Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[grendel]

on another issue, on one build thread I have running on another forum, I regularly copy and paste the thread to a word file, the problem I have there is that now the thread is 1130 posts long most of which have a photo, word cannot handle it any longer, pictures start to disappear, mind you my word document is at 90Mb now.

[FsASTSyd1]

Glad to see I am not alone in having my photos in several places, especially as my little collection is topping 70,000, think I might get a bit miffed if they went missing. Incidentally C-3PO did post 2 pics in your comment for I only see one, the bridge scene and a very small icon below ?

[FsASTSyd1]

I give up !!!!

[dougal99]

FastSyds Post


Glad to see I am not alone in having my photos in several places, especially as my little collection is topping 70,000, think I might get a bit miffed if they went missing. Incidentally C-3PO did post 2 pics in your comment for I only see one, the bridge scene and a very small icon below ?

[Tug Fanatic]

Glad to see I am not alone in having my photos in several places, especially as my little collection is topping 70,000, think I might get a bit miffed if they went missing. Incidentally C-3PO did post 2 pics in your comment for I only see one, the bridge scene and a very small icon below ?

It has always been recommended that secure multiple back ups are made but it is not always done & people that I mention it to are often very surprised.


Is that the smallest type font that I have ever seen?

[Baldrick]

 I assume this site has a set limit of image storage space that any one member can post (? Admin) if so as perhaps if a member wished to do all his MBH hosting on site a permissive fee (£10) from that member would pay for the additional storage space , perhaps up to 1 titibite ?

[RAAArtyGunner]

This is ugly.


All my photos are posted as attachments directly to the site. It limits the size of the image but works just fine if you edit your photos to suit. My backup storage is all local and duplicated.

Couldn't agree more there are no free lunches. 
There are already too many ruined threads on here where 'hosted' photos are no longer available.
There are countless examples of these so called free services that over time, after they have gained supremacy and a respectable following, charges are then implemented to continue using the so called free  service.
As stated you no longer own the photo or control its use.

[C-3PO]

>>see text at bottom of post - I later discovered that they are changing policy on 30th June 2017 stopping image sharing - so is this a change in the law or something else?<<<

Not read all the thread so I apologise if this has already been mentioned/discounted - is Dropbox ( company valued at several billion $) an option? - I think if you use a shared directory you can link images to third parties.

I use this for my business  - it's a great tool and has some great features.

It's not the only place my data is stored but it is the source I use daily and I can't fault it...

Here is a test to an uploaded image on Dropbox




And then I found this

The Photos page is changing on June 30, 2017, but your pictures will stay safe in your Dropbox account. After June 30, you’ll no longer be able to create or share albums on the web, or browse photos in the current timeline view.

So looks like ALL change for images hosting!!!!


Regards
C-3PO

[Bob K]

 I assume this site has a set limit of image storage space that any one member can post (? Admin) if so as perhaps if a member wished to do all his MBH hosting on site a permissive fee (£10) from that member would pay for the additional storage space , perhaps up to 1 titibite ?

I have less than 1Mb hosted on Photobucket, but around 1,500 small images.  Photobucket has been explicitly promoted as a site to share photos with friends using social media and web sites.  Formatted tags include IMG and HTML, explicitly for use in other HTML pages.  The only difference is that now they do not allow any of the things promoted to suck you in.  Now just some kind of remote backup facility?  For $100 a year I could host my own web site, and have total control of the content.

Frankly over the months the site has become increasingly unstable, not just the increasing barrage of ads and diverts, but also to my Norton's 360 shutting the window due to virus activity.

Anyone fool enough to give them bank details will not be able to cancel their payments, even after Photobucket collapses into oblivion.

C-3PO:  Looks like the other image hosting sites are jumping on the greed bandwagon 

[TheLongBuild]

Couldn't agree more there are no free lunches. 
There are already too many ruined threads on here where 'hosted' photos are no longer available.
There are countless examples of these so called free services that over time, after they have gained supremacy and a respectable following, charges are then implemented to continue using the so called free  service.
As stated you no longer own the photo or control its use.

for
Agree I post all my pictures on here but keep them generally below 200kb which is more than adequate for a good picture word, its just people need to learn how to do it , its not that difficult  !! 

[Bob K]

Sorry, but there is a problem loading images direct onto Mayhem.  Mine are generally around 70 kb and well under the max pixels size.  ie:  Go through Martin's excellent instructions, "Attach"; select; "OK"; even "Enter".  Nothing gets added in the Post dialogue box.    Maybe it's a Windows 10 / Explorer thing ?

If I could have done that I would have no need to resort to Photobucket to embed the image info.

[Colin Bishop]

I use W10 and have no problems in loading using attachment>browse (to selected file)>click on it. I usually aim for around 200kb. It's worked for all previous versions of Windows too. At the moment I use Firefox, previously IE. You could try an alternative browser perhaps.

Colin

[C-3PO]

Hi Bob,

Like Colin this post was with W10 and Explorer.

Are you able to get a list of image file names as shown below (red arrow) ( use Attach and then browse for file names)-  they are only displayed in the post AFTER you have saved the post - they do not show as you create the post or in Preview

Regards
C-3PO

[Baldrick]

I am getting the hang of this ?


   Urgh   thats orrible, time for a facelift

[RAAArtyGunner]

I am a novice when it comes to PC's and when I first started I had some difficulty with uploading photos but after persevering I eventually got the hang of it.

Went from XP to WIN7, using IE, no problems uploading photos/funnies.

My main problem was to make sure the file, the photo, was not oversized.

[grendel]

I normally click preview to get to the page where you can add the images.

[tsenecal]

photobucket is not the first to do this.


imageshack started charging customers $3.99 a month for a level of service that allowed linking to 3rd party sites over a year ago...  they have a "free" level, but the terms of service for that level does not allowing linking to photos via 3rd party sites (identical in concept to what we are now seeing with photobucket) so this is the way of the future.  it is best that you either pony up the money, set up your own server, or start posting photos to the actual sites.  I do understand that many people don't just post to a single site, and using sites like imageshack and photobucket allow them to upload photos to a single site, and then simply paste those links into postings on multiple sites...   and that doesnt help anyone with hundreds or thousands of photos already linked to on multiple threads.

[Tug Fanatic]

photobucket is not the first to do this.........................

To my mind this is a very dubious business practice. You get people addicted to the service as a freebie and then once they cannot easily leave you decide to start charging them. I seem to remember drug dealers used the same tactic.


As you say this has happened before and I expect that it will happen again if everyone starts using another "free"  service. Direct posting seems to be the only answer

[C-3PO]

To my mind this is a very dubious business practice. You get people addicted to the service as a freebie and then once they cannot easily leave you decide to start charging them. I seem to remember drug dealers used the same tactic.


As you say this has happened before and I expect that it will happen again if everyone starts using another "free"  service. Direct posting seems to be the only answer

I think there is more to this not just "carrot and stick" - I have Googled but not yet found anything substantial - My gut says this is something to do with a legal ruling ( either current or a law suit pending) and companies are having to conform - if you have to pay for the account there is a little bit more of an audit trail/link to the owner of the account compared to free hosting.

I have lost this functionality as of tomorrow from a well respected paid for service so it's not just the freebies

Just my tuppence...

C-3PO

[Tug Fanatic]

I can understand that there is more than a carrot & stick approach.


My guess is that the business model involved individuals putting up photographs and looking at them infrequently at which time the host get a little advertising that pays for the service. What happens when someone links to a forum is that suddenly a lot of bandwidth gets used sending it to everyone who looks at the page whether they are interested in the individual image or not. It is also possible that an individual looks at the page numerous times as new posts are made. Bandwidth is expensive and there is no advertising income. It doesn't really sound sustainable does it? The trouble is that exactly the same analysis would apply to any other free hosting service and that I would have though that the problem could be foreseen. The possibility/probability of charging was predictable.


Whether there is a legal change that is forcing the issue I don't know.


The old saying that there is no such thing as a free lunch applies. Somebody has to pay.

[C-3PO]

The reason I think there may be more to it is I have had this removed as of tomorrow from a professional service I pay £79 a year for and others using higher spec packages pay a lot more than that - they have all lost this functionality ... - of course you could be correct that it's just simply reducing demand on bandwidth but it does seem a questionable business model change on a paid service just to save traffic and make the product less attractive...

https://www.dropbox.com/help/photos-videos/photos-page

DropBox - The Photos page is changing on June 30, 2017, but your pictures will stay safe in your Dropbox account. After June 30, you’ll no longer be able to create or share albums on the web, or browse photos in the current timeline view.

[phil_parker]

The question is how much were you paying to use Photobucket? Nothing?

Someone was paying. OK, storage isn't expensive, but bandwith is, as is staff time to develop and maintain the website.

So, they implement a charge for a service you enjoy using. The level is perhaps too high, but I can't see a problem with the idea of paying for a service that you use, unless you do your job for no money but for the good of others. Advertising can't cover all the bills either, Google has pretty much hoovered up all that money, so unless the company is to fold, they need income from somewhere.

Personally, I use Flickr and pay $60 a year for the service. I also use Blogger for my modelling blog, and hope Google gets enough money not to slap adverts over it (I have one via them and I suppose they get income that way) and Wordpress for my novel writing blog, which DOES have an advert they collect income from. For backups, I use an on-line service I also pay for. And back everything up on a hard drive as well. Yes, I am paranoid.

My guess is that someone at Photobucket decided to ditch all the people who used the service but didn't pay for it. Better have a smaller customer base that brings in income rather than a massive one that doesn't. OK, it's not nice, but the days of getting everything for free on-line are slowly going away.

[RAAArtyGunner]

To my mind this is a very dubious business practice. You get people addicted to the service as a freebie and then once they cannot easily leave you decide to start charging them. I seem to remember drug dealers used the same tactic.

As does Coca Colo and other manufacturers who strenuously deny such practices


As you say this has happened before and I expect that it will happen again if everyone starts using another "free"  service. Direct posting seems to be the only answer.  plus the thread is there for all to see after all isn't that what it is all about showing off your pride and joy to others

[RAAArtyGunner]

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

Isn't it normal business practice to offer so called "freebies" to entice people to buy/use the product. Model boats mag does.

Or buy one get one free etc etc.

The retailer/supplier can change the offer, free or even for a paid one, at any time.

It's simple let the buyer/user beware.

Think about when Facebook does the same and welcome to the internet of things. Good luck with that one.

[Martin (Admin)]

Photobucket has been free for many years, I've been using it for at least 10

http://uk.pcmag.com/webcom/90124/news/photobucket-breaks-image-links-across-the-internet