Why do people use Photobucket

[tallyho8]

When people post photos on TBN, I was wondering why they use Photobucket or some other host instead of just uploading the photos to TBN when they make their post.

Most of those other photos take much longer to download plus they are full of ads and popups that consume your time even more.

When the photos are entered in your post using "manage attachments" there is a small preview in the post and you can click on it to see the photo full size if you desire. Much faster than the competition........

 

[Jimbrown]

How about because a lot of programs have provisions to automatically upload to photo bucket. ANd I don't see that it takes any longer for this to load than the TBN ones.

 

[blueriver]

I don't like photo bucket, alot of times when I look at someones photo bucket picture they also have a bunch of other non sense pictures on there.

 

[dmccarty]

When people post photos on TBN, I was wondering why they use Photobucket or some other host instead of just uploading the photos to TBN when they make their post.
...

Other websites don't allow uploading of photos. You have to use a link to a website holding the photos. I also upload some photos to a Picasa for instance for family photo viewing. Since its already on Picasa it would be easier to have a link to the photo on Picasa. Depending on which PC I am using its very likely the photo I would be uploading is not on the PC I am using.

The biggest problem I see with linking a photo instead of uploading it to a website is that if the photo disappears from the hosting website it also disappears from the site displaying said photo. I see this a lot on another website. Its kinda frustrating.

Later,
Dan

 

[Dmace]

I use Photobucket so I can keep all my pictures in one spot online and post to any site I want to or share them with anyone I want to. Plus Photobucket gives you nice statistics that show me how many people looked at my photos/videos, who looked at them and when. Last I checked, you couldn't upload a video through TBN either so there is something else I can do too. Plus I can resize them and edit them on Photobucket.

Also, what happens when TBN changes servers or the site and all your photos are lost or the links are broken? Just look at this old TBN Thread from 2005, notice all the Smilies are now broken links making the thread difficult to read. What if that was your picture which instead of a photo of your tractor was now just a bunch of text like this: /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Those who post links that lead to their Photobucket page just need to change the account setting so the link goes only to the picture itself and not the page.

For those who want to do that:
- Go to your Photobucket page
- Click on "Account Options" in the top right-hand corner
- Scroll down to the "Album Settings" area
- Finally, UNCHECK the box next to "Images Link Back To Album"
- DONE!

 

[OlderToday]

I prefer to use Dropbox for publishing photo albums. I keep my project pictures in a "dropbox" photo folder on my computer. The dropbox software automatically uploads the contents of that photo folder to their secure server and it creates a public URL that I can publish and can then be accessed by others, all for free if I keep my main dropbox folder under 2 Gigabytes. When people access the URL, they hit the secure server, not my computer. You can also save other data that's not public in non-photo folders, a great way to backup critical data offsite. It's automatic, simple, pretty fast and free (if you stay under 2 GB). I've been impressed enough with Dropbox that I'm about to use it to backup several critical data files from my wife's dental office.

Dropbox photo album example here (I-Beam Rake).

Download the free Dropbox software here.

 

[BigE_]

.

The biggest problem I see with linking a photo instead of uploading it to a website is that if the photo disappears from the hosting website it also disappears from the site displaying said photo. I see this a lot on another website. Its kinda frustrating.

Later,
Dan

Yep, I agree. TBN does allow you to attach photos, but for some reason it doesn't allow inline photos to be attached. However, you can get around that: just attach the photo and then link to it inline, like this. (Hint: When you upload the file to TBN you are presented with a link to that file. Copy the link and then insert it as an inline image).

 

[riptides]

You can upload it to your TBN's photo gallery and also place an inline link to that.

Then, when your account gets deleted, "all your pointers belong to us".

 

[Aggieville]

It's there and it's free and they're used to it. More than one internet site has hung around for a long time based upon this background (i.e. the entire business model of AOL).

 

[tallyho8]

Big E, I'm glad you posted that large 800 pixel photo in your post because it demonstrates another of my peeves with posted photos.

I don't have a new wide screen monitor and I'm sure many other don't either. When you post a photo in your post that is wider than our screen size (mine is about 700 pixels) than not only do we have to scroll back and forth to see the photo but then all the replies on that page will also be widened to the width of the photo and we have to scroll back and forth to read each line on the page. This is very time consuming and aggravating.

I ask everyone who posts photos in their posts instead of using the TBN thumbnail and link to the large photo, to please not post photos larger than 600 pixels as a courtesy to the other readers. If you want to post a large photo for some reason, use the thumbnail to link to it so it doesn't cause the whole page to be too wide to read without scrolling back and forth.

 

[/pine]

personally what I find more frustrating than using (slow) third party image servers is those that do not properly resize their images before posting them...in most cases there is no reason to post or link to images larger than 800x 600...
Granted, higher resolutions are advantagious for quality printing but for viewing on a monitor they're not needed...

I have a fairly large monitor (19") but many of the images uploaded to TBN are so large that they are practically impossible to view and defeat the purpose.

 

[BigE_]

I ask everyone who posts photos in their posts instead of using the TBN thumbnail and link to the large photo, to please not post photos larger than 600 pixels as a courtesy to the other readers.

So, you're asking everyone to keep their photos at VGA resolution (640x480)? No offense, but my 14" monitor back in 1990 could at least do SVGA (800x600). I believe either your video driver is not installed correctly, or you don't have it set up correctly if you can't at least do 800x600. That's 20 year old technology, and I suspect your computer isn't 20 years old. I'd be more than willing to help you get it going correctly. PM me back channel.

I just *gave* away a 19" flat screen (not flat panel) monitor on Craigslist that could do 1600x1200. Maybe check there for a free monitor? (I couldn't sell mine for $25, but worst case that's all you'd be out).

-Steve

 

[BigE_]

I do agree that some pictures posted in-line are way too big.

Easy and quick way to resize your pictures:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/Downloads/powertoys/Xppowertoys.mspx

Download the ImageResizer. http://download.microsoft.com/download/whistler/Install/2/WXP/EN-US/ImageResizerPowertoySetup.exe


Then, in Windows Explorer, right-click on 1 or more of your pictures and select "resize pictures. Choose your resolution, and off you go. Easy as that.

 

[bp fick]

So, you're asking everyone to keep their photos at VGA resolution (640x480)? No offense, but my 14" monitor back in 1990 could at least do SVGA (800x600). I believe either your video driver is not installed correctly, or you don't have it set up correctly if you can't at least do 800x600. That's 20 year old technology, and I suspect your computer isn't 20 years old. I'd be more than willing to help you get it going correctly. PM me back channel.

-Steve

Well said. I don't like enormous photos either, but asking everyone to limit to VGA screen standards from Mesozoic era isn't reasonable.

 

[MarkV]

Also keep in mind, as a tractor site many members live in rural areas and have no option besides dial up internet connections. In line photos are a real problem when you are on dial up.

MarkV

 

[/pine]

So, you're asking everyone to keep their photos at VGA resolution (640x480)?

what I suggested was reducing the size of images before they are uploaded...it has nothing to do with display settings...

FYI the display settings on my (19" display) laptop are set for optimal display...

 

[bp fick]

Also keep in mind, as a tractor site many members live in rural areas and have no option besides dial up internet connections. In line photos are a real problem when you are on dial up.

MarkV

MarkV, ditto the dialup. I deeply regret anyone still has to use dialup. I am very sympathetic. I don't mean to sound crass in any way. But, broadband is the standard by which all internet design, function and operation runs today. Has for a number of years. As a part time web designer, we used to take into account dialup connections, but we stopped doing that when dialup dropped below 25% of the users in the US. Realizing that perhaps a tractor site is slightly higher, still..... Again, deepest sympathies for those on dialup.

 

[/pine]

broadband is the standard by which all internet design, function and operation runs today.

I am not really sure what this means but...

...If you are not designing for mobile access you are not keeping up...Think "HTML"...display properties for mobile devices are hardly the same as residential broadband user capabilities...

 

[bp fick]

Pine

Mangled my syntax there.

I simply meant that web designers no longer take dial up into account when setting up their web features. Between graphics, sound, flash, details, etc... it simply assumes broadband. And yes, mobile devices are now taken into serious account.

 

[/pine]

Mangled my syntax there.

likewise...I actually meant to say "think XHTML" or at least HTML4

These days it does not make sense to develop two different version of a web page or application (for mobile access)...like it did back in the days of WAP...


on a relative note...when posting images here (or on any forum etc. site) just think of those trying to view images on an I-phone etc...granted the new "mini-book" mobile devices most likely have image rendering software the best solution for everyone is to simply reduce the size of raw images...not only for display...the less bandwidth use the better ...


on my phone I pay by the kb...even if the phone has the capability to resize an image it has to download the entire file before it can render it to a managable size for the display...some of the images I see posted here could end up costing several dollars even at .01/kb (my rate)