Friday, May 30, 2014

This is a test

I'm back to testing free image hosting sites because Blogger is so anal about what they will link to. Plus they promised unlimited storage if you join google+ then cannibalize older photos they host to make room for new ones. WTF?!

Chiang Mai, Thailand - Street shrine hosted by photobucket

Plus, I hate google+. It's just facebook by another name and I already hate facebook. Flickr is best. They offer a free terabyte of storage! Basically they rock, but then they disabled direct linking. WTF?! Lame.

Chiang Mai, Thailand -  playground hosted by TinyPic

Photobucket and it's offshoot, Tinypic, are both still free. I posted these two photos there and yes. Blogger still accepts the links so good. You don't even need an account to post to TinyPic. You have to watch an ad to get the captcha, which is obnoxious, so I won't using it much, but it's worth keeping on the list. As for Imageshack? I logged in and found out it's no longer free. In the process, seems I activated their 30-day "free trial" countdown but I won't bother. They're out.


7 comments:

Roy said...

Just FYI, here's my feedback.

In the Chrome browser: The Photobucket picture linked to a page with an ad over the picture, which I clicked on to get rid of. (Google wanted to know why I didn't like the ad, but none of the three choices was "it's an AD!")

Subsequent visits to that link simply displayed the picture.

In the Firefox browser, linked to the picture with a greyed out background/frame, a la Blogger, and no ad, but I later realized a "pop-under" ad had appeared in a separate window under the the browser.

Roy said...

I've been using blogger to post my pictures, and at least as far back as my first post on this blog, (May, 2011) all the pictures are still there. Of course they're not organized like flikr or photobucket will do.

asha said...

Hey, thanks for the feedback. Damn ads. Yes, yes. They "need to get paid" but hell. I post my photos for free. Can't they figure out a way to make money off of me without slapping their damn ads over the content I LET them host? Yes. LET THEM host. Otherwise, what have they got? Oh that's right...ads.... i.e. NOTHING.



asha said...

So, all your past photos are still there? Hmmm... so many of mine are gone. It's depressing. It could be that the bullshit google+ albums they created FOR me, without my permission or doing, are set to private rather than public. There's a day's work sorting that out. Anyway, thanks. If you have other thoughts on this, I'd love hearing them.

Roy said...

I've been thinking about the whole ad thing, since it seems to be getting worse and worse. My first thought was that, yes, they have place a monetary value on my viewing ads. I can pay no money but see ads, or I can pay X number of dollars to them and see no ads. So, the value of my seeing ads is X number of dollars. Therefore, I do "pay" them to create web sites. (The universal royal "them.) So, I should have some say-so about the site, or at the very least, the right to complain.
Additionally, yes, because no one would look at ads on purpose, or with no other context, content has a value, perhaps calculated with the total ad revenue in mind.

Roy said...

Hurray for self-righteous, entitled empowerment!! But seriously . . .

asha said...

Exactly and yes! Seriously!