Photobucket

[rmurphy195]

.. Have pulled a fast one! Getting fed up of them anyway, can anyone recommend a good alternative that I can link to to repair all my posted pics? I show stff on here that is on Phototbucket for other easons so don't want to upload twice, thanks Richard

[PH]

If you want free, Flickr takes some beating IMO, it has some adverts, but nothing like photobucket, is very easy to link to or share from.

[661-Pete]

When I read this thread, I thought, Oh dear have Photobucket done an 'Imageshack' on us (Imageshack recently closed all their for-free accounts and deleted everyone's content)? But I just checked my PB account and everything seems to be still there - and I can still upload images (most of which are astronomy - here is a recent one).

So what's the problem?

[PH]

So what's the problem?

You can no longer share the images to third party sites (Like this one) Well not unless you pay $399
That and the problem it's always had - when I click on your link 20% of the screen is your photo and the rest is adds and pop ups.
Really, there's better ways to display your photos.

[661-Pete]

This is a puzzler.

I'll try embedding the same URL in IMG tags:

Do others here see a picture of a galaxy, without surrounding adverts and stuff? Because that's what I get.

[PH]

This is a puzzler.


Do others here see a picture of a galaxy, without surrounding adverts and stuff? Because that's what I get.

It seems they haven't got round to you yet with the third party rules, but they say it'll apply to everyone. This is what you'll get once your account has been restricted
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3832&p=1082531&hilit=hewitt#p1074202

You won't see your own account as others see it, that's what cookies do for you. Try it from a computer than doesn't know you.

[PH]

Here's a screen shot of what I see when I click your link

[661-Pete]

I think that explains it - thanks. Evidently they haven't got around to me yet. I tried looking at this thread through my son's computer, which definitely doesn't have any of my cookies on it, and I could see my image all the same - for the present. Oh well, I suppose I can keep on re-visiting this thread, to find out when PB are about to wield the big stick on me.....

[Psamathe]

When I read this thread, I thought, Oh dear have Photobucket done an 'Imageshack' on us (Imageshack recently closed all their for-free accounts and deleted everyone's content)? But I just checked my PB account and everything seems to be still there - and I can still upload images (most of which are astronomy - here is a recent one).

So what's the problem?

Here's a screen shot of what I see when I click your link

PB.jpg

And I see

Except it is wrong as my ad blocker does not block the display of images (as they claim) but it does block the display of ads - and I know that because I initially see the image, then it tries to display ads and withdrawn everything; if I click "I've disabled my ad blocker I get the image again but when it tries the ads it hides everything again. Fantastic image (even though I only got to see it briefly).

I have no arguments with a site seeking to make money from displaying ads just as they can have no issue with me not wanting to accept those ads, tracking, etc. The difficulty comes in terms of users who in good faith used the site under one set of terms and conditions (e.g. to get their content to interested people) and then suddenly find all that work wasted because the site has dramatically changed their T&C's under them. Normally with significant changes to service the new constraints would only apply to new registrations.

Ian

[661-Pete]

Curiously, I don't get that - even though my adblocker (Adblock Plus - the one that comes with Firefox) is definitely set to the 'block ads' mode for Photobucket. Definitely looks like "one law for some, another law for others..." And I've definitely logged out of PB now, so I'm looking at my own images as 'someone else' I think (haven't deleted cookies though).

Oh well, I suppose they'll get their act together, sometime, and prevent anyone from doing anything useful with PB - unless they cough up!

So what next? Flickr? Imgur?

[661-Pete]

More on this story - see here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40492668
I'm only guessing here, but I reckon Messrs Amazon and Ebay won't be too chuffed about this! And I think both Mr Amazon and Mr Ebay carry a wee bit more clout than Mr Photo**ck*t!

[Psamathe]

The PB £309 per year fee is ludicrous. You can get a complete unlimited hosting solution for way way less, use e.g. Wordpress and display all the images you want, very easy, not too techy and you wont be subject to changes of T&Cs as and when they site operator decides it want more money. and you can display them how you want (rather than how the site wants). And if you want for the same way way lower fee you can also use unlimited e-mail, your own domain name (so you are no longer tied to your ISP because of e-mail domain being actually theirs), etc.

And do it on your own domain and as everything is referenced by your domain name you can move it where you want when you want and everything keeps working, not subject the the profit requirements of whoever was operating the site and you can display your images without who know what being advertised along-a-side them.

I suspect PB is now a goner, but I also suspect similar things will happen over time with other "free" services.

Ian

[PH]

The PB £309 per year fee is ludicrous.
........................./....................

I suspect PB is now a goner, but I also suspect similar things will happen over time with other "free" services.

Ian

It's a puzzle what PBs thinking is, I can't imagine they're expecting many users to pay that sort of price. By comparison Flickr Pro which has loads of benefits is $6 a month.
The other free services seem to be making enough out data collection and advertising. I don't mind the adverts on Flickr, they're between the photos not at the same time. There's also Google photos, though I haven't used it, does that have adverts?