Photobucket Fallout, Image Hosting, Possible solution

[AndyP]

Hi all,
Before all the ex-Photobucket users commit to new hosting sites we, well Mark, is looking at a possible solution by hosting images within the forum's databases.

Bear with us. This make take a week or so to sort out as Mark is a busy chap who, on top of works, kids and running the forum is now taking lessons on how to use a stepladder safely

Thankyou for your patience and continued support. We will update this thread as soon as we can.

The Mods

 

[justaskin]

Hi Andy
Yes I too have the PB problem on my iMac. Being a skinflint at heart, its a pity I will drop it, having just got to grips with your courses of instruction.

Best wishes
Richard

 

[Commander]

Does anyone else use Imgur.com? Does what its supposed to so I'm happy with it.

 

[9fingers]

Does anyone else use Imgur.com? Does what its supposed to so I'm happy with it.

Imgur certainly works but 3rd party hosting is against their terms. So far they are not enforcing them.
Fingers crossed for you
Bob

 

[RogerS]

Please folks. Do NOT use a free site for your photos on the forum. The writing is on the wall. To provide free hosting does not generate any revenue for these companies and is an unsustainable long-term business model. They will ALL go the way of Photobucket sooner or later. Your threads and posts with linked images will become meaningless.

Flickr costs 13 cents a day.

 

[Tusses]

Flickr costs 13 cents a day.

Flickr isn't for everyone though. I've had it for about 10 yrs , pro in the early days, but it wouldn't be my go to choice jut now.
And what's to say, they don't change their terms .. again !

 

[RogerS]

Flickr costs 13 cents a day.

Flickr isn't for everyone though. I've had it for about 10 yrs , pro in the early days, but it wouldn't be my go to choice jut now.
And what's to say, they don't change their terms .. again !

The point is to stump up the few cents for a paid for site. And yes, they might change their T's and C's but you're in a much better position if you have a paid for sub.

 

[Tusses]

Flickr costs 13 cents a day.

Flickr isn't for everyone though. I've had it for about 10 yrs , pro in the early days, but it wouldn't be my go to choice jut now.
And what's to say, they don't change their terms .. again !

The point is to stump up the few cents for a paid for site. And yes, they might change their T's and C's but you're in a much better position if you have a paid for sub.

with the PB thing, I'd be taking a step back, before paying for anything .. use free to post .. and know that it may not be permanent .. for now ..The likes of Flickr would be a PITA to move from , if they stopped playing too.

Remember PB has been to go to for many years, for forum sharing. So the other photo sites mot not want the huge uptake of new photo sharers

 

[TrimTheKing]

with the PB thing, I'd be taking a step back, before paying for anything .. use free to post .. and know that it may not be permanent .. for now ..The likes of Flickr would be a PITA to move from , if they stopped playing too.

Remember PB has been to go to for many years, for forum sharing. So the other photo sites mot not want the huge uptake of new photo sharers

The issue is though, I'm thinking from a forum perspective. It's okay everyone using free hosting because it works for 'them' but what about the forum? We risk being in a situation where all the free hosts do the same thing then the forum is left with a load of useless threads where the pics don't work, and people not wanting to spend the time to update them.

Two different sides/angles to this issue that need to be considered.

Cheers
Mark

 

[RogerS]

with the PB thing, I'd be taking a step back, before paying for anything .. use free to post .. and know that it may not be permanent .. for now ..The likes of Flickr would be a PITA to move from , if they stopped playing too.

Remember PB has been to go to for many years, for forum sharing. So the other photo sites mot not want the huge uptake of new photo sharers

The issue is though, I'm thinking from a forum perspective. It's okay everyone using free hosting because it works for 'them' but what about the forum? We risk being in a situation where all the free hosts do the same thing then the forum is left with a load of useless threads where the pics don't work, and people not wanting to spend the time to update them.

Two different sides/angles to this issue that need to be considered.

Cheers
Mark

:text-+1: :text-goodpost:

 

[Tusses]

with the PB thing, I'd be taking a step back, before paying for anything .. use free to post .. and know that it may not be permanent .. for now ..The likes of Flickr would be a PITA to move from , if they stopped playing too.

Remember PB has been to go to for many years, for forum sharing. So the other photo sites mot not want the huge uptake of new photo sharers

The issue is though, I'm thinking from a forum perspective. It's okay everyone using free hosting because it works for 'them' but what about the forum? We risk being in a situation where all the free hosts do the same thing then the forum is left with a load of useless threads where the pics don't work, and people not wanting to spend the time to update them.

Two different sides/angles to this issue that need to be considered.

Cheers
Mark

I was just suggesting that the paid for options , like flickr, or whoevery, might go the same way as the free ones .. why wouldn't they ? just because you pay, they can just say, pay more or opt out. AFAIK Flickr is paid for, as you can keep full res images on there, not because you can 3rdy party their space ?

 

[TrimTheKing]

I was just suggesting that the paid for options , like flickr, or whoevery, might go the same way as the free ones .. why wouldn't they ? just because you pay, they can just say, pay more or opt out. AFAIK Flickr is paid for, as you can keep full res images on there, not because you can 3rdy party their space ?

Yep fully agree. I think the best way, should I be able to make it work, is to have them hosted on the forum that way the content stays, but as you've mentioned before, that can hold its own challenges for some.

I don't think there's a perfect answer, but providing people are happy to host in the forum then selfishly, for forum health, I think that's the way to go.

Cheers
Mark

 

[Tusses]

I was just suggesting that the paid for options , like flickr, or whoevery, might go the same way as the free ones .. why wouldn't they ? just because you pay, they can just say, pay more or opt out. AFAIK Flickr is paid for, as you can keep full res images on there, not because you can 3rdy party their space ?

Yep fully agree. I think the best way, should I be able to make it work, is to have them hosted on the forum that way the content stays, but as you've mentioned before, that can hold its own challenges for some.

I don't think there's a perfect answer, but providing people are happy to host in the forum then selfishly, for forum health, I think that's the way to go.

Cheers
Mark

As long as the forum php whatever they are keep to the rules too.
I was on a VW forum for about 10 years, that decided it wasn't work an upgrade about 4-5 years ago. And that was with donations.

Tough one.

And of coarse, everyone has to be on board and host with the forum !

I got used to the ease of having the PB app on my phone (which I don't use for internet) , just shooting and sending to PH to use where ever I like. Forums/ebay / etc. Ebay are stopping that too . getting away from self hosted images...

all change ATM.

 

[TrimTheKing]

All valid points and agree 100%.

Cheers
Mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[RogerS]

With a paid hosting site then you have much more indirect leverage then on a free site. On a free site, they change the rules, you leave. They couldn't care less.

But with a paid account, they change the rules and if you (and many others leave) then that is a large or can be a large dip in their revenues and so give pause for thought.

 

[Tusses]

With a paid hosting site then you have much more indirect leverage then on a free site. On a free site, they change the rules, you leave. They couldn't care less.

But with a paid account, they change the rules and if you (and many others leave) then that is a large or can be a large dip in their revenues and so give pause for thought.

to an extent yes.
but most of the long lived photo sites aren't/weren't used much for 3rd party hosting, apart from the odd image share to friends etc. .. so it's no big deal to the long term users/payers if they can't 3rd party any more.
When I paid for Flickr Pro, I didn't image link at all .. so would have kept on paying .


fine if you are already a user, but I wouldn't sign up (paid for) with anyone for a while , until the dust settles.

 

[RogerS]

With a paid hosting site then you have much more indirect leverage then on a free site. On a free site, they change the rules, you leave. They couldn't care less.

But with a paid account, they change the rules and if you (and many others leave) then that is a large or can be a large dip in their revenues and so give pause for thought.

to an extent yes.
but most of the long lived photo sites aren't/weren't used much for 3rd party hosting, apart from the odd image share to friends etc. .. so it's no big deal to the long term users/payers if they can't 3rd party any more.
When I paid for Flickr Pro, I didn't image link at all .. so would have kept on paying .


fine if you are already a user, but I wouldn't sign up (paid for) with anyone for a while , until the dust settles.

The key phrase you've used is "long lived". But the internet has changed with social media like FB and Twitter) and forums such as ours (which is a form of social media). So the dynamics have changed and, as Mark has said, we're looking at things from the forum's perspective.

 

[Tusses]

true . and it's changing faster and faster .. especially now it's all moving to mobile phones*

Most forums these days are moving to FB groups .. which personally I don't like as much
Join a FB group .. fair enough, but it's nothing like a "propa" forum !

But then again , I liked the news groups too , before they all disappeared

* which reminds me about your rant on the ever shrinking width of desktop web pages .. they should make a screen mode so we can just mount our monitors portrait instead of landscape .. sorted

 

[RogerS]

true . and it's changing faster and faster .. especially now it's all moving to mobile phones*

Most forums these days are moving to FB groups .. which personally I don't like as much
Join a FB group .. fair enough, but it's nothing like a "propa" forum !

But then again , I liked the news groups too , before they all disappeared

* which reminds me about your rant on the ever shrinking width of desktop web pages .. they should make a screen mode so we can just mount our monitors portrait instead of landscape .. sorted

Rant ? Moi? I objectively criticise

 

[selectortone]

Most forums these days are moving to FB groups .. which personally I don't like as much
Join a FB group .. fair enough, but it's nothing like a "propa" forum !

I don't like Facebook and have never joined (much to the relief of my kids! :lol: ). I dislike the fact that even if you aren't a member they will still track you if you click on a Facebook link. Bit too bloody Big Brother if you ask me.

 

[RogerS]

.... I dislike the fact that even if you aren't a member they will still track you if you click on a Facebook link. Bit too bloody Big Brother if you ask me.

Mmmm...not too sure about that. When you say 'track you', what exactly do you mean?

 

[selectortone]

It's all about ad targeting. That's how Facebook makes a lot of its money:

How Facebook tracks you across the web

more here

and here

 

[Tusses]

just had my enail ... I'm officially photo^ooked :lol:

 

[Malc2098]

Moi aussi!

 

[Woodster]

just had my enail ... I'm officially photo^ooked :lol:

Yeah, had mine yesterday . I'm trying out imgur at the moment. Their app is pants but it seems to work ok using a browser, at least until they cop the hump as well! :lol:

 

[RogerS]

It's all about ad targeting. That's how Facebook makes a lot of its money:

How Facebook tracks you across the web

more here

and here

Ah, right. You don't use Google then either ? Or most other free websites? Tracking your browsing history is nothing new nor exclusive to FB. Plenty of extensions or add-ons that block this.

 

[selectortone]

Yeah... I know. It's just the thing about them tracking me forever just because I clicked on one link that seems a bit insidious.

At the guitar store where I used to work we used to laugh at one of the guys who stuck blu-tac over the webcam on his iMac because he claimed that the FBI was watching him. That turns out not to be so far-fetched. Mind you I'm not so sure about his claims about the ruling class being 9 foot shape-shifting lizards...

 

[selectortone]

(Forgive me if I'm teaching Grandma to suck eggs...) if you go to adchoices and scroll down you can see how many companies are tracking you - currently about 120 for me. (It might take a while for the table to fill up.) You can turn off individual companies (eg facebook) or scroll to the bottom of the table and turn them all off. Of course, they have all magically turned themselves back on when you check back afew weeks later, unless you religiously tell every site you visit not to place cookies on your device. Meh... life's too short....

This doesn't stop you seeing ads, they just aren't targeted at you specifically. (Like the Axminster one I see when I read the Bournemouth Echo online for example.)

Advertising is the engine that drives a lot of the internet so I don't want to knock it too much. It's starting to sound like I sit at home with a tinfoil hat on. Not really....

 

[RogerS]

Thanks for that link...very interesting.

My pet hate is Google's sneaky continual 'phone home' when it checks for any updates etc without so much as a bye-your-leave. I keep nuking it but invariably it comes back.

 

[9fingers]

Thanks for that link...very interesting.

My pet hate is Google's sneaky continual 'phone home' when it checks for any updates etc without so much as a bye-your-leave. I keep nuking it but invariably it comes back.

What is google trying to update? I'm not aware of anything like this happening when I use google?

Bob

 

[RogerS]

Thanks for that link...very interesting.

My pet hate is Google's sneaky continual 'phone home' when it checks for any updates etc without so much as a bye-your-leave. I keep nuking it but invariably it comes back.

What is google trying to update? I'm not aware of anything like this happening when I use google?

Bob

Precisely. The GoogleSoftwareUpdate agent does things very sneakily behind the scenes, without your permission and sometimes really slows down the computer.

EDIT: maybe it's only on the Mac

 

[9fingers]

Thanks for that link...very interesting.

My pet hate is Google's sneaky continual 'phone home' when it checks for any updates etc without so much as a bye-your-leave. I keep nuking it but invariably it comes back.

What is google trying to update? I'm not aware of anything like this happening when I use google?

Bob

Precisely. The GoogleSoftwareUpdate agent does things very sneakily behind the scenes, without your permission and sometimes really slows down the computer.

EDIT: maybe it's only on the Mac

Yes just found this by googling - only affects Macs and possibly Macs that have had Chrome installed at some time.

This seems very strange behaviour for Apple. I can understand Apple forcing updates but allowing third parties to do it seems very un mac-like.

On a PC you can control auto updates, opting for OFF, or to be asked permission or automatic.
Is there something similar for Macs?

Bob

 

[Tusses]

lol .. I had to google that too ..

Wifey uses windows .. the "off" option for updates .. where is it ?

I still use linux , which is quite polite about asking what you want to update or not .... even if I just always click "whatever" .. and install the lot .. lol

FF updated the other week and broke flash :-( ..

 

[9fingers]

Wifey uses windows .. the "off" option for updates .. where is it ?

On my Win XP PC it is on the control panel and then under Automatic Updates

hth

Bob

 

[Tusses]

Wifey uses windows .. the "off" option for updates .. where is it ?

On my Win XP PC it is on the control panel and then under Automatic Updates

hth

Bob

Thanks Bob , but she's on Win 10 I think .. it usually updates when she wants to shut down !

I have a copy of XP in the workshop , to run the laser .. luckily it still works .. dread to think when they say I need a newer windows :shock:

Most software usualy runs under Linux with a windows emulator .. not sure about the coms link though .. I ought to try !

 

[9fingers]

Google is your friend Rich.

https://www.cnet.com/uk/how-to/stop-win ... g-your-pc/

Bob

 

[Tusses]

Google is your friend Rich.

https://www.cnet.com/uk/how-to/stop-win ... g-your-pc/

Bob

lol .. it's windows .. it doesn't hold that much interest for me . It was just that you mentioned it, I asked.
I'll get Wifey to have a look , ta

 

[TrimTheKing]

Yes just found this by googling - only affects Macs and possibly Macs that have had Chrome installed at some time.

Bob

No its not, it's on Windows too. We had a real issue in work with auto update constantly polling in the background and slowing our proxies down due to the constant attempts to 'phone home'.

It downloads as part of many different Google apps including Google Earth.

Cheers
Mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[9fingers]

Ah ! ok Mark.
I have gmail but not knowingly have any other google apps as such. I use google maps and search engine regularly but via a browser.
It may pehaps be an advantage of sticking with winxp that google does not try and interfere?

Further evidence of this could be that I am forever having to update flash player manually in order to use BBC iPlayer.

Bob

 

[Woodster]

I use an iPad and don't seem to get very many ads as I believe Safari blocks 3rd party cookies? I don't mind the few ads I do see if it keeps other stuff on the internet free. As said they have to get the money from somewhere.