Photobucket - sharp practice

[msmoby]

Woke up this morning to find all my third party links to photobucket has a stupid 'ransom message' -

"WE NOTICED THAT YOU HAVE BEEN USING
PHOTOBUCKET FOR 3RD PARTY HOSTING*

PLEASE UPGRADE TO A PLUS 500 PLAN."

Was there a warning re this ? 

Anyway, I'm sorry if you keep seeing this message where images were on my posts ... I'm moving to flickr and photbucket can go swing

NOT going to get a penny of my money - with 'ransom' tactics like this ...

[Manny]

What happens when you are a cheapskate and dont buy server space. 

[Markje]

What happens when you are a cheapskate and dont buy server space. 

Remember: stuff is never free, I am hosting my own images, on my own server , it costs me electricity and sometimes it goes down and i fix it myself, but at least only I can change the rules

[andrewfi]

If you are going to cheap out and use Flickr don't forget to add a link back to to the photo page for each image you use. That's Flickr's price of 'free'.

You must have been liberally littering the Internet with your pics if Photobucket are suggesting a 500 account. Ordinary mortals need only the 100 account allowing unlimited hotlinking. It looks like you've really been taking the p!ss and using them as host for images  on 3rd party sites as well.

Hosting isn't expensive even dolies can manage it. Why not ask to borrow your target's credit card and get an account with Hostgator. They even offer image hosting scripts included in the price.

[Wiz]

I have my own completely FREE site, where I post my photos.... but when I link them to RUA, most of the time.... somebody is changing the link and don't show. Same photos and images.....on my own board.... they do show ........

Hostgator is not free.

[Ste]

I use postimage.org - it's free abut I would never trust it to stay so or not lose stuff. Only use it for linking...

Here's a test one...

https://s5.postimg.org/5cwwzptjb/17202875_10155846506634179_4855679959804137969_n.jpg (for Wiz)

[andrewfi]

Ste, looks interesting but they reserve the right to charge heavy users and bandwidth thieves. In addition, it is very hard to delete images or change them afterward. Is maybe OK for folks flogging tat on eBay but not so great for folks who might want to remove ill considered images of their best beloved checking her crotch for cooties.

[Ste]

Ste, looks interesting but they reserve the right to charge heavy users and bandwidth thieves. In addition, it is very hard to delete images or change them afterward. Is maybe OK for folks flogging tat on eBay but not so great for folks who might want to remove ill considered images of their best beloved checking her crotch for cooties.

Oh yeah it’s nowt special just use it linking pics in on forums etc with no local upload.

Quick and easy and anonymous if you want but no replacement for paid for proper hosting..

My private pics are not in the web anywhere, this is just for quick jobbies.


. Pro

[andrewfi]

You, Ste, were not a member of that group of people who photograph and publish images of their loved ones apparently checking their crotch for cooties to whom I alluded.

However that service would not work for me because I always want to have the choice to remove images from public view and that's not possible with this service.

I set up, ages ago, my own image hosting service on my own server. I use it for work purposes but also, sometimes, for personal stuff. The cost of doing this: zero, zilch, nothing. I used a freely available gallery software script running on my own server. To set things up as I wanted for work took a few hours but to have the same kind of script running for personal use without the customisation I needed, will take perhaps 30 minutes. Hosting with a decent(ish) firm such as Hostgator will cost no more than $3 per month to start. Even a doley moby can manage that.

[Ste]

I’ve got a whole VPS Linux VM for €7 a month, not a huge one but 40gb hdd SSD, and 4tb bandwidth, full root access do what I like with it.


. Pro

[Maxx]

However that service would not work for me because I always want to have the choice to remove images from public view and that's not possible with this service.

I set up, ages ago, my own image hosting service on my own server. I use it for work purposes but also, sometimes, for personal stuff.

I remember about a dozen years ago Andrew sent me some photos of his honeys and I was able to view them but once before they disappeared. 

[andrewfi]

As long as you were left with good memories and wanting more then the objective was achieved. 

I won't be sharing any images from my most recent vacation though.

While I understand that there's nothing I can do to completely stop folks copying and saving my work and images I can, by controlling their hosting, reduce the opportunity for people to do bad things.

[Wiz]

Here's a test one...

https://s5.postimg.org/5cwwzptjb/17202875_10155846506634179_4855679959804137969_n.jpg  (for Wiz)

Thanks for the Link Ste.....

Images it's not a problem..... BUT I can't see on Chrome .....ONLY the "Youtube Embedded Videos"....on sites, like RUA BUt with the link... I can watch them on Chrome at YOUtube!

How and why... can't see embedded videos on Chrome, I can't understand.... like 1000's with XP that complain to them.... with no satisfactory reply by their staff.

Any how my FREE service provider....for my personal site.....has everything FREE, bandwith, etc......but I pay for their VIP service that allows me to upload from any part of the world, if I have broadband connection. Cost £4.20 a month incl VAT (I could upload via Dial up for FREE but it's a pain in the ass) so that cost is really nothing and I can do whatever I want!

BTW their servers are extremely fast......

[msmoby]

The example Ste, sent is an image - of Theresa May suggesting voting to remain and it is perfectly viewable in Chrome !

[msmoby]

What happens when you are a cheapskate and dont buy server space. 

Now why would one want to misrepresent the truth ? I have and had had a PAID account with flickr for 9.5 years. This site started blocking my links there - hence opening the photobucket account ....

[Manny]

What happens when you are a cheapskate and dont buy server space. 

Now why would one want to misrepresent the truth ? I have and had had a PAID account with flickr for 9.5 years. This site started blocking my links there - hence opening the photobucket account ....

As ever, you dont like to follow the rules of the sites you use.

[Wiz]

The example Ste, sent is an image - of Theresa May suggesting voting to remain and it is perfectly viewable in Chrome !

Obviously you were not wearing your glasses at the time or your comprehension went off the rails.

That is what I said........ "Images it's not a problem
BUT

I can't see on Chrome .....ONLY the "Youtube Embedded Videos"....on sites, like RUA
BUt with the link... I can watch them on Chrome, at YOUtube!" .... site!

I hope you are wearing your glasses .......... and see the new bikini fashion!



 

[Wiz]

What happens when you are a cheapskate and dont buy server space. 

Now why would one want to misrepresent the truth ? I have and had had a PAID account with flickr for 9.5 years. This site started blocking my links there - hence opening the photobucket account ....

As ever, you dont like to follow the rules of the sites you use.

You are absolutely right.........!

I was under the impression that flirk was a FREE site!

Maybe I am wrong or they changed their rules!

 

[Manny]

What happens when you are a cheapskate and dont buy server space. 

Now why would one want to misrepresent the truth ? I have and had had a PAID account with flickr for 9.5 years. This site started blocking my links there - hence opening the photobucket account ....

As ever, you dont like to follow the rules of the sites you use.

You are absolutely right.........!

I was under the impression that flirk was a FREE site!

Maybe I am wrong or they changed their rules!

 

All free hosting sites will have abuse policies. Our hero probably made some budget websites using 3rd parties as image hosts. It's all very well when the odd person drifts by, but get some traffic and watch them notice.

But what is a Photobucket upgrade? Under a fiver a month I'd bet. Less energy to pay the fiver than make topics bitching that the free stuff isnt quite as free as you imagined. 

I pay hundreds a month in hosting, SSL, etc. Forgive me if I am not crying that Moby got busted abusing a free service.

[msmoby]

As ever, you dont like to follow the rules of the sites you use.

Why did you 'avoid' the point? As this is your site and presumably YOU decided to ban Flickr links ...I moved to photobucket...

It is somewhat disingenuous of you to 'mock' when it was your policy that forced my move )

I have been paying for Flickr hosting for years, have premium Dropbox account (s), business grade paid for Google storage and servers for VPN and hosting in the UK. 

It is interesting (and ironic ) that you would speak of 'cheapskates'  when you are the cause of my using photobucket and advised folks that 'moby has learnt a lesson' re entrusting one's images directly to forums.

In another place, the reaction was, ''send us the Flickr links and we'll substitute them for the photobucket ones, rather than spoil the TRs''...

Strange you did not suggest that... After all, we can't have the site 'russophobe'  showing why Russia is a great place, can we ?))

[msmoby]

All free hosting sites will have abuse policies. Our hero probably made some budget websites using 3rd parties as image hosts. It's all very well when the odd person drifts by, but get some traffic and watch them notice.

'our hero' only used photobucket to host TR report photos...  are you now claiming your site got THAT much throughput as a result of the images ? 

But what is a Photobucket upgrade? Under a fiver a month I'd bet.

c. 6 USD / month and I'm not paying on principle - Their biz model was the free service came with ads ..  THEY changed their biz model .. I only used them as YOU made flickr and 'unapproved link' ...

Forgive me if I am not crying that Moby got busted abusing a free service.

1/ I wasn't 'abusing it'
2/ Anyone viewing the photos were subjected to adverts - their biz model ....
3/ I only used photobucket because of your policy of making flickr.com an unapproved link - at the time.....

Why persist in misleading fibs  ? 

[msmoby]

You are absolutely right.........!

I was under the impression that flirk was a FREE site!

Maybe I am wrong or they changed their rules!

May be those suggesting 'I can't read', should check ..

Flickr can be free - I have a had a flickr pro account since 2007 - now giving 1 tb of image storage and one can choose at what resolution the viewing party sees any photo one chooses to share via a link on a third party site. 

This 'cheapskate' was saving sites like this money - by using paid for photo hosting sites  when other members were uploading their images directly ...

[andrewfi]

Manny, the money may not be a problem for a normal person, especially one who is creditworthy enough to have one's own credit cards. Think though of how it must feel when moby must ask the target of his affections to borrow her credit card and that he must then justify to her the reason for spending, what is for us, a mere bagatelle.

I can imagine, in moby's place, how I might end up trying to cheat and trick 'free' service providers rather than have to beg for some more pocket money.

[Manny]

c. 6 USD / month and I'm not paying on principle - Their biz model was the free service came with ads ..  THEY changed their biz model ..

And here is the bones of the matter, under a fiver a month.

I only used them as YOU made flickr and 'unapproved link' ...

Cast your mind back, you were using 3rd party hosts for mischievous purposes. So your links were affected for that reason. See how your selfish behaviour affects others?

when other members were uploading their images directly ...

Donate £100 to the site and I'll happily turn image uploading back on for a year. As long as you dont hotlink to our images elsewhere.

Why persist in misleading fibs  ?

Quite.

[Manny]

This 'cheapskate' was saving sites like this money - by using paid for photo hosting sites  when other members were uploading their images directly ...

Erm, no. You wanted to retain control of your images and have the ability to remove them.