Maximum attachment file size and limits per user group

[Paul B]

I have the maximum attachment file size set to 1024KB.

However, I would like to create some User Upgrades which allow for larger sizes; the larger the maximum file size, the more the upgrade will cost.

I can't currently see a way of setting limits per user group so would like to see this as a feature in the ACP.

I did a search for this but nothing came up so if anyone is aware of a previous suggestion, please say and I'll merge/close this thread.

 

[DroidHost]

up it is a nice Feature and I wish it will be included in xf 1.1

 

[Akrion]

I have the maximum attachment file size set to 1024KB.

However, I would like to create some User Upgrades which allow for larger sizes; the larger the maximum file size, the more the upgrade will cost.

I can't currently see a way of setting limits per user group so would like to see this as a feature in the ACP.

I did a search for this but nothing came up so if anyone is aware of a previous suggestion, please say and I'll merge/close this thread.

+1

 

[Tempest]

+1 From me as well, this is almost a necessity as I want to use the xenForo attachment system to handle downloads.

 

[Veer]

+1 this.

 

[DroidHost]

strange why this topic in the public instead of suggestion !

 

[ragtek]

strange why this topic in the public instead of suggestion !

it's in the suggestions?!

 

[DroidHost]

oh sorry I just got blind !
I just see public forum and did not notice Suggestions: Tweaks & Small Features

 

[MGSteve]

Bump - we need this as well.

Either single file limit or a total limit for a user who belongs to a particular group.

Needs to be able to be overridden & remove the privilege as well (i.e. as part of a punishment usergroup).

 

[0ptima]

I am surprised that there is no way to control how much attachment space a member in a usergroup can consume.

Without limits, disk space will be consumed a lot quicker and can be abused by prolific uploaders. Backing up the data will also take longer and will start to get expensive in the long run (especially if off site backups are performed)

Having usergroup limits also allows admins to offer extra disk space as an incentive to buy premium memberships.

I hope to see this option added to the core soon.

Edit: Clarification

 

[Martok]

So what happens when a member reaches their quota limit and don't want to extend it with a premium membership? Are they just unable to ever upload again, or would they be expected to remove attachments from old posts (which would require an extra permission if you didn't want them to edit the rest of the post)?

Neither of these options seems ideal and the latter would make a mess of old posts with images and other attachments being deleted.

 

[Mike]

Is this a bad wording, or do you really want user group quotas? As in, the group has 1000 people in it and the entire group can only use 1 GB?

Versus, a user is in a group and they can only use 1 GB themselves and the rest of the people have no bearing on it?

I'm sure the latter has been suggested.

 

[0ptima]

Is this a bad wording, or do you really want user group quotas? As in, the group has 1000 people in it and the entire group can only use 1 GB?

Versus, a user is in a group and they can only use 1 GB themselves and the rest of the people have no bearing on it?

I'm sure the latter has been suggested.

This is what I meant and updated my first post.

 

[0ptima]

So what happens when a member reaches their quota limit and don't want to extend it with a premium membership? Are they just unable to ever upload again, or would they be expected to remove attachments from old posts (which would require an extra permission if you didn't want them to edit the rest of the post)?

My members have a few options for uploading. They can either use the forum attachments or upload to the gallery and link to the attachment in the gallery. If members dont renew, they are potentially stuck with being over quota.

Neither of these options seems ideal and the latter would make a mess of old posts with images and other attachments being deleted.

Threads that deemed important are converted to articles and the images are hosted locally and dont use the member's quota.

I do have threads with broken links due to members deleting attachments. However, I would say most of the time it is a result of the remotely hosted image no longer being available.

 

[Amaury]

Don't really see a need for this, personally.

 

[Wildcat Media]

Is this a bad wording, or do you really want user group quotas? As in, the group has 1000 people in it and the entire group can only use 1 GB?

Versus, a user is in a group and they can only use 1 GB themselves and the rest of the people have no bearing on it?

I'm sure the latter has been suggested.

Pretty sure it has been suggested, as I was one of the more vocal suggestors. It is really something that is causing a lot of grief for us on a "big board". I recently had a staffer delete over 3000 attachments by one member alone, and I'd say maybe 50-60 of those were actually useful to the forum.

If no attachment quota (per member) is coming for XF 1.3, then I will proceed with turning off attachments entirely. Members do not realize the sheer amount of storage space that attachments can use up, and it is a problem that is running rampant on our server currently and forcing us to change policies.

The mention of a usergroup above may relate to how quotas are assigned. Standard users might get 50MB of storage space. Premium users, 250MB. And perhaps people on the staff have no quotas at all.

 

[0ptima]

The mention of a usergroup above may relate to how quotas are assigned. Standard users might get 50MB of storage space. Premium users, 250MB. And perhaps people on the staff have no quotas at all.

This is exactly what I need.

 

[Wildcat Media]

We have uncovered another very serious problem: animated GIFs. If we were able to limit the size of attachments per file type, as we used to be able to in vB, it would help. We could eliminate all of those useless animated GIF images by cutting the maximum file size down to some ridiculously low level (which would still allow people to attach smileys), but we could still allow larger PDF files and high-res JPEGs if needed. We have to allow a larger file size to accommodate these instances, but that also opened us up to rampant abuse by members using animated GIFs as a no-word reply to a preceding post. I can't have staff spending their entire days in the Attachment Browser cherry-picking each violation one by one from among the legit attachments.

The staff is now begging me to keep attachments, as I've been saying I am shutting them off forum-wide now. IMHO, anyway, attachment capabilities are useless to me unless there is a strict quota system in place. Once you have a busy forum, your resources are supposed to be directed toward keeping the forum running efficiently, not hand-curating what members feel is their own personal Flickr or PhotoBucket account.

Don't get me wrong--if space were not an issue, I'd love to keep attachments. In practical use though, attachments without a quota system in place is a recipe for trouble.

 

[dutchbb]

Sorry for the bump, but I'm surprised this is still not a feature. Being able to set attachment limits on user group basis is essential and indispensable for us.

 

[Wildcat Media]

It is probably a bit of a chore to set up quotas under the current system. Especially if you need a way for a member to manage their own attachments, letting them delete their own old attachments to make room for new ones. Fingers crossed it is being considered for XF 2.0.

An update: we did end up disabling attachments, except for one forum area (our Classified Ads section). We were finding so much waste--most of it was off-topic and mindless replies to posts, using pictures. Some members were uploading the same 1MB "facepalm" image multiple times per day! We all worked through it, though--many learned to use public image hosts and link to them in the forum. So after some initial complaints, it all worked out for the time being.