I think replies to a post should be a separate reply so we can properly see those. Otherwise edits by dr make sense if there is a mistake or something contrary to site guidelines but that is his call to make. I will reply here to the edit but tell me if there is a better way to handle this reply please.
Imagery has made huge changes in our ability to present information and help and fixes. On another aviation website that I maintain the prior method of delivery was email and you can imagine it was cumbersome. After two years of demonstrating, we switched to a system similar to what dr has created here (not nearly as nice or populated) but we reply primarily on the massive improvement in images, videos and more. We have unlimited storage and our costs are included in the base website so we have many many GB of storage but it does not affect performance.
We can upload full size images at the submitter's PC or device. Our website resizes them for presentation in the forums and scans any links. We can also include links to offsite photos. Those links are scanned to ensure images only are presented so we avoid links that are warned above as being dangerous. If someone wants the full image they click and that is presented. With typical residential speeds these images are immediate and super detailed. We are finding people putting large summaries of a build on a topic with images for people to follow. It costs our site nothing. But even if there was a cost I would ask for the appropriate donation to cover it. It would be covered immediately I'm sure.
Additionally, with a small change we are now able to upload up to 20 images at once from any device like an ipad or phone. That has tremendous value.
In short, I have not seen any incremental cost (today) for image storage from my provider but clearly this is a larger site. At the same time MS gives me a free terrabyte for my OneDrive so I can't imagine much additional cost if every member here uploaded a couple of gigabytes monthly.
Embedding YouTube videos in posts (free, no storage required) has also been a fabulous addition.
With those issues handled as above, we have zero fraud threats and no alerts required in 5 years I've been involved. [touch wood].
Originally Posted by paulmiller
There are a couple of ways to defeat this recurring problem:
1) Scan links for valid VAF pages before saving them.
2) Enable images in the site directly. Storage is not an issue today [ed. It is is you're the guy having to pay for that space!!! <g> dr]. Then they get resized automatically by the forum software and presented uniformly. Imagery is everything today.
3) Use a password manager like LASTPASS that would not fill in a password for VAF unless the website was a valid URL.
The entire issue of bad links would basically be defeated with those additional pieces of effort.