>>159885
Why not?

It's been implemented now!

From >>/oat/39330893 :
Upload your webms here:
http://webmshare.com/
When you upload it, you will be taken to a page like this: http://webmshare.com/done/qowMb
Copy the video ID (in this case "qowMb") and add ".webm" at the end, copy it to the embed field, click the dropdown and select webm, and voila!

  >>159933
testin'

Some questions

First, so, you can't actually upload them here, you just link to it basically like you do with Youtube videos? I mean, it is great that you've gotten something done so fast, but it doesn't sound like actual implementation. You have to go another site, upload your file, bring back the link, alter the link, and then post. Second, can you make them play in image-expand-on-hover and inline expansion, as others did? Or would that require changing the way it's implemented here entirely?
Third, is there a file size limit as 4chan does? webms are pretty small usually but some can get big.

Last edited at Sat, Aug 9th, 2014 16:30

testing something...
nvm, so it's only webmshare you can use?

>>159935
1. IIRC, they're not uploadable so as to not to take up too much space on the servers.
2. webmshare's limit is 4MB.

>>159937
as to 1, isnt several MBs the limit for images too? i mean i know you can upload gifs and pngs that are two or more MBs, and even pretty long webms arent even that big. its not like adding webm increase the total amount of posting, therefore the amount of space on the servers is no different than if the person posted an image. the total space can't be an issue, can it?
2 ah alright, thanks.

>>159938
Most images are between 70 KB and 150 KB. Most WEBMs that will be posted will be, in their equivalent, fairly long gifs as to feature something specific, not usually replacing gifs as short reactions or the like since you don't have the source most of the time to actually recapture it.

Allowing the direct upload of webms will also either mean you have to convert them yourself or Ponychan has to kill itself processing them itself. In either case, if webms become even semi-common they are going to increase the amount of usage significantly if Ponychan is near its peak.

Last edited at Sun, Aug 10th, 2014 02:32

>>159940
as I said though, posting webms doesn't increase the total amount of posts. and for the same reason people don't post long gifs or huge vectors very often (they themselves don't want to upload them) they don't post big webms very frequently (though in this case, even less likely so since they have to go through the extra steps to do it.)

>>159941
The chance of posting a 4 MB webm is much higher than posting a 4 MB gif simply because most gifs are used for reactions and quick funny shit and webms are used for showcasing something that may actually need you to focus on something.

Which is exactly how 4chan does it too. You don't see webms of Family Guy laughing, you see webms of Football scenes or webm porn, which is mostly stretched to the absolute limit. There an inherent interest in abstract longevity within webms, gifs which are opposite - there is an interest in a short file in order to increase speed.

For example, we have never had a gif and I don't know, soundcloud mix and matched thread when an episode goes out to show funneh scenes. You can be sure in Season 5, we'll have threads with many webms of scenes since webms here can also include audio. Just 20 such posts are going to be 80 MB, which in online rented storage, can be considerable.

Webms will affect the amount of posting, threads that previously were uncanny and awkward to host will be easy and filled with content, such as say /oat/ episode threads. In a thread about a great movie, before webms on Ponychan you might have posted the cover. After, chances are you'll see a 4 MB webm of a certain exciting/intriguing scene.

Last edited at Sun, Aug 10th, 2014 08:13

>>159942
but are we seriously that dangerously close to the edge of storage capacity? are we on significantly smaller servers than we were 2 to 3 years ago when there were 2 to 3 times as many posts (and therefore images and space taken up)?
>webms here/audio
well, they aren't actually here. just embedded from webmshare links same as youtube, which is functionally the same as say, a browser addon like Yousable Youtube which renders (for those who have it, at least) the youtube embedding here pointless and less functional than the addon.

>>159943
I was under the impression we are. Also, to be fair, years ago we had less posts active than today. Today, we have less posts per day but more posts active since the creation of /gala/. Therefor, more images that can't be deleted yet.

Last edited at Sun, Aug 10th, 2014 08:19

>>159944
>years ago we had less posts active than today. Today, we have less posts per day but more posts active
........what?

>>159945
We have more posts that are not deleted. Because of /gala/? A hundred thousand and much more images that haven't expired yet since it takes forever for them to reach the pending deletion zone?

Last edited at Sun, Aug 10th, 2014 08:25

>>159946
I.....
....What?
The reason posts "expire" is because they could pushed down by new posts. If anything this means there's the same amount of "active posts" because there's a certain amount of posts past which they fall off the board and get deleted. That number hasn't changed. I don't even know how to explain this. It doesn't matter how fast or slow they reach the "pending deletion" zone - because there's X number of posts on a given board, and X doesn't change. Doesn't matter that it's slower now, that doesn't mean there's magically more posts sitting around for longer - it's just that instead of X being filled with mostly new posts, X is filled with mostly old posts.

The argument you can make is that those posts will each be a larger amount of data if they include a lot of webms, which is why I ask the question >>159943
also /gala/s been around for like 3 years now so that's not a relevant aspect.

Last edited at Sun, Aug 10th, 2014 08:28

>>159947
Each page of /gala/ is between 10,000 to 30,000+ posts (count page 2 of /gala/, for example). I sincerely doubt before /gala/ we had in each page of, say, /oat/, 10,000 to 20,000 posts. I doubt we even had 2k in each page.

There may be less posts over a time of activity, but the posts are now condensed in threads that take forever to get deleted. And so, there are thousands upon thousands of images that have not been deleted, this is not difficult to understand. /gala/ rarely has new threads, only when an old one is anchored, whereas before it new threads would go up all the time and the saged threads or abandoned ones would drown out within the day. Back of /gala/ is from April 2014.

I stopped talking about webms, you just seem to be confused at how we have more storage usage today than a few years back, and I explained.

Last edited at Sun, Aug 10th, 2014 08:34

>>159948
Except that /gala/ has been around for a very long time now. It's not some new thing.

And... again, it doesn't matter how long it takes for the threads to fall off. Threads stop being usable after they hit a certain amount here anyways, so they're not getting many thousands of posts.

It's the same amount of posts. There might be a temporary decrease when one individual thread with a lot of posts finally falls off and a new one is made, but then the new thread starts getting up there too. Individual threads aren't somehow, magically responsible for stuffing the servers too full because there isn't a new thread with less posts pushing it off the board. It's still around the same X number of posts on every given board, and /gala/ (and /pic/ for example, where big threads stick around for eons) have been around 5ever now.

>>159949
And perhaps storage issues is not a new thing either? Have you considered this?

I have no idea what you're talking about after the first line. I was comparing today's /gala/ with 2011 /oat/, which was the period I assumed you were "citing" in regards to more activity. The posting speed in /gala/ doesn't matter, the concept that each thread goes up to the sage and then a new one is made is the only thing that matters. So the only thing that can change storage space there is the raising and lowering of the page count or the autosage limit.

Why today are we using more storage than three years ago? Because of /gala/, that's all there is to it.

Last edited at Sun, Aug 10th, 2014 08:39

>>159950
I did, in fact! And still I wonder why and how it's that dangerously close to the precipice. And I question you explanation regarding how storage issues are worse now somehow because it's so much slower.
Also, as to your "April 2014" point, there's a 1,000+ Spike thread on the back of /pic/ from October 2013.

>>159951
I didn't say because it's much slower. I said the timeline doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is the existence of /gala/ and the page count / sage values.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say by that.

Last edited at Sun, Aug 10th, 2014 08:40

Since regardless if the back of /gala/ is the first of August or the first of January, each page still has between 10,000 to 30,000+ posts, so the usage today (August 2014) will be higher than any period before the existence of /gala/, which was designed to be slow in thread creation and high in posting speed.

>>159952
>>159953
And again /gala/ has been in existence for years. So August 2014, 13, 12, whatever. Yes, it hasn't changed in volume, just in speed; meaning the amount used in all that time hasn't increased, so I ask, have we been at maximum capacity holding ancient posts for this entire time, meaning we can't add actual webm implementation because they'd cause the servers to burst and spill chitchat convos all over the datacenter like an overfilled vat of spaghetti bursting in a Ragu factory?
also solution to help: cut down the number of pages on said board. or just delete it, or delete or merge or whatever all the other boards-too-many here.

Last edited at Sun, Aug 10th, 2014 08:53

>>159954
Yes, I assume that ever since /gala/ was made we've been close to storage capacity, or at least that's the only big increase for a while that I can imagine - we are definitely using more than we did in our peak days at any rate because of it. In fact, I seem to remember all boards used to have up to 18 pages, I assume that's why the standard has been chopped down to 12.

I doubt webms alone will put us at 100% capacity, else a fuckload extra measures would have been taken. assuming we aren't using dedicated servers we can likely go over that for a short while before getting warnings. But webms will increase the usage by tens of megabytes (my bet, off-season 50~ MB a month, on-season 90-150 MB), which might not seem a lot to you, but if say, we only have three or four hundred megabytes left, that's a lot, since the server always needs extra space for certain operations that may need to cache data.

Last edited at Sun, Aug 10th, 2014 08:58

A bit late, but the reason you need to embed it instead of uploading is because our servers already use a lot of disk space and bandwidth