'll reply in a PM, so as not to derail this topic any further.
Dana
While $10/year is a pittance for what you get at ShareCG, I fear that this will ruin it. ShareCG has a lot of nice features, like multiple large promo images and a very smooth interface (e.g. if you're not logged in when you go to a page, log in and you're put right back on the page). However, I feel the site that fills the need SCG does must be free for downloaders, at least for X number of downloads. Anyone who has been around for a while knows what SCG is worth, but newbies don't. How many times do people recommend PoserWorld (I don't anymore, but that's a different issue), yet how many newbies subscribe? There are lots of people who just don't know what's going to be worth paying for, and the gut reaction to being told "this is a freebie, but you have to pay to join the site" is going to be extremely negative.
If there was a free option with ads and a limited number of downloads along with a paid version, that might work.
That is a good point... Maybe like what CG textures does... free for "X" MBs of data (or DLs) per day and membership if you want more per day...
I'd pay 10.00 a year, and perhaps more- if the stuff on sharecg was acutally available for commercial use, and not personal use. But too many o f the downloads aren't available for commercial use, or their creators have confusing usage terms. I just wouldn't pay money for something I couldn't use in tcommerical projects.
I realize creators want to retain rights to their items, and I support that, but if I pay money for something, I want to be able to use it commercially...
I also only download commerical use items. Saves me having to think about usage terms even though I have yet to seell something.
All my stuff is commercial use!... (stupid smileys don't work for me... Picture a grinning one)
And very nice too! I just downloaded your gizmo set, and am looking at the rest of your stuff. Good work!
that is a reason I tend to not download much from sharecg too.
I made the mistake the very first video render I ever did for a competition with a prize of using a texture for non-commercial use on a top Vicky wore in EVERY scene so basiclly had to redo my entry.
I never stood a chance anyway but it kinda sucked so only use bought stuff mostly now and only download freebies with clear commercial renders allowed permissions.
I thought the site was glitching again, refreshed, and saw your edit.
It looked like you had it right too, but it's too late to squint at it. So, just in case, here's what happens if there isn't a space after text:cheese:
But it's fine when there's no space at the beginning of a blank line.
:cheese:
Oh right... what you were saying... your stuff...
I'm lazy, can ya give me a link?
edit: But I'm also impatient...
http://www.sharecg.com/pf/full_uploads.php?pf_user_name=mcgyver
Daaaang... that's a lot of stuff.
The read me overrides any category that the item may be listed as, at ShareCG. If you don't download it and read the readme file you'll never know whether or not it was categorized properly. There's loads of stuff there where the uploader either didn't change the default (which at one time was noncomm), didn't get that 'noncomm' doesn't mean 'commercial renders; item itself not to be redistributed', or some other way of miscategorizing it. Short of it being Trek, Stargate, Star Wars or other 'movie'/book/celeb (outright, obvious fandom stuff), there is very little that is actually noncommercial, if you look at the actual readme file. Yeah, there's a bunch of stuff that's labeled noncomm that the only restriction is 'full credit to me' type things. And of course there's a bunch that really is...but it's a lot less than there appears to be, at first glance.
I always put two spaces before a smiley, and two after. I've never had one that didn't show using this method. :cheese:
Dana
That sucks! I hear you about commerical use. I don't either, but even some creators put their stuff in the commercial use category, and then have anon-commerical readme. Its very confusing.
I prefer pay for play stuff just because I KNOW that I can use it for commercial use if I want. and own a license to do so.
I wish things were better organized on sharecg. even their commercial use section, has 3 types of commerical use, and its just doens't make sense to me. Either its available for commerical use or it is not... Sigh.... I don't dl a lot form sharecg because of this.
Don't mistake 'commercial use' with 'commercial renders'. I don't choose full commercial usage because I don't want to see my freebies end up in a store somewhere under someone else's name and having that person getting a profit off my model/item. I use 'Commercial Renders OK, Contents not for redistribution' That way, no one is to redistribute and/or sell my work, however people may use my item in their commercial rendered works. I would never restrict a render artists work from using my freebies in their renders, commercial or not.
I do agree that If they don't allow for commercial renders then sadly their item/product has no use for me.
Don't mistake 'commercial use' with 'commercial renders'. I don't choose full commercial usage because I don't want to see my freebies end up in a store somewhere under someone else's name and having that person getting a profit off my model/item. I use 'Commercial Renders OK, Contents not for redistribution' That way, no one is to redistribute and/or sell my work, however people may use my item in their commercial rendered works. I would never restrict a render artists work from using my freebies in their renders, commercial or not.
I do agree that If they don't allow for commercial renders then sadly their item/product has no use for me.
Good clarification. I am only interested in the ones which allow commerical renders. I probably will never phsyically make models so rendering is all I'm interested in.
That is useful to know. I tend to not bother with anything improperly listed, because 'when in doubt' I just don't use it. I might check out the readmes of some of the more desirable stuff out of curiousity... But my policy is if I have doubts I just move on.
ITs too bad, if lots of good stuff is improperly labeled.... And it wastes everyone's time.
That is useful to know. I tend to not bother with anything improperly listed, because 'when in doubt' I just don't use it. I might check out the readmes of some of the more desirable stuff out of curiousity... But my policy is if I have doubts I just move on.
ITs too bad, lots of good stuff is improperly labeled.... And it wastes everyone's time.
Give an example of one item...if I've got it, I'll post up the ReadMe section...and compare it to the category on ShareCG.
Give an example of one item...if I've got it, I'll post up the ReadMe section...and compare it to the category on ShareCG.
I am sorry, I should have said: "IF good stuff is improperly labeled..." You probably have more insight in into that as you were the one who enlightened me to check the readme which is good advice. I don't tend to download non-commerical use items so do not know how widespread it is. I do occasionally run into commerical use items which have contradictory readmes.
But i went to the 2 recent llisted as non-commerical items on sharecg, just to see what their readme's stated. 1 was a sword prop with no readme. The second item was this: http://www.sharecg.com/v/63719/browse/5/3D-Model/Bug-Catcher-Scoop
It is listed as non-commerical use only category. However when I read the readme, its ok for commercial renders .This proves your assertion correct that some may be using the incorrect category for their items.