News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Please don't use Photobucket

Started by ZLoth, February 20, 2018, 01:50:58 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ZLoth

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.
I'm an Engineer. That means I solve problems. Not problems like "What is beauty?", because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve practical problems and call them "paychecks".


jeffandnicole

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!

seicer

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.)

froggie

^ Not anymore.  But several older threads had Photobucket images posted in them.

MNHighwayMan

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.

hotdogPi

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.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

1995hoo

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.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Alps

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?

oscar

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.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

MNHighwayMan

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?

seicer

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.

ZLoth

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:
I'm an Engineer. That means I solve problems. Not problems like "What is beauty?", because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve practical problems and call them "paychecks".

J N Winkler

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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Brandon

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.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

hotdogPi

I was just thinking of deleting old posts to reduce thread size, not replacing them with working photos (which would be much harder).
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

jeffandnicole

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.

US71

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:
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

hbelkins

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.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

J N Winkler

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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

slorydn1

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.
Please Note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of any governmental agency, non-governmental agency, quasi-governmental agency or wanna be governmental agency

Counties: Counties Visited

Scott5114

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.)
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

J N Winkler

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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

triplemultiplex

I must be doing something different because all my old pics from Photobucket are still showing up in here just fine.   :hmmm:
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

formulanone

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.

J N Winkler

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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.