TheSamba.com Forums
 
  View original topic: picture hosting - Photobucket sux Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Cusser Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:18 am

Cusser wrote: I use FireFox, and I installed that "fix", and the photos show now (at least on my computer !!!).

For the third time in 3 days, I couldn't log into Photobucket, that place sucks big time.

Mike Fisher Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:19 pm

www.TeamViewer.com lets my IT expert Son fix my computer problems remotely! You probably have friends/family who could do the same for you.

63Ragtop NZ Sun May 20, 2018 8:28 pm

Well well!

guess that didn't go how they thought it would?

:lol

https://support.photobucket.com/hc/en-us/articles/...ce=twitter

SdAufKla Tue May 22, 2018 6:35 pm

63Ragtop NZ wrote: Well well!

guess that didn't go how they thought it would?

:lol

https://support.photobucket.com/hc/en-us/articles/...ce=twitter

They're still going to charge individuals a minimum of $1.99 + $2.49 = $4.48 A MONTH to host your photos and allow 3rd-party viewing. Do the math... almost $54 MINIMUM A YEAR for the privilege of putting your photos on PB and allowing others to view them.

Sorry, PB, but that dog won't hunt no more. Back a couple of years ago I was willing to pay you $20 a year for the convenience of faster uploads and no ads, but now you want nearly $60 a year? Not going to happen.

What PB should have done (and still should do) is to go after the owners of the websites that make money off of selling advertising based on visitor hits looking at the content created and posted on those same sites by others. Follow the money, PB, you bunch of morons... Go after the folks making money off of the content you're hosting, which are not the people who are uploading their photos to your site.

Why on earth would I - or anyone else - pay PB to make content that I create available to visitors on other websites that make advertising money off of my content?

'Course, this all pretty moot since PB has killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Websites now offer their visitors on-site photo-hosting which keeps the freshly created and posted content all in-house. Those sites might have paid PB's blood money a couple of years ago, but not now.

PB has gone the way of the dodo, and is now an internet evolutionary dead end.

EverettB Tue May 22, 2018 6:48 pm

I would not have paid but obviously this site has it's own hosting of pics.

SdAufKla Wed May 23, 2018 9:47 pm

EverettB wrote: I would not have paid but obviously this site has it's own hosting of pics.

TS is a fairly non-commercial site. By that, I mean that 3rd party, paid advertising seems to make up a relatively minor part in the total content on the site.

I was thinking more of some of the other sites that I patronize that are just jam packed with ads - up and down the pages. Clearly those sites make more than just a little money from their advertising. A lot of those sites also charge viewers if they want to read the content without the ads. Some of those will try to block viewers who use ad-blocker software. Yet those same sites rely on free contributed content to attract viewers, and the more and better that content, the more viewers they get and the more they can charge for advertising.

In short, there are a lot of websites that rely almost exclusively on freely contributed content in order to make money. Photos hosted on PB and linked to those sites was a very significant part of that money-making content. Those websites had a financial interest in keeping that content flowing in from PB.

So, I guess my main point was that PB went after its users instead of even trying to get those sites that make money off of their advertising to pay PB for using content that came from PB's site. In essence, PB could have taken the approach of selling the content hosted on its site to other sites instead of charging the creators of that content for the privilege of giving away their creation to others.

Like many people, I had (actually still have) a PB account for years where I had uploaded probably several thousand photos. Almost all of those photos were linked to content that I had created and posted up on various websites. However, none of that content was ever paid for by those sites. The average PB user had absolutely no financial incentive to pay PB so that some website could make ad money from that user's photos.

PB wanted tried to charge the creators of the content rather than the users of that content.

Just like here on TS, the content was created and shared within enthusiasts groups, but whatever money that was being made was made by the site owners and not the content creators.

The vast majority of individual PB users made absolutely no money from the photos that they put up on PB, and those that were linking their photos to other websites also got no compensation from the websites that they contributed content to.

If there was any commercial monetary value to the photos archived on PB, that value would have been mainly found with the websites that used those photos as content to attract visitors and justify advertising rates. Foolishly, PB tried to exploit the wrong people and it backfired on them.

PB also failed to recognize its mistake for too long. Its actions caused a major and permanent shift in the way many websites handle content uploaded to them today. Many sites changed to make it easier for people to upload photos directly to them and then to link those photos to their forums and posts. There are still a lot of sites that don't have their own photo hosting, but most now do. The interweb model has changed so that websites now have taken control over their content, and it will never go back to a time when some entity like PB can put them at financial risk by holding that content hostage.

This change has made PB pretty much useless, and for those folks who do still want to store their photos online, it's made PB's competitors even more attractive.

Darwinism in the internet age... PB turned itself into the dodo bird of the interweb.

Keith Wed May 23, 2018 11:22 pm

SdAufKla wrote: 63Ragtop NZ wrote: Well well!

guess that didn't go how they thought it would?

:lol

https://support.photobucket.com/hc/en-us/articles/...ce=twitter

They're still going to charge individuals a minimum of $1.99 + $2.49 = $4.48 A MONTH to host your photos and allow 3rd-party viewing. Do the math... almost $54 MINIMUM A YEAR for the privilege of putting your photos on PB and allowing others to view them.

Not sure where you get $4.48 a month. Their website says $2.49 a month.

kamzcab86 Thu May 24, 2018 7:10 pm

Keith wrote: SdAufKla wrote: They're still going to charge individuals a minimum of $1.99 + $2.49 = $4.48 A MONTH to host your photos and allow 3rd-party viewing.

Not sure where you get $4.48 a month. Their website says $2.49 a month.

It's a minimum of $2.25/month ($27/year) for 3rd party hosting if you do annual billing: http://photobucket.com/plans/#yearly .

aeromech Thu May 24, 2018 9:51 pm

I like them. Been there 10 years. Thousands of pics and videos. Id happily pay $60/year for their service

dreaming_of_traveling Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:53 pm

So there is really no way for all the images posted here to appear? I've tried the extensions suggested and I still can't load the images. I see that the extension is running and changing the url for each image, but it keeps getting "not found".

Mike Fisher Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:31 am

My son copied all my Photobucket pics to Imgur with good results.

Cusser Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:00 am

I'm now using Imgur as well, instead of Photobucket

windfish Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:13 am

dreaming_of_traveling wrote: So there is really no way for all the images posted here to appear? I've tried the extensions suggested and I still can't load the images. I see that the extension is running and changing the url for each image, but it keeps getting "not found".
Often the image is just gone. If the poster deleted the image or their Photobucket account there's nothing the extension can do.
(and with all the nag emails Photobucket has been sending I don't blame people for just nuking their account)

finster Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:48 am

a couple of years ago my friend wanted to buy an external hard drive to back-up/store her photos. we went to pc world where the young assistant told us it would be easier to save them on the cloud and explained what this was. so you want us to store these photos some remote server that we have no control over? what happens if they deny us access, want to start charging us access or sell our images to a third party? oh no, I'm sure they wouldn't do that, it's quite safe! was his reply.
needless to say we purchased an external hard drive...

Glenn Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:55 am

finster wrote: a couple of years ago my friend wanted to buy an external hard drive to back-up/store her photos. we went to pc world where the young assistant told us it would be easier to save them on the cloud and explained what this was. so you want us to store these photos some remote server that we have no control over? what happens if they deny us access, want to start charging us access or sell our images to a third party? oh no, I'm sure they wouldn't do that, it's quite safe! was his reply.
needless to say we purchased an external hard drive...
You get what you pay for. If you're using a FREE service, then you should assume they can change the rules.

I PAY for webserver space. It hosts my domain, runs my email server and provides enough space to backup all my critical data. I also back it up to a local flash drive.

Backing up to the cloud is as safe as the site you are using. Free site do not guarantee ANYTHING.

Checkout the quote in my signature, it doesn't only apply to VWs.

windfish Tue Dec 31, 2019 10:09 am

finster wrote: a couple of years ago my friend wanted to buy an external hard drive to back-up/store her photos. we went to pc world where the young assistant told us it would be easier to save them on the cloud and explained what this was. so you want us to store these photos some remote server that we have no control over? what happens if they deny us access, want to start charging us access or sell our images to a third party? oh no, I'm sure they wouldn't do that, it's quite safe! was his reply.
needless to say we purchased an external hard drive...
You should do both.
A local backup doesn't do you any good in the event of, say, a house fire. I learned this the hard way.
Proper cloud storage like Backblaze B2, Amazon S3, etc isn't very expensive for the average home user. The big services are unlikely to pull any shenanigans, but if they do you still have your local backup and you just migrate to another company.
I did use CrashPlan before they decided to cut their home user plans, but they gave plenty of notice (over a year).

Can backup everything to an external drive and leave it at a family member or friend's house as well, but that's less easy to keep up to date.

oprn Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:49 pm

That signature could be taken two ways Glen...

We have a local tire shop that has a sign that says "If we don't have it then you don't need it." Meaning I suppose that they have everything you could ever need.

Well that sign was exactly the attitude I got from them when I asked for a tire for my car that was not a common size. "We don't have it and we don't plan on getting it for you!"

So as a consumer looking at your signature I can rest assured that you will not give me the goods until I pay for them but when I get them, they may not turn out to be as advertised?

I think not as I have more trust in you than that! :wink:

English can be a tricky language...



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group