Photobucket beta gripe

[backstept]

I've prettymuch stopped using photobucket. imgur.com is a lot easier to use

[Unicron]

I finally decided to make the switch. Beta's uploading is just too buggy for me.

[J. Allen]

Well, I switched over to Beta, just to get used to it, because we all know it's not going back, and while it's functional, it is quite buggy, and there are more steps involved in a simple upload and share, which is silly.

[Unicron]

If they'd fix some of the uploading bugs, I wouldn't mind it as much.

[J. Allen]

Yeah, I'm trying to tough it out, but when I know that just on the other side of that "go back" button is a somewhat simpler, better system, it's difficult not to drop the whole beta thing. Still, whether I like it or not, beta will stay and become the full fledged system. I might as well get used to it.

[B.J.]

So, I noticed last night that you can no longer link to newly uploaded images that are larger than 1024 pixels. There used to be a setting where you could either have it resize a large image or keep the large image as long as it was less than 1Mb, but no longer. Apparently the large image is still there for the uploader, but you can't link to it.

This is a deal breaker for me. Anyone know what other options there are, and their limitations?

[J. Allen]

B.J. wrote:

---

So, I noticed last night that you can no longer link to newly uploaded images that are larger than 1024 pixels. There used to be a setting where you could either have it resize a large image or keep the large image as long as it was less than 1Mb, but no longer. Apparently the large image is still there for the uploader, but you can't link to it.

This is a deal breaker for me. Anyone know what other options there are, and their limitations?

I switched over to ImageShack.us last week, where you can have it automatically resize before you upload. The bandwidth and storage are also unlimited, whereas PhotoBucket has once again cut their storage and bandwidth allowances.

The only limitation I see on ImageShack is that once you upload a picture, you can't really edit it there. Otherwise, ImageShack is leaps and bounds beyond Photobucket.

[CorporalCaptain]

I'm having a problem now that's just manifested itself, where people's Photobucket pictures are getting .html appended to the URL. Apparently no one else is suffering from this problem.

For example, if I enter http://i596.photobucket.com/albums/t...0660/bread.png into the URL field in the latest version Opera, it changes into http://s596.beta.photobucket.com/use...bread.png.html and throws me onto an album page.

On the other hand, if I enter http://i596.photobucket.com/albums/t...0660/bread.png into the URL field in IE8, I can see the picture fine. Photobucket is not a trusted site in IE.

I can see my own Photobucket pictures fine in either browser.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the beta debacle, and/or privacy settings on my Photobucket account.

I've made every effort to clear all site preferences for Photobucket out of Opera, but that still doesn't fix the problem.

Any ideas, anyone?

[B.J.]

^ I noticed that too. I think they're trying to force you to see the pics on their webpage instead of just the pic by itself.

J. Allen wrote:

---

I switched over to ImageShack.us last week, where you can have it automatically resize before you upload.

I'm not looking to resize, I want to keep the large image. Is that possible?

[smiki]

I'll recommend imgur. It also has unlimited bandwidth and storage and you can also edit the images before and after they've been uploaded.
The images won't get deleted if they've been accessed at least once in six months. And this is all with a free account. You can also upload without an account too. The limit for image size is 1 MB (5 with paid account) I believe (which means reeally high res jpgs are allowed, they don't get resized... if you try uploading a non-animated image from 1-10 MB it gets compressed and/or resized to fit under 1 MB). And also the images themselves are up even when the site itself is down.

For (free) larger gifs or something like that (several MB) there's minus.com

Edit: They've changed the image deletion time to 3 months now though.

[Unicron]

Didn't ImageShack used to be more strict on their storage requirements? I seem to recall they were the first online host I tried, and I got locked out of my account when I accidentally exceeded my storage at the time. But that was some years ago so I could be wrong.

[J. Allen]

B.J. wrote:

---

^ I noticed that too. I think they're trying to force you to see the pics on their webpage instead of just the pic by itself.

I'm not looking to resize, I want to keep the large image. Is that possible?

Oh, yes. You don't have to resize at all. It will take an image up to 10MB in size if you're registered.

smiki wrote:

---

I'll recommend imgur. It also has unlimited bandwidth and storage and you can also edit the images before and after they've been uploaded.
The images won't get deleted if they've been accessed at least once in six months. And this is all with a free account. You can also upload without an account too. The limit for image size is 1 MB (5 with paid account) I believe (which means reeally high res jpgs are allowed, they don't get resized... if you try uploading a non-animated image from 1-10 MB it gets compressed and/or resized to fit under 1 MB). And also the images themselves are up even when the site itself is down.

For (free) larger gifs or something like that (several MB) there's minus.com

Edit: They've changed the image deletion time to 3 months now though.

Yep, I've got Imgur as a backup.

Unicron wrote:

---

Didn't ImageShack used to be more strict on their storage requirements? I seem to recall they were the first online host I tried, and I got locked out of my account when I accidentally exceeded my storage at the time. But that was some years ago so I could be wrong.

I checked the terms of service just to be sure, but yes, Image Shack is unlimited bandwidth and storage space.

[Geckothan]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

I'm having a problem now that's just manifested itself, where people's Photobucket pictures are getting .html appended to the URL. Apparently no one else is suffering from this problem.

I'm getting that too, with Opera 12.14. Haven't tried it with a spoofed User-Agent, though.

[CorporalCaptain]

Geckothan wrote:

---

I'm getting that too, with Opera 12.14. Haven't tried it with a spoofed User-Agent, though.

There are threads on the Opera forum about it. It appears to be a real problem with Opera. Users report having submitted bug reports, both to Opera and to Photobucket, although Photobucket doesn't officially support Opera. I've tried everything I can think of that I can tweak in the preferences, whether site-specific or global, including scripting, plug-ins, redirection, referral, browser ID. Nothing has worked.

Opera's upgrading their render engine soon, so an important upgrade is coming soon, if not a major one. Maybe it'll get fixed then.

I'm not happy!

[Geckothan]

It must be a pretty bizarre bug, then, because I can't think what could possibly cause something like that to happen.

It wasn't unheard of for certain sites to fuck over users of certain browsers, at least a few years ago, and Photobucket seem like pricks, so I wouldn't put it past them to do something like that.

It annoys me when sites cripple themselves on certain browsers for absolutely no good reason (e.g. YouTube not using HTML5 for all videos with Opera on *nix, even though it can support any format/codec that YouTube can serve, if GStreamer and FFmpeg are installed).