Just a reminder.... Photobucket has changed their policies quite a while back and won't allow you to post your photos onto third party sites without paying a very high fee. This is breaking previously-working images on posts on this site.
Well, that's up to the end user. If they want to fork over the $400, that's not for me or you to decide!
I don't think anyone on here has been using Photobucket anyways. And if they want to pay for a service - then they have that right. Who says that photo hosting services need to be free? (Hint: Imgur will not always be free, either.)
^ Not anymore. But several older threads had Photobucket images posted in them.
Quote from: seicer on February 20, 2018, 07:31:06 AM
I don't think anyone on here has been using Photobucket anyways. And if they want to pay for a service - then they have that right. Who says that photo hosting services need to be free? (Hint: Imgur will not always be free, either.)
Yeah, as froggie said, just go back into first pages of some of the picture challenge threads, for example–dead links everywhere.
I wish people would fix their links, but at the same time, I don't blame people for not wanting to put themselves through that pain in the ass.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 20, 2018, 09:05:46 AM
Quote from: seicer on February 20, 2018, 07:31:06 AM
I don't think anyone on here has been using Photobucket anyways. And if they want to pay for a service - then they have that right. Who says that photo hosting services need to be free? (Hint: Imgur will not always be free, either.)
Yeah, as froggie said, just go back into first pages of some of the picture challenge threads, for example–dead links everywhere.
I wish people would fix their links, but at the same time, I don't blame people for not wanting to put themselves through that pain in the ass.
I think it would beneficial if people delete posts from Worst of and Erroneous threads (to reduce thread size) as long as:
1. It's a photo that doesn't work anymore or a reply to one.
2. Removing the post doesn't break the flow of the surrounding posts.
I used to use Photobucket for many years, but I'm not about to pay the amount they now want. I haven't attempted, nor even considered attempting, to go back and remove dead image links from old posts, simply because of the massive amount of time it'd take. If there were a way I could do a bulk edit, then I'd consider it.
There is no convenient way to do this. There's no reason to read back multiple years in threads, either. Let's leave it at that?
I asked Alex to update my links, after my ISP stopped hosting user web pages, and I had to move the affected material to one of my own domains. He did that, but a lot of aggravation for him. It sounded like he wasn't ever going to do that again.
Another forum where I post photos and other links, even that was not an option. Fortunately, only a few dozen of my posts, and only one from someone else linking to my site, so the switchover was done by hand.
Quote from: Alps on February 20, 2018, 07:24:44 PM
There is no convenient way to do this. There's no reason to read back multiple years in threads, either. Let's leave it at that?
Really? Literally none at all?
Because it would take a herculean effort for some of us. I can't even fathom doing that on this forum or on others because of changes in site architecture or host over the time span of 16 years. It's a tedious task to have to edit BBcode and replace images manually - and have no clue as to what the image once was.
And why bother? There are very, very few who will look at old threads.
I am currently part of a team overhauling a major website at an institution - a multi-year process, and we have a similar argument going on with each department we migrate: let's save each and every little piece of data and file from the old site and just move it over. We resolve that quickly by showing them analytics that demonstrates 0% (or really, .02%) of our total site traffic has looked at such depreciated content in a time span of a year.
It's just not worth the hassle.
Quote from: seicer on February 20, 2018, 08:13:53 PM
Because it would take a herculean effort for some of us. I can't even fathom doing that on this forum or on others because of changes in site architecture or host over the time span of 16 years. It's a tedious task to have to edit BBcode and replace images manually - and have no clue as to what the image once was.
Nie mój cyrk, nie moje małpy. And, quite frankly, not the admin's problem either. If the original posters want to spend the time and money fixing the posts for what is essentially a hobby, that's their business. All the request was "Please don't use Photobucket", because the error image is quite frankly....
ANNOYING! :banghead:
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 20, 2018, 09:45:03 AMI used to use Photobucket for many years, but I'm not about to pay the amount they now want. I haven't attempted, nor even considered attempting, to go back and remove dead image links from old posts, simply because of the massive amount of time it'd take. If there were a way I could do a bulk edit, then I'd consider it.
There is a way to do a bulk edit: you can run a wget wrapper script to go through your own posts one by one, invoke the edit function on each post that has a Photobucket link, use sed to create new edited text that addresses the Photobucket links in a graceful way, and then commit the edited post. However, such a script would take an experienced coder several hours to write, and the forum managers would probably be grateful if it were not run because repeated post editing has implications for database load.
I used to use Photofuckit, but no longer do, and will never use them again due to their wanting $400 a year for what was formerly free (with ads). There's better out there, including Flickr, Imgur, and others. As for fixing old posts, forget it.
I was just thinking of deleting old posts to reduce thread size, not replacing them with working photos (which would be much harder).
Quote from: ZLoth on February 20, 2018, 08:30:39 PM
... All the request was "Please don't use Photobucket", because the error image is quite frankly.... ANNOYING! :banghead:
It's not like anyone's posting new photos and getting that image...that image appears for any photos we previously posted.
And as mentioned, there's no reason to go back and fix the bad image, remove the post, or modify the link. I'm not going to remember most of mine anyway.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 21, 2018, 12:51:23 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 20, 2018, 09:45:03 AMI used to use Photobucket for many years, but I'm not about to pay the amount they now want. I haven't attempted, nor even considered attempting, to go back and remove dead image links from old posts, simply because of the massive amount of time it'd take. If there were a way I could do a bulk edit, then I'd consider it.
There is a way to do a bulk edit: you can run a wget wrapper script to go through your own posts one by one, invoke the edit function on each post that has a Photobucket link, use sed to create new edited text that addresses the Photobucket links in a graceful way, and then commit the edited post. However, such a script would take an experienced coder several hours to write, and the forum managers would probably be grateful if it were not run because repeated post editing has implications for database load.
Are you volunteering? :hmmm: :biggrin:
Who wants to invest the time and energy to go back and look through all of their old threads to correct broken links?
I think a better solution to some of the longer threads would be to lock them and start new threads. "The Worst Of Road Signs, Part II" or something similar.
Quote from: US71 on February 21, 2018, 12:32:42 PMAre you volunteering? :hmmm: :biggrin:
I write primarily in NT batch, so what I would come up with would be a batch file where you would substitute your actual login credentials and the script would then run on your computer, for however long it took, to fix your (and no-one else's) posts.
What the forum managers might consider doing at some point in the future is developing a script that runs on the server to modify all of the posts stored in the main SQL database so that Photobucket image tags (which load the nag image under their new charging regime) are replaced with a link to the image with link text along the lines of "Photobucket image--no longer displayed" or similar.
I agree that there is no point in going back and fixing each Photobucket image manually. But either approach (running a script on a client to fix one user's posts, or running a script on the server to fix all users' posts) can be set up and then left to run unattended.
One of these years I'll migrate all of my pictures over to a new location, and in the case of a few threads where I absolutely know what picture I had posted (the I-42 thread would be a prime example) I'll re address those pictures so that they will work again. Other than that, I just don't have the time or the motivation to go through that kind of PITA, and I am not a programmer so any of those other quick fixes just wouldn't work for me.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 21, 2018, 12:51:23 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 20, 2018, 09:45:03 AMI used to use Photobucket for many years, but I'm not about to pay the amount they now want. I haven't attempted, nor even considered attempting, to go back and remove dead image links from old posts, simply because of the massive amount of time it'd take. If there were a way I could do a bulk edit, then I'd consider it.
There is a way to do a bulk edit: you can run a wget wrapper script to go through your own posts one by one, invoke the edit function on each post that has a Photobucket link, use sed to create new edited text that addresses the Photobucket links in a graceful way, and then commit the edited post. However, such a script would take an experienced coder several hours to write, and the forum managers would probably be grateful if it were not run because repeated post editing has implications for database load.
The following is not based on any kind of knowledge of server loading, which is not my area of expertise on the staff, so the following may be a bad idea and is simply theorizing.
Such a script could probably be written to include a 30 to 60 second delay between edits that would prevent it from overloading the server. Another option would be to search and edit the posts automatically, but display the edited post to the user and prompt for confirmation to save from the user. (The latter is how several so-called "semi-automated" tools function on Wikipedia, in order to allow editors to make bulk changes without writing their own scripts and/or having to get them blessed by the developers as sanctioned bot accounts.)
The issue with repeated post editing, as I understand it, is that it can pose problems where the updated posts are not added to the main post database in the first instance but rather to a "changed posts" database where post revisions are parked until a server-side script merges them into the main database. A client-side script that runs automatically to change potentially hundreds of posts (depending on how heavily a person has been using Photobucket) can result in this "changed posts" database becoming much larger than usual, and the merging script therefore taking much longer to complete, with possible implications for forum availability to users during peak posting times.
Another factor that could come into play is that for ISPs offering hosting for Web forums, there are typically two cost centers: a bandwidth cost for sending data down the pipelines to the users, and a database access cost for querying or incrementing the SQL databases that form the forum back end. Compared to running a script on the server side across the entire post database to change a string to another, an individual user can run up database access cost significantly by running his or her own script to modify his or her own posts. Although a flat charge is supposed to mean a flat charge, ISPs can penalize users for spikes in database access cost by throttling the forum or, in extreme cases, taking it offline.
I am not a "back end" forum expert myself, by any means, but these are difficulties we faced with SABRE about a decade ago when the forum outgrew its then hosting provider. SABRE is phpBB-based, while this forum uses SMF, but in the absence of a clear indication to the contrary, it is conservative to assume that SMF has the same potential technical shortcomings as phpBB.
I must be doing something different because all my old pics from Photobucket are still showing up in here just fine. :hmmm:
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 01, 2018, 12:13:41 PM
I must be doing something different because all my old pics from Photobucket are still showing up in here just fine. :hmmm:
I just did a quick check on a post where I used Photobucket, and sure enough, those two images do appear.
I signed up for a free account well over a decade ago, but rarely used it for anything other than displaying stuff on forums.
I suppose it's possible Photobucket has reversed its ransom-hosting policy, but I can't tell because the latest hits I find on a Google search for {Photobucket $400} date from last summer when they were digging in after being blasted in the media.
My images here are still dead, but something may be happening. If you go to this page, http://www.photobucket.com/p500/ , they have 2 packages - a $99.99 'Premium' plan for personal use, and a $399.99 plan for Commercial use. There's also a link in the upper right for other packages...which doesn't link you anywhere. I don't think they had the $99 package previously.
However, if you go to their main page, they have a link at the top to create a new, free account, giving you 2GB of space. I'm not trying it to see what it actually allows. And I'm not unlocking my account for $99.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2018, 01:40:44 PM
My images here are still dead, but something may be happening. If you go to this page, http://www.photobucket.com/p500/ , they have 2 packages - a $99.99 'Premium' plan for personal use, and a $399.99 plan for Commercial use. There's also a link in the upper right for other packages...which doesn't link you anywhere. I don't think they had the $99 package previously.
However, if you go to their main page, they have a link at the top to create a new, free account, giving you 2GB of space. I'm not trying it to see what it actually allows. And I'm not unlocking my account for $99.
That $99 plan was there before.
It looks like some of mine may be working again, although I certainly haven't paid them anything. I was going to try uploading a new image and embedding it here to see if it'd work, but the app crashed when I tried to log in. :angry:
Photobucket going rogue actually gave me the motivation to reedit all my photos and save them on storage devices. I've been working on redoing a lot of the early stuff I did here as blog entries, I have only a couple weeks of 2017 left to finish.
OK, let's see whether this works. I logged in through their website and copied the IMG link for a photo I'd uploaded some years ago. If it works, you should get a photo of the space shuttle Discovery atop the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft over Arlington Cemetery.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FShuttle%2520Discovery%2520over%2520DC%2F1669fba4.jpg&hash=19251dbcbe87beb8220b4a148e564e5edbb25ce7)
Yes. I'm seeing the photo.
Yay!
I am surprised so many people apparently don't care that all their old posts have no photos. I know it's a huge pain in the butt to fix, but the post archives on here have a lot of great information. I mean, we don't automatically expire the old posts, so someone must realize they have some value.
One other forum I read hosts images themselves so they can't get caught in this situation. I wonder how much it actually costs them. Terabytes drives are not that expensive anymore.
When Photobucket started displaying the error image instead of my photos, I salvaged what I thought was worthwhile, re-uploaded to Imgur and edited my posts here to insert the correct images. That was laborious enough, and I only have 200 posts, fewer than 20% of which had images. Someone with thousands of posts would have to set aside most of a weekend to fix all that.
After doing that I deleted my Photobucket account so everything not salvaged previously is gone forever. In order to permanently eradicate the annoyance of the error image I did just go through the posts which remained which were showing the error image (about a dozen) and replaced the IMG embed with
Quote(Edit: Image posted on Photobucket deleted)
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 01, 2018, 09:26:05 PM
OK, let's see whether this works. I logged in through their website and copied the IMG link for a photo I'd uploaded some years ago. If it works, you should get a photo of the space shuttle Discovery atop the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft over Arlington Cemetery.
It works. :clap:
Now, to find a img.bb clone which allows me to host my own images.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 01, 2018, 09:26:05 PM
OK, let's see whether this works. I logged in through their website and copied the IMG link for a photo I'd uploaded some years ago. If it works, you should get a photo of the space shuttle Discovery atop the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft over Arlington Cemetery.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FShuttle%2520Discovery%2520over%2520DC%2F1669fba4.jpg&hash=19251dbcbe87beb8220b4a148e564e5edbb25ce7)
Weird, I'm seeing a photo of the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft on top of the Discovery.
It just stopped working.
Great...now we have a whole bunch of 3rd Party Hosting Disabled Links. This should be merged with the worst handicap parking spaces thread.
Heh, now this morning I'm seeing the error message. How bizarre.
Perhaps that image just hit the bandwidth limit?
And this is why you should never use Photobucket. Thread over.
Quote from: Alps on March 02, 2018, 08:13:43 AM
And this is why you should never use Photobucket anymore. Thread over.
They were fine for over ten years. Shame they went rogue with no warning. It's not the change in terms that bugs me so much as the way they did it by surprise.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 02, 2018, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 02, 2018, 08:13:43 AM
And this is why you should never use Photobucket anymore. Thread over.
They were fine for over ten years. Shame they went rogue with no warning. It's not the change in terms that bugs me so much as the way they did it by surprise.
I never even used Photobucket, but it makes me really angry that the idiots running that thing actually did that - completely screwed you over, making millions of pictures defunct, including ones embedded in this forum. There's tons of those error pictures lying all over the place - what a mess. I don't understand why they had to be so greedy and abrupt all of a sudden. :rolleyes: :angry: :no:
Because they were not making a profit. Their premium services were not generating enough revenue to cover the freeloaders. And who thinks that these "free" services are actually free? And why do people believe that these services need to be free and accessible to all for an indefinite period of time?
While I think it was harsh to make a sudden announcement that the freeloaders would have all of their images break - it's not out of the realm that other freemium services, like Imgur, will eventually follow suit.
Was there really no warning? I thought there was at least a few weeks during which Photobucket dunned their users to cough up the dough.
When I Googled, I didn't see any indication (at least in search result snippets) that there was any warning to users, with the possible exception of an email or series of emails that wound up in a billion spam folders.
Since third-party hosting offers no monetization opportunities for the provider, the prevalence of shareholder value maximization as a governing corporate philosophy meant that neither Photobucket nor any other image hosting service could credibly commit to providing free hosting indefinitely. Gmail, Facebook, Flickr, etc. stay free largely because they are data mines and advertising pipelines (the latter at least for customers not savvy enough to use an ad-blocking HOSTS file).
Quote from: seicer on March 02, 2018, 12:09:54 PM
Because they were not making a profit. Their premium services were not generating enough revenue to cover the freeloaders. And who thinks that these "free" services are actually free? And why do people believe that these services need to be free and accessible to all for an indefinite period of time?
While I think it was harsh to make a sudden announcement that the freeloaders would have all of their images break - it's not out of the realm that other freemium services, like Imgur, will eventually follow suit.
Even if they weren't making a profit, it is absolutely disgusting that they would abruptly not only introduce a mandatory price, but make it
hundreds of dollars. What if someone living in poverty was using Photobucket? What a bunch of fools they were - they probably scared off almost every single user they had, and now they have probably gotten hardly any money at all. Idiots. :angry:
Make the price $5, $10, $20, and the revenue will add up. But $300? $500? Horse manure.
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/photobucket.com
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 02, 2018, 12:32:15 PM
Quote from: seicer on March 02, 2018, 12:09:54 PM
Because they were not making a profit. Their premium services were not generating enough revenue to cover the freeloaders. And who thinks that these "free" services are actually free? And why do people believe that these services need to be free and accessible to all for an indefinite period of time?
While I think it was harsh to make a sudden announcement that the freeloaders would have all of their images break - it's not out of the realm that other freemium services, like Imgur, will eventually follow suit.
Even if they weren't making a profit, it is absolutely disgusting that they would abruptly not only introduce a mandatory price, but make it hundreds of dollars. What if someone living in poverty was using Photobucket? What a bunch of fools they were - they probably scared off almost every single user they had, and now they have probably gotten hardly any money at all. Idiots. :angry:
Make the price $5, $10, $20, and the revenue will add up. But $300? $500? Horse manure.
If someone is in poverty, there are other free services they can migrate to. Some of these free services do not allow hotlinking, which Photobucket did - and that starves the site of much-needed advertising revenue. And like what has stated above, Google and others only allow these freebie services (when they aren't truly free), because they can monetize your data.
It's akin to people complaining about Facebook or Instagram and the advertisements they host. Can you imagine the uproar if they went to a premium model? Or if they had a model where you could pay to dance around the ads? People expect these services to be free when in reality, they are very expensive ventures.
In the world of the web, nothing is indefinite and nothing is truly free. If you aren't paying for a service, you are having your data sold.
Quote from: seicer on March 02, 2018, 12:42:16 PM
If someone is in poverty, there are other free services they can migrate to. Some of these free services do not allow hotlinking, which Photobucket did - and that starves the site of much-needed advertising revenue. And like what has stated above, Google and others only allow these freebie services (when they aren't truly free), because they can monetize your data.
It's akin to people complaining about Facebook or Instagram and the advertisements they host. Can you imagine the uproar if they went to a premium model? Or if they had a model where you could pay to dance around the ads? People expect these services to be free when in reality, they are very expensive ventures.
In the world of the web, nothing is indefinite and nothing is truly free. If you aren't paying for a service, you are having your data sold.
Flickr has no ads.
^ Flickr is only ad-free if you are a paid pro member. If you aren't a paid member it's not ad-free either.
In general, if something on the internet is free, it's the user that is the product.
Quote from: seicer on March 02, 2018, 12:42:16 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 02, 2018, 12:32:15 PM
Quote from: seicer on March 02, 2018, 12:09:54 PM
Because they were not making a profit. Their premium services were not generating enough revenue to cover the freeloaders. And who thinks that these "free" services are actually free? And why do people believe that these services need to be free and accessible to all for an indefinite period of time?
While I think it was harsh to make a sudden announcement that the freeloaders would have all of their images break - it's not out of the realm that other freemium services, like Imgur, will eventually follow suit.
Even if they weren't making a profit, it is absolutely disgusting that they would abruptly not only introduce a mandatory price, but make it hundreds of dollars. What if someone living in poverty was using Photobucket? What a bunch of fools they were - they probably scared off almost every single user they had, and now they have probably gotten hardly any money at all. Idiots. :angry:
Make the price $5, $10, $20, and the revenue will add up. But $300? $500? Horse manure.
If someone is in poverty, there are other free services they can migrate to. Some of these free services do not allow hotlinking, which Photobucket did - and that starves the site of much-needed advertising revenue. And like what has stated above, Google and others only allow these freebie services (when they aren't truly free), because they can monetize your data.
It's akin to people complaining about Facebook or Instagram and the advertisements they host. Can you imagine the uproar if they went to a premium model? Or if they had a model where you could pay to dance around the ads? People expect these services to be free when in reality, they are very expensive ventures.
In the world of the web, nothing is indefinite and nothing is truly free. If you aren't paying for a service, you are having your data sold.
That's why I would never complain about advertisements, since I do realize there has to be monetization of
some sort.
While advertisements may get slightly annoying at times, I have absolutely no problem with them, because it means I don't have to hand over my entire wallet to the site. Corporations being advertised profit, the site profits, and I profit, because I don't have to pay hundreds of dollars, or sometimes not even more than $0. That's what Photobucket should have done, but they instead took the sleazy way out, and deservedly they have highly lost popularity (as was shown in that link that 1 provided us).
YouTube does not require a fee to use, but it has lots of advertisements - fine with me, because I don't have to pay. But the site does offer YouTube Red, which gives you the
ability to pay just a little bit of money for no more advertisements. I think that's great; you have that freedom on YouTube - you can deal with the advertisements, or you can pay a
small fee to avoid them altogether. Photobucket gave you one option only, and that option was to pay those greedy goobers hundreds of dollars just to use it at all anymore. And that's ridiculous - and now there is no telling how many thousands of error photos are littering this forum, and we no longer know what they were. :angry:
Quote from: 1 on March 02, 2018, 12:44:09 PM
Quote from: seicer on March 02, 2018, 12:42:16 PM
If someone is in poverty, there are other free services they can migrate to. Some of these free services do not allow hotlinking, which Photobucket did - and that starves the site of much-needed advertising revenue. And like what has stated above, Google and others only allow these freebie services (when they aren't truly free), because they can monetize your data.
It's akin to people complaining about Facebook or Instagram and the advertisements they host. Can you imagine the uproar if they went to a premium model? Or if they had a model where you could pay to dance around the ads? People expect these services to be free when in reality, they are very expensive ventures.
In the world of the web, nothing is indefinite and nothing is truly free. If you aren't paying for a service, you are having your data sold.
Flickr has no ads.
I won't vouch for the accuracy of the material, but this question was asked...and answered...here.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-Flickr-make-money
Quote from: 1 on March 02, 2018, 12:37:02 PM
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/photobucket.com
I see Photofuckit tanked majorly after they introduced the $400 fee crappola. No sweat off my brow, I only uploaded photos there that I had already stored in my personal hard drives. I can always upload somewhere else.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 02, 2018, 12:55:20 PMThat's why I would never complain about advertisements, since I do realize there has to be monetization of some sort.
While advertisements may get slightly annoying at times, I have absolutely no problem with them, because it means I don't have to hand over my entire wallet to the site. Corporations being advertised profit, the site profits, and I profit, because I don't have to pay hundreds of dollars, or sometimes not even more than $0.
There doesn't actually have to be monetization. The providers just need enough revenue to cover their costs, and to this end they can deploy business models that do not rely on data mining or pay-per-click advertising. A lot of what makes the current Web so irritating to use and so dangerous to privacy and community cohesion is born out of a naked search for monopoly advantage through behavioral engineering.
One option to prevent the Photobucket problem from recurring in the future would be for AARoads to take forum image hosting in-house, possibly using a donor-supported model to cover the increased hosting costs that would result. I appreciate that this option has been considered by forum managers in the past and been rejected. However, managers are not chosen through democratic process and so their preferences may not necessarily reflect those of the forum membership as a whole. (This is one reason I have suggested managers be elected; if the policy preferences of the current cadre of managers does not match those of the voting membership at large, then they can simply be thanked for their service and replaced. This is, of course, a much wider discussion than just image hosting.)
Quote from: Brandon on March 02, 2018, 01:02:52 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 02, 2018, 12:37:02 PM
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/photobucket.com
I see Photofuckit tanked majorly after they introduced the $400 fee crappola. No sweat off my brow, I only uploaded photos there that I had already stored in my personal hard drives. I can always upload somewhere else.
I can't imagine there's much of a market for them now. Someone who wants to make photos accessible to friends or have people going to the site to view them is going to use Flickr, Instagram, or Facebook. People with their own websites will just use their web hosting. That leaves just people who want to hotlink to photos from sites like this one, and they aren't going to pay $400 to do it.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 02, 2018, 01:35:54 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 02, 2018, 12:55:20 PMThat's why I would never complain about advertisements, since I do realize there has to be monetization of some sort.
While advertisements may get slightly annoying at times, I have absolutely no problem with them, because it means I don't have to hand over my entire wallet to the site. Corporations being advertised profit, the site profits, and I profit, because I don't have to pay hundreds of dollars, or sometimes not even more than $0.
There doesn't actually have to be monetization. The providers just need enough revenue to cover their costs, and to this end they can deploy business models that do not rely on data mining or pay-per-click advertising. A lot of what makes the current Web so irritating to use and so dangerous to privacy and community cohesion is born out of a naked search for monopoly advantage through behavioral engineering.
One option to prevent the Photobucket problem from recurring in the future would be for AARoads to take forum image hosting in-house, possibly using a donor-supported model to cover the increased hosting costs that would result. I appreciate that this option has been considered by forum managers in the past and been rejected. However, managers are not chosen through democratic process and so their preferences may not necessarily reflect those of the forum membership as a whole. (This is one reason I have suggested managers be elected; if the policy preferences of the current cadre of managers does not match those of the voting membership at large, then they can simply be thanked for their service and replaced. This is, of course, a much wider discussion than just image hosting.)
Members can, and have, chosen to start up their own forum if they don't like how this forum is run.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 02, 2018, 01:48:50 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 02, 2018, 01:35:54 PM
However, managers are not chosen through democratic process and so their preferences may not necessarily reflect those of the forum membership as a whole. (This is one reason I have suggested managers be elected; if the policy preferences of the current cadre of managers does not match those of the voting membership at large, then they can simply be thanked for their service and replaced. This is, of course, a much wider discussion than just image hosting.)
Members can, and have, chosen to start up their own forum if they don't like how this forum is run.
That doesn't invalidate the concern. JN raises an interesting (and timely) topic, accompanied by a very understandable viewpoint, in my opinion. While I don't think this thread is the best place for that discussion, I would be interested in its continuance.
Another option for posting photos here that, as far as I know, is either free or minimal one-time cost (if there's a charge for the app) is to use Tapatalk and have it host the photo. I don't remember whether the app costs anything to get because I've had it for several years–another forum I joined before this one supported it and I got it for that forum.
I've uploaded photos here [/color][/size] since the Photobucket debacle and it seems to work fine, at least if I'm posting via mobile device.
Quote from: webny99 on March 02, 2018, 02:12:17 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 02, 2018, 01:48:50 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 02, 2018, 01:35:54 PM
However, managers are not chosen through democratic process and so their preferences may not necessarily reflect those of the forum membership as a whole. (This is one reason I have suggested managers be elected; if the policy preferences of the current cadre of managers does not match those of the voting membership at large, then they can simply be thanked for their service and replaced. This is, of course, a much wider discussion than just image hosting.)
Members can, and have, chosen to start up their own forum if they don't like how this forum is run.
That doesn't invalidate the concern. JN raises an interesting (and timely) topic, accompanied by a very understandable viewpoint, in my opinion. While I don't think this thread is the best place for that discussion, I would be interested in its continuance.
It's been discussed before. I'm not going to be the one to impede on anyone's opportunity to discuss, but I don't think we have a need to have this discussion on a yearly basis. Feel free to view the thread. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19530.0
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 02, 2018, 02:23:05 PM
Another option for posting photos here that, as far as I know, is either free or minimal one-time cost (if there's a charge for the app) is to use Tapatalk and have it host the photo. I don't remember whether the app costs anything to get because I've had it for several years–another forum I joined before this one supported it and I got it for that forum.
I've uploaded photos here on +apatalk since the Photobucket debacle and it seems to work fine, at least if I'm posting via mobile device.
(fixed the bolded, as for some reason typing "on +apatalk" results in whatever that is for some reason, from my own observations)That's a great way to do it. I learned that very idea from you when you posted it on here around a few months ago (or more recently), and I have been utilizing it ever since - this is especially useful since for the past year I have had trouble uploading raw photos from my own phone to the computer - now I can post them directly from my phone to here via the Tapatalk app. It is great! :nod:
Let's hope Tapatalk never takes the detestable route Photobucket did, though. :paranoid: :-/
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 02, 2018, 01:48:50 PMMembers can, and have, chosen to start up their own forum if they don't like how this forum is run.
They have, and the one example I am aware of was not successful. Ultimately, I think there are enough returns to scale to having just one large Web forum dedicated to discussion of US/Canadian roads that this forum has a natural monopoly.
It's certainly a valid choice for management to continue to say No to suggested reforms even if this results in failing to meet identified needs, such as image hosting that does not leave users (or the forum's collective memory) at the mercy of third-party hosting providers. Over the long run, however, I think we are all better off if we explore ways we can expand the service we provide to members while ensuring costs continue to be met.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 02, 2018, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 02, 2018, 01:48:50 PMMembers can, and have, chosen to start up their own forum if they don't like how this forum is run.
They have, and the one example I am aware of was not successful. Ultimately, I think there are enough returns to scale to having just one large Web forum dedicated to discussion of US/Canadian roads that this forum has a natural monopoly.
It's certainly a valid choice for management to continue to say No to suggested reforms even if this results in failing to meet identified needs, such as image hosting that does not leave users (or the forum's collective memory) at the mercy of third-party hosting providers. Over the long run, however, I think we are all better off if we explore ways we can expand the service we provide to members while ensuring costs continue to be met.
I would imagine picture hosting is a large expense, due to the servers and space needed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 02, 2018, 02:53:34 PMI would imagine picture hosting is a large expense, due to the servers and space needed.
It is, but for a special-interest group such as this, it is one that may be amenable to donor support, depending on the (so far untested) willingness of members to contribute financially. Another group I belong to relies on this mechanism to meet total forum expenses that include image self-hosting.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 02, 2018, 02:32:56 PM
Quote
I've uploaded photos here on +apatalk since the Photobucket debacle and it seems to work fine, at least if I'm posting via mobile device.
(fixed the bolded, as for some reason typing "on +apatalk" results in whatever that is for some reason, from my own observations)
It's "
using Taρatalk" that's the problem.
Tapatalk messages automatically have "Sent frοm my X using Taρatalk" added at the end, where X can be one of many different things. "Sent frοm my" becomes [sıze=1pt][cοlor=white], and "using Taρatalk" becomes [/cοlor][/sıze].
Quote from: seicer on March 02, 2018, 12:09:54 PM
While I think it was harsh to make a sudden announcement that the freeloaders would have all of their images break - it's not out of the realm that other freemium services, like Imgur, will eventually follow suit.
Imgur actually used to have a paid pro membership, but they ditched it. I had it for a couple years because, back then, there was a limit to how many images an account could have. I'd be kind of surprised if it came back.
Quote from: 1 on March 02, 2018, 03:52:42 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 02, 2018, 02:32:56 PM
Quote
I've uploaded photos here on +apatalk since the Photobucket debacle and it seems to work fine, at least if I'm posting via mobile device.
(fixed the bolded, as for some reason typing "on +apatalk" results in whatever that is for some reason, from my own observations)
It's "using Taρatalk" that's the problem.
Tapatalk messages automatically have "Sent frοm my X using Taρatalk" added at the end, where X can be one of many different things. "Sent frοm my" becomes [sıze=1pt][cοlor=white], and "using Taρatalk" becomes [/cοlor][/sıze].
Not if you set Tapatalk not to do that!
Quote from: 1 on March 02, 2018, 03:52:42 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on March 02, 2018, 02:32:56 PM
Quote
I've uploaded photos here on +apatalk since the Photobucket debacle and it seems to work fine, at least if I'm posting via mobile device.
(fixed the bolded, as for some reason typing "on +apatalk" results in whatever that is for some reason, from my own observations)
It's "using Taρatalk" that's the problem.
Tapatalk messages automatically have "Sent frοm my X using Taρatalk" added at the end, where X can be one of many different things. "Sent frοm my" becomes [sıze=1pt][cοlor=white], and "using Taρatalk" becomes [/cοlor][/sıze].
Oh! I remembered it wrong, gotcha ("using +apa+alk," not "on Tapatalk"). Thank you for that very helpful information; now I know why that appears whenever that phrase is typed. :-D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 02, 2018, 02:28:26 PMI don't think we have a need to have this discussion on a yearly basis. Feel free to view the thread. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19530.0
And so I read it again, for at least the third time inside of a year. It's a healthy and mildly interesting discussion to have, regardless of whether it changes anything (and it rarely does).
Quote from: webny99 on March 02, 2018, 05:42:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 02, 2018, 02:28:26 PMI don't think we have a need to have this discussion on a yearly basis. Feel free to view the thread. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19530.0
And so I read it again, for at least the third time inside of a year. It's a healthy and mildly interesting discussion to have, regardless of whether it changes anything (and it rarely does).
The final comment in that thread is pure gold. :rofl:
As long as the hosting bill is being paid out of someone's personal funds, the decision on whether or not image hosting is allowed should be solely that person's decision. The expenditure of money is a lot different than moderation decisions, which were referenced in a link posted to a thread I started about that subject.
What if we do start some sort of GoFundMe-type situation for image hosting, and the costs for storage space and bandwidth go up, and then all of a sudden people stop contributing? What happens then?
Personally, I have at least four available sources of image hosting available to me -- an account in the Gallery portion of this forum, my website, Flickr, and a Facebook page -- so I wouldn't be inclined to contribute to a fund to provide hosting here. Facebook offers a pretty simple and free way to get your images online. Start a Facebook page (not a personal account, but a Page), upload your photos there, and link to them when you post here. I occasionally link to a photo on the Millennium Highway Facebook page and it works just fine.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 01, 2018, 09:26:05 PM
OK, let's see whether this works. I logged in through their website and copied the IMG link for a photo I'd uploaded some years ago. If it works, you should get a photo of the space shuttle Discovery atop the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft over Arlington Cemetery.
No joy. Photo broken. :banghead:
Quote from: ZLoth on March 03, 2018, 12:45:25 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 01, 2018, 09:26:05 PM
OK, let's see whether this works. I logged in through their website and copied the IMG link for a photo I'd uploaded some years ago. If it works, you should get a photo of the space shuttle Discovery atop the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft over Arlington Cemetery.
No joy. Photo broken. :banghead:
I guess it only worked for so long. Very annoying indeed. :rolleyes:
Quote from: hbelkins on March 02, 2018, 09:39:55 PMWhat if we do start some sort of GoFundMe-type situation for image hosting, and the costs for storage space and bandwidth go up, and then all of a sudden people stop contributing? What happens then?
The situation could be addressed by changing the model from donor support to subscription, paring back costs, developing other revenue sources, etc. Absent embezzlement or serious mismanagement, it is unlikely the site will encounter a crisis that forces it to be taken offline immediately. What is more likely, if the AARoads forum does not stay up indefinitely as a going concern, is slow death as the population of active members goes down.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 02, 2018, 09:39:55 PMPersonally, I have at least four available sources of image hosting available to me -- an account in the Gallery portion of this forum, my website, Flickr, and a Facebook page -- so I wouldn't be inclined to contribute to a fund to provide hosting here. Facebook offers a pretty simple and free way to get your images online. Start a Facebook page (not a personal account, but a Page), upload your photos there, and link to them when you post here. I occasionally link to a photo on the Millennium Highway Facebook page and it works just fine.
The problem with this approach is that any of those hosting providers can unilaterally decide to prohibit third-party image hosting, just as Photobucket did. Keeping image hosting with the forum ensures that low-demand images are not subject to a one-size-fits-all policy designed to deal with costs arising from high-demand images. It also ensures that direct embedding of images on this forum is taken into account in any decisions to modify the image hosting policy.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 03, 2018, 11:26:41 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 02, 2018, 09:39:55 PMPersonally, I have at least four available sources of image hosting available to me -- an account in the Gallery portion of this forum, my website, Flickr, and a Facebook page -- so I wouldn't be inclined to contribute to a fund to provide hosting here. Facebook offers a pretty simple and free way to get your images online. Start a Facebook page (not a personal account, but a Page), upload your photos there, and link to them when you post here. I occasionally link to a photo on the Millennium Highway Facebook page and it works just fine.
The problem with this approach is that any of those hosting providers can unilaterally decide to prohibit third-party image hosting, just as Photobucket did. Keeping image hosting with the forum ensures that low-demand images are not subject to a one-size-fits-all policy designed to deal with costs arising from high-demand images. It also ensures that direct embedding of images on this forum is taken into account in any decisions to modify the image hosting policy.
1. Forum gallery – will only go down if the forum itself does. It's not meant for thousands of photos by a single user, though.
2. His own website – that's under his own control.
3. Flickr – Possible, but remember that Photobucket kept getting worse and worse with more and more ads until the "pay to use" scam finally happened. Flickr isn't showing any signs of getting worse or more desperate.
4. Facebook – Not that familiar with it, but I could definitely see it happening.
Quote from: 1 on March 03, 2018, 11:30:37 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 03, 2018, 11:26:41 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 02, 2018, 09:39:55 PMPersonally, I have at least four available sources of image hosting available to me -- an account in the Gallery portion of this forum, my website, Flickr, and a Facebook page -- so I wouldn't be inclined to contribute to a fund to provide hosting here. Facebook offers a pretty simple and free way to get your images online. Start a Facebook page (not a personal account, but a Page), upload your photos there, and link to them when you post here. I occasionally link to a photo on the Millennium Highway Facebook page and it works just fine.
The problem with this approach is that any of those hosting providers can unilaterally decide to prohibit third-party image hosting, just as Photobucket did. Keeping image hosting with the forum ensures that low-demand images are not subject to a one-size-fits-all policy designed to deal with costs arising from high-demand images. It also ensures that direct embedding of images on this forum is taken into account in any decisions to modify the image hosting policy.
1. Forum gallery — will only go down if the forum itself does. It's not meant for thousands of photos by a single user, though.
2. His own website — that's under his own control.
3. Flickr — Possible, but remember that Photobucket kept getting worse and worse with more and more ads until the "pay to use" scam finally happened. Flickr isn't showing any signs of getting worse or more desperate.
4. Facebook — Not that familiar with it, but I could definitely see it happening.
Facebook kinda already does as any direct image links will usually go dead after a while (a few months to a year, it seems).
Quote from: freebrickproductions on March 03, 2018, 12:42:03 PM
Facebook kinda already does as any direct image links will usually go dead after a while (a few months to a year, it seems).
I've noticed that too, although far less often, as I don't think people normally use FB as an image host. (That's what Instagram's for! :))
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 03, 2018, 01:48:54 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on March 03, 2018, 12:42:03 PM
Facebook kinda already does as any direct image links will usually go dead after a while (a few months to a year, it seems).
I've noticed that too, although far less often, as I don't think people normally use FB as an image host. (That's what Instagram's for! :))
I use Flickr for about 99 percent of my stuff.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 03, 2018, 01:48:54 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on March 03, 2018, 12:42:03 PM
Facebook kinda already does as any direct image links will usually go dead after a while (a few months to a year, it seems).
I've noticed that too, although far less often, as I don't think people normally use FB as an image host. (That's what Instagram's for! :))
I haven't figured out how to convert an embeded Instagram photo to BBcode, if it does not support HTML...usually a good thing.
There is an SMF mod for it -> http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=4059
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 26, 2018, 10:28:27 AM
The issue with repeated post editing, as I understand it, is that it can pose problems where the updated posts are not added to the main post database in the first instance but rather to a "changed posts" database where post revisions are parked until a server-side script merges them into the main database. A client-side script that runs automatically to change potentially hundreds of posts (depending on how heavily a person has been using Photobucket) can result in this "changed posts" database becoming much larger than usual, and the merging script therefore taking much longer to complete, with possible implications for forum availability to users during peak posting times.
As far as I know, there's no clearing database that post edits are staged through, though I could be wrong. I'm not really sure what the technical justification for such a setup would be; it would be far simpler to change the database directly and fill in a "edited date" flag.
QuoteAnother factor that could come into play is that for ISPs offering hosting for Web forums, there are typically two cost centers: a bandwidth cost for sending data down the pipelines to the users, and a database access cost for querying or incrementing the SQL databases that form the forum back end. Compared to running a script on the server side across the entire post database to change a string to another, an individual user can run up database access cost significantly by running his or her own script to modify his or her own posts. Although a flat charge is supposed to mean a flat charge, ISPs can penalize users for spikes in database access cost by throttling the forum or, in extreme cases, taking it offline.
This assumes a traditional shared-hosting model, which is I believe the model our server operates on. An alternative arrangement is to rent a virtual private server (VPS), which is a virtual machine running on the ISP's server. In this kind of setup, the site operator has full OS access to the "server" and can optimize the server to favor whatever kind of access is needed. Resource caps in that kind of set up tend to take the form of disk space, memory, and processor speed caps rather than discriminate on the type of processing being done.
I received an offer for a "free" photo poster from Wyndham Rewards via Photobucket. I'd still be on the hook for shipping, handling, taxes, etc. so opted NOT to accept the offer
I'm a lurker, but I'm also a senior majoring in computer science, and I decided to do some research on the Photobucket problem. I concluded that generating links to Photobucket images would be the best idea if anyone wants to try that out.
To figure this out, I installed my own copy of SMF 2.0.15, read the documentation and source code, and found an option for enabling the image proxy. What I believe the image proxy does is downloads the image, temporarily caches it on the server, and replaces the image link with the cached image link. Addressing concerns about database performance, the image proxy does not edit posts at all, instead outputting HTML on the fly from preexisting BBCode. An image proxy allows us to circumvent simple hotlink protection. Unfortunately, Photobucket is smarter than this, redirecting downloads to an image viewing page, where JavaScript (probably) must be executed to obtain the image.
Because JavaScript execution is (probably) required to obtain the image, we would have to host a headless browser on this server to obtain the image. I don't know the specifications of this server, but headless browser execution requires lots of resources. Another solution would be to require users to install a client-side extension to view Photobucket hotlinks. What these extensions do is load the Photobucket page in the background, execute the necessary JavaScript (since we're using a browser) to obtain the image, and displays that image. This solution will probably work as long as you trust the extension you are using. I also took a look at Photobucket's source code and saw this:
"LEGAL NOTICE: The content of this website and all associated program code are protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Intentionally circumventing this code may constitute a violation of the DMCA."
We probably don't want to violate the DMCA, so that leaves us with only one option: replacing Photobucket images with links that redirect to them. Once again, this can be done by outputting HTML from preexisting BBCode. However, this would require modification to the forum codebase. From my current understanding of the codebase, I would probably implement this functionality within the validate method for the image tag in Subs.php, which generates HTML from BBCode. If the validate method detects a link to a Photobucket image, it will output an image link instead of the image itself.
I might get back to this later, but these are my ramblings for now. I have finals soon.
Over the past few days, I've noticed a couple pictures embedded in forums with large "Proudly hosted by Photobucket" watermarks. After a quick Google, I came across this (https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/17/photobucket-image-hosting-plans) article. It turns out that they have a new CEO, photos are no longer being held hostage, and they want to do "the right thing for customers" . The prices have increased since the article was written (here's (http://photobucket.com/plans) the plan page), but even the most expensive option of $11.48 per month works out to $137.76 per year as opposed to $399 per year. Also, you can now embed photos with even the cheapest plan.
On a side note, if you open the image in a new tab, it redirects to the photo's page on Photobucket, and you can see the image without a watermark. I've always been annoyed by the hijacking of the direct image link, but that's a different topic.