Changes to Photobucket picture hosting

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

To add to the above.

I've also just discovered that there is still a free, ad supported, plan on Photobucket. It offers 2GB of storage to new subscribers. And you can hotlink and embed from it, with Photobucket adding a watermark.

And, it appears that legacy users have the free storage and terms they agreed to at original signup. I have 18GB available and can go ad free for $0.99.  Whilst I downloaded copies of all my content from Photobucket back in 2017, I didn't delete anything from there, nor close my account. It was just left dormant.

Maybe, despite what I said in the previous post, I will give them a second chance. It seems that they have, without any fanfare, or even notification, reverted legacy users to their original terms. It's possible that they did email me back in May to tell me my legacy account terms were reactivated, but after the disruptive changes in 2017 I turned off my communication preferences and marked Photobucket emails as spam. I rarely check spam folders and I can't look back more than 90 days.

So, let's upload a random image and embed here...

... Nope. Nothing doing. Mods, would there be anything this end that is preventing a Photobucket embed?

[JayMac]

Ahh, I see what's going on.

There's appears to be a script in place that converts Photobucket links on this website to point toward an admin's personal photo hosting website. Obviously that will only work for the legacy images the admin team repaired back in 2017.

I suppose unpicking that to re-introduce embedding from Photobucket for new images is likely to be another headache.

I may have accepted a bit of goodwill from Photobucket for reverting my account. Whether the admins are prepared to as well...

... once bitten.


Edited to add:

I have tried embedding a newly Photobucket hosted image on another forum. The new watermarking and hotlinking does indeed work from a free account.


(screenshot hosted on imgbb.com)

Don't worry. I haven't left that rather confusing post up on WNXX^▸ (Stored Unserviceable, Mainline Locos HQ All Classes)! Replaced with a 'posted in error' message.

Now, were there to be a fix here I may compile a new multi image picture quiz by trawling the archives.

[grahame]

There's appears to be a script in place that converts Photobucket links on this website to point toward an admin's personal photo hosting website. Obviously that will only work for the legacy images the admin team repaired back in 2017.

Yep, that's some scripting I put in place to re-instate the integrity of all your old posts ... with your blessing as I recall 

I suppose unpicking that to re-introduce embedding from Photobucket for new images is likely to be another headache.

Potentially a bigger headache than the original fix, I fear!

I may have accepted a bit of goodwill from Photobucket for reverting my account. Whether the admins are prepared to as well...

... once bitten.

[snip]

Now, were there to be a fix here I may compile a new multi image picture quiz by trawling the archives.

Tempting ... but I've not got buckets of spare time to do and to test this.

The whole "embedded images" thing is a bit of a nightmare.  I would prefer that images used in posts on the Coffee Shop were hosted on the same (our) server.  That would help ensure ongoing stability and compatability between the various elements in a post.

To some extent, the "attachment" capability provides the ability for members to add documents, graphics, etc, to their posts ... and over the years I've had to keep coming back and increasing the disc space available for attachments.  However - cares is needed and space costs money; much less than it did, but money never the less.

Noting

I never did get round to building my own website for hosting and hotlinking. Again, finances precluded.

And Flickr, PhotoBucket, and so many other startups tempting users in and then having to generate income - be that from advertising or subscriptions.  And I can sympathise with their need to recoup the costs of massive storage - one of several reasons I've fought shy of providing image hosting.

The general question is back on the table (has it ever been off) ... To be looked at over Christmas and as we go forward; there many well be a hosting solution where images we host are only available within posts on the forum, but it's not good use of my time to put a general solution in to the current software versions.

I will take a look at the script for BNM ... and send a personal message when I've worked out how easy it would be.  That's a promise to look and inform, and not a promise to make any changes should they prove hard to do, be potentially unreliable, or introduce other problems.    But I would like a quiz 

[JayMac]

It's interesting to note that neither Flickr nor Photobucket changed their funding/pricing models because they were struggling startups. Their problems both stem from being swallowed up by larger companies and then spat back out.

Photobucket was purchased by Fox Interactive (part of the Murdoch empire) for $300 million in 2007. They sold it on in 2009 for $60 million to a company that was looking at the user base numbers and considering turning Photobucket into a social media site. That plan never came to anything but probably swallowed a good chunk of money.

Flickr was purchased by Yahoo! in 2005 for around $25 million. Yahoo asset stripped rather than invest. It was also more interested in targeting the user base to tempt them with other Yahoo! services. Yahoo! was acquired by Verizon in 2016. Almost immediately they started cutting costs and it seemed likely Flickr would be closed down. Instead Verizon has been breaking up Yahoo! and selling bits off. Flickr was acquired by fellow hosting site SmugMug earlier this year.

It certainly not startup costs being recouped by terms/pricing changes. The original folk at the helm of Photobucket and Flickr have ridden off into the sunset with the money thrown at them by the multinational corporations. It is those corporations who have damaged the revenue metrics of these sites. Its not the users who should be blamed for using the sites within the terms agreed at signup. We are advertised at after all. I don't doubt that storage of petabytes of data is expensive, but plenty of websites manage to cover the cost without gouging users like Photobucket attempted to do. At least SmugMug have been much more reasonable in changing the terms/pricing at Flickr.

[JayMac]

Testing again. Can you sea the seegull folks?




Go on, why not try and guess the location. A taster for a forthcoming  bumper bignosemac picture quiz, now that I can embed once again from my Photobucket. I'll be trawling the archives in the coming days!

Public thanks to grahame for doing some black magic behind the scenes to revert hotlinks to my Photobucket. It appears that all legacy embedded images of mine are back to their original links. Only difference being the watermark.

[grahame]

Go on, why not try and guess the location.

Go one ... I'll hazard a guess ... Polperro

[Timmer]

Glad to report I can see you seagull BNM but don’t have a clue where it’s residing.

[Western Pathfinder]

Forgive Me Taunton?.

[JayMac]

Go on, why not try and guess the location.

Go one ... I'll hazard a guess ... Polperro

Sorry, no.

[JayMac]

Forgive Me Taunton?.

That would be unforgiveable for a single entry. Sorry, no.

[PhilWakely]

"I see no chips!"

Oh, sorry - thought this was a caption competition    As to location, no idea!

[bobm]

My gull's cleverer than yours   

[JayMac]

No idea where yours is bobm.

A clue to the location of my seagull.

Picture taken a few yards from a station, opened at Easter, 1890.

[grahame]

No idea where yours is bobm.

A clue to the location of my seagull.

Picture taken a few yards from a station, opened at Easter, 1890.

Oh yes ... I think I have it.  I thinks that's a station that wasn't grouped into one of the big 4 in 1923?

[JayMac]

It wasn't. Neither was the only other station on the line.