If you have photos on Photobucket

[RFNK]

You're so hip Peter!

Rick

[Mark Bowdidge]

Interesting about your photo and how its compatible with FB. I just tried it and it worked also.



Just got of the phone with a computer whiz mate of mine and he feels that FB will be bringing out a new and better version of a forum platform, whereby business/ companies/ users can easily transfer photo's/ blogs from one platform (facebook page) to another (facebook forum) with a click of a button. Looking forward to that.

[jpatrick]

Some of my thoughts regarding all this:
1. My photobucket photos still show up. I don't know why this is, when so many others' have tubed.

2. I don't do Facebook. I don't want to. I tried many years ago and found it to be intrusive. I can't visit most facebook pages without the annoying popup thing telling me to either sign in or sign up. I don't think Facebook is an altruistic organization.

3. I simply do not understand why so many people complain that this forum is clunky when it pertains to posting photos. I have photos on PB, I go there and copy the url, then I paste it into my posting. The process takes an extra step, sure. But it isn't rocket science to figure out how to do it well. As other's have found out, my use of PB is probably going to end soon. I have found many of the suggestions posting here helpful. I'll have to try something else soon, I expect.

4. I used to frequent a home building forum hosted by Fine Homebuilding magazine. They revised their forum by adopting some new software that is not user friendly. What was a relatively easy process to post photos became difficult. Plus, because they had been hosting the photos, they dropped them and the discussions they were posted on. So years of forum "how to" threads were gone. Members fled in droves. This was eight or nine years ago and the forum still hasn't recovered. A shame. What was a pre-eminant place for advice to professionals and do-it-yourselfers is essentially defunct. The magazine never publicly addressed the issue. Now, each time that I open the WB forum I consider it a gift. A little awkwardness in its function is no big deal as far as I'm concerned.

5. If phones are the future for forum posting, please shoot me now. Why would I want to give up my 27" computer screen, multiple windows, and full size keyboard? Frequently, I use an actual camera, not my iPhone, to take photos.

Jeff

[pcford]

It is possible that the reluctance to host useful images is due to concern that the management would suffer excess bandwidth charges. However, there are hosting services which advertise unlimited bandwidth. Also image size could be restricted to a reasonable size.

[sdowney717]

I think I found the secret for google photo direct posting, can you see these google photo now?

The secret way is
right click the google photo, copy image address
in wb forum click the insert picture
deselct retrieve remotely

paste in the link, then here it is...
add ?.jpg to the end of the pasted link, just questionmark.jpg onto the end.

And it now works, in Firefox.

[sdowney717]

[Garret]

It is possible that the reluctance to host useful images is due to concern that the management would suffer excess bandwidth charges. However, there are hosting services which advertise unlimited bandwidth. Also image size could be restricted to a reasonable size.

There have been a number of discussions about it here.

1) commercial quality storage is way more expensive than what a home user might want.
2) bandwidth is an issue - it'd have to be hosted somewhere other than Brooklin
3) hosting for the space/bandwidth required is not cheap (the above guesstimate of 150K for each image is way low - probably at least 5 times that)
4) there are legal issues - especially around copyrights. Many copyright holders have gone after the site hosting the pics, rather than the person who has uploaded them. A single suit could become very, very expensive for WB.

[Peerie Maa]

I think I found the secret for google photo direct posting, can you see these google photo now?

The secret way is
right click the google photo, copy image address
in wb forum click the insert picture
deselct retrieve remotely

paste in the link, then here it is...
add ?.jpg to the end of the pasted link, just questionmark.jpg onto the end.

And it now works, in Firefox.

Apparently not for me.
I'll stick with Postimage.org — free image hosting / image upload for now.

[sdowney717]

Apparently not for me.
I'll stick with Postimage.org — free image hosting / image upload for now.

It might be your trying to post a picture which was not shared. The google photos I posted I had in shared albums.

I will try with an unshared photo.

[sdowney717]

I know I never shared this google photo, so here is another test.
Right click on photo, then select copy image address in google photos
I added ?.jpg to the copied link when posted here.
Can you see this?

I just checked after posting with chrome, and I see it in firefox also.

[The Bigfella]

There's an explanation of things on Pukebucket now. Apparently, as a plus account member in good standing as of June '17, I get 3rd party hosting until the end of 2018. I guess that means they get another year's fees from me, should I choose to continue.

[sdowney717]

For me the advantage of google photos is my phone pics are automatically uploaded everytime I take a picture or video.
Postimage is also good, but to use it, I have to download the photo from google photos, then upload to postimage, which is more effort.

[Peerie Maa]

It might be your trying to post a picture which was not shared. The google photos I posted I had in shared albums.

I will try with an unshared photo.

Could be.
Google has uploaded every image that I ever put on my hard drive, it will take too long sorting them into albums for me to bother with it. OK for a back up store, but I'll stick with PostImage.

[sdowney717]

Apparently not for me.
I'll stick with Postimage.org — free image hosting / image upload for now.

I examined your picture link and it seems way to short. My picture text links are really long ones.

[sdowney717]

Could be.
Google has uploaded every image that I ever put on my hard drive, it will take too long sorting them into albums for me to bother with it. OK for a back up store, but I'll stick with PostImage.

I was able to post an unshared non album photo here so my idea was wrong, the one with the fishing pier.

[WI-Tom]

I know I never shared this google photo, so here is another test.
Right click on photo, then select copy image address in google photos
I added ?.jpg to the copied link when posted here.
Can you see this?

Yes, I see the fishing pier photo just fine.

Tom

[Sailor's Brother]

A photo from my Facebook page.

So maybe it's just me but I am not able to figure out the facebook post thing (a possibility my work firewall is the blame?) how are you finding the URL for the photo? in facebook (using IE... I know... work thing again) I open a picture I have in my own album, and it opens in a pop-up window... at the bottom I have "options" and one of those is get link

but then when I go to post it I click on the "insert image" as part of the WBF tools select the "from URL" uncheck the Retreive file reference locally box and quick as a flash... I get




so what am I doing wrong???

[webishop14]

I'm using Google photo as my new hosting site. I've just begun uploading pics -- I haven't even bothered with creating an album, so my pics are all in one unnamed album. I first tried just right clicking on the photos on the page, but that did not work when attempting to paste the URL in the insert picture tool on the WB page. What does work for me is to left click on the picture I want -- it then displays just that picture in the window. From there I can right click, select copy picture location, and then proceed with the standard WB insert picture protocol. This has worked for me. In addition, from that single-photo page, there are arrows I can click to move through the pictures in the unnamed album while still in single-picture mode. This makes it easy for me to upload a handful of pictures to the WB site, since the pics I'd be uploading would all be clustered together in time and/or task.

Another note on using Google Photo: I have sized the pictures I upload using Irfanview.exe. I first resize the photos -- for landscape format photos, I find I like setting x to 800 pixels. That provides a good wide view on the forum. It's wider than what the site recommends, but when I go to save the photo locally, I save it (I keep to the JPG format) at only 35% of data. This provides a "thin" picture, datawise, and reduces the file size to (usually) around 800 kb, yet the picture is visually unaffected by this economy. Yes, this requires more fiddling on the computer, but the end result is a photo (I can also crop and play with contrast and hue intensities, etc) that I like and one that can be easily uploaded to any website.

I'm using Google right now because I haven't the time to bother with creating another web site (I used to have one, but let it go due to lack of interest). I may create a new website down the road, but I've got some boats to build first.

Bill

[pcford]

Just to make sure everyone understands, all photos @ PhotoBucket are still there & you can go to PB & view and/or download them. The only thing that has changed (& obviously not for everyone) is the ability to link them. For sure, having to move them somewhere else & relink is a giant PITA!

There are several issues with WB hosting images:

1) cost of servers to hold them - yes I know regular computers & hard disks are cheap, but commercial quality is way more expensive (easily 5x the cost) + they have a 5-7 year lifespan. Servers & storage to hold all the pics here could easily cost 10-20K US - very possibly more.

2) Then there's the issue of bandwidth. I'm guessing that Brooklin, ME doesn't have the needed backbone connections to the internet - so it'd mean they'd have to host their servers somewhere else & pay pretty hefty monthly fees.

3) copyrights: There have been instances of copyright holders going after the place that hosts pictures - even though the pics were put on the server by a subscriber or whatever. There may be more clarity in this nowadays, but there is lingering concern.

4) Adding more servers means maintaining them: OS updates, security, etc. etc. Either more employee time or hiring it done - so more $.

1) Enterprise level duty hard drive...about $50 per TB. As I wrote above. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...9SIAAEE3ZC2435

2) There are hosting services with unlimited bandwidth...I presume it's what the porn sites use. Why couldn't a server be found for boat porn? Like "unlimited" cellphone service, there are ways hosting companies dodge around...like limiting speed. It would take some time to find a good match but it can be done.

3) I believe this is pretty much settled law at this point. No liability.

4) This one together with your earlier post about about your concern about moving the server out of Brooklin, Maine suggests to me that you believe that WB's online assets are hosted by WB in some obscure corner of their office. This is highly unlikely. I run a few websites and they are hosting by pair.com in Pittsburgh. Excellent company.

By the way, I said a common size for images here is about 150kbtyes. The pier image above is 180kbytes.

[pcford]

There have been a number of discussions about it here.

1) commercial quality storage is way more expensive than what a home user might want.
Here is a 4TB...enterprise duty rated...for $50 a TB...as I stated.
2) bandwidth is an issue - it'd have to be hosted somewhere other than Brooklin
Huh?
3) hosting for the space/bandwidth required is not cheap (the above guesstimate of 150K for each image is way low - probably at least 5 times that)
See below.
4) there are legal issues - especially around copyrights. Many copyright holders have gone after the site hosting the pics, rather than the person who has uploaded them. A single suit could become very, very expensive for WB.
As I understand it, this is settled law at this point. Nonissue.
Image below is 180k

Just got off the phone with hosting service...will report findings within the next several hours...in short...there is an answer.

[webishop14]

Just to make sure everyone understands, all photos @ PhotoBucket are still there & you can go to PB & view and/or download them.

Not quite the case, I find. Yes, the thumbnail shots are present and available. They don't do much good, though in way of downloading and/or otherwise posting to other fora.

I tried clicking on a thumbnail to bring up the actual photo: The photo may well still be on PB, but all I get is the blocking slide informing me that I need to update my account.

Perhaps this is because I haven't unlinked all my photos in my thread. I intend to go through replacing them sequentially, not by batch ops. I may update my entire thread before PB bellies up, but I hold out no hope.

[webishop14]

PB is tedious to work with. I unlinked about 5 photos and were able to move them around and replace them into my thread. But three more pics that I had unlinked (deleted the links, actually) are still being blocked. I've no idea how long it'll take (if ever) to unblock those pics. I've almost recovered my lost pictures -- I think these are the last few.

Since Google is more than just a picture hosting site, I think the pics will last a bit longer there, but I expect I will ultimately end up hosting my own site. That way, should I wish to be rude to myself, I'll have deserved it.

[RFNK]

1) Enterprise level duty hard drive...about $50 per TB. As I wrote above. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...9SIAAEE3ZC2435

2) There are hosting services with unlimited bandwidth...I presume it's what the porn sites use. Why couldn't a server be found for boat porn? Like "unlimited" cellphone service, there are ways hosting companies dodge around...like limiting speed. It would take some time to find a good match but it can be done.

3) I believe this is pretty much settled law at this point. No liability.

4) This one together with your earlier post about about your concern about moving the server out of Brooklin, Maine suggests to me that you believe that WB's online assets are hosted by WB in some obscure corner of their office. This is highly unlikely. I run a few websites and they are hosting by pair.com in Pittsburgh. Excellent company.

By the way, I said a common size for images here is about 150kbtyes. The pier image above is 180kbytes.

If WB is hosting, they can put whatever limit they like on image size.

Rick

[pcford]

If WB is hosting, they can put whatever limit they like on image size.

Rick

True. But that does not solve the problem.

[Garret]

1) Enterprise level duty hard drive...about $50 per TB. As I wrote above. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...9SIAAEE3ZC2435

2) There are hosting services with unlimited bandwidth...I presume it's what the porn sites use. Why couldn't a server be found for boat porn? Like "unlimited" cellphone service, there are ways hosting companies dodge around...like limiting speed. It would take some time to find a good match but it can be done.

3) I believe this is pretty much settled law at this point. No liability.

4) This one together with your earlier post about about your concern about moving the server out of Brooklin, Maine suggests to me that you believe that WB's online assets are hosted by WB in some obscure corner of their office. This is highly unlikely. I run a few websites and they are hosting by pair.com in Pittsburgh. Excellent company.

By the way, I said a common size for images here is about 150kbtyes. The pier image above is 180kbytes.

I just checked MS Azure - Amazon, etc. will be similar.

120 GB storage is ~ $220US/month, 240GB is 440. That is not including any software to handle accepting images* & I have no idea about large #'s of people accessing it.

I am not an attorney, so I cannot speak to the legal issues - I'm only reporting what I've been told.

* tech savvy folks can handle FTP access. Even that requires setting up rights for each individual user - so they only see their own folder. Who's gonna set that up & maintain it? What happens when a person leaves the forum? What happens when they give out their login info & someone hacks the server? Finally. I don't believe the vast majority of folks here want to deal with (for example) FileZilla & then manually getting the URL of the file & putting it into the forum software.

[Garret]

Not quite the case, I find. Yes, the thumbnail shots are present and available. They don't do much good, though in way of downloading and/or otherwise posting to other fora.

I tried clicking on a thumbnail to bring up the actual photo: The photo may well still be on PB, but all I get is the blocking slide informing me that I need to update my account.

Perhaps this is because I haven't unlinked all my photos in my thread. I intend to go through replacing them sequentially, not by batch ops. I may update my entire thread before PB bellies up, but I hold out no hope.

Open an album - or if you have no named albums, all your pics are in one. On the lower right is a link to Download Album. Click it & after a while (minutes) your browser will prompt you to save a zip file. Save it to disk & inside it will be every pic - at the size you uploaded.

I have plenty of linked pics & they all downloaded fine.

[MattSplatt]

I revisited this problem today. Someone has created a fix which is free/affordable.

https://fixphotobucket.com/

I am not affiliated, etc. You copy the PB URLs into his system and his system retrieves the file, hosts it elsewhere and gives you a new URL. He's built a whole new image hosting system which appears to be optional, but I guess if you have tons of stuff it'd be fair to sign up for his paid system.

[Garret]

I revisited this problem today. Someone has created a fix which is free/affordable.

https://fixphotobucket.com/

I am not affiliated, etc. You copy the PB URLs into his system and his system retrieves the file, hosts it elsewhere and gives you a new URL. He's built a whole new image hosting system which appears to be optional, but I guess if you have tons of stuff it'd be fair to sign up for his paid system.

Interesting & I like his attitude. Thanks for the link.

[Padre Island]

I believe the best solution is for the owners of this forum to provide sufficient storage capacity so that photos can be posted directly on the forum. Many other forums I subscribe to, one being benzworld.org, do this without issue.

If this forum continues to be permanently devoid of most of it's pictures it will become practically useless to many of us.

[MattSplatt]

The guy who created fixphotobucket.com (see two posts back) mentions in his FAQ there is an avenue for forum admins to fix their whole site by using his service programmatically. Perhaps this is a possibility for WBF admins. Maybe they could make a deal with him to use his new companion service https://imgzeit.com/ to host pics.

As others have mentioned, hosting images on a forum of this size is a non-trivial problem. WBF may not want to mess about outside the built-in capabilities of vBulletin.

ETA. I have contacted WBF admins with this info.

[Larks]

I believe the best solution is for the owners of this forum to provide sufficient storage capacity so that photos can be posted directly on the forum. Many other forums I subscribe to, one being benzworld.org, do this without issue.

If this forum continues to be permanently devoid of most of it's pictures it will become practically useless to many of us.

I tend to agree.

This forum has been a great success but I’d attribute most of that to our ability to share our build/repair/refit/launch/purchase/sailing/holiday/interesting photos for others to benefit from, either simply through interest or by learning from others experiences.

Without the ability to easily and freely share photos the forum looses a huge amount of appeal and I can’t see it being anywhere near as successful in the future.

[pcford]

I believe the best solution is for the owners of this forum to provide sufficient storage capacity so that photos can be posted directly on the forum. Many other forums I subscribe to, one being benzworld.org, do this without issue.

If this forum continues to be permanently devoid of most of it's pictures it will become practically useless to many of us.

Yes of course.

I use pair.com to host a few websites. They are terrific. Support is by bright, native English speaking staff. (What a concept!)
https://www.pair.com/webhosting/shared.html
Please note option 3. Under $20 a month. At 250k per image, If this option were chosen, 1.2 million images a month could be downloaded before the limit is reached. Now, I don't know what kind traffic this site gets (I could find out) but I doubt the actual numbers would challenge these limits.
Pair.com has software already installed that would help in the migration of this forum's software (vbulletin). Also, the database could be left on the current server; in that case, the vbulletin software would just call the database where it is located.

We really need some response from the management to return the forum to useful status.

Those of you with technical ability could run a whois on woodenboat.com in order to reveal contacts.

[MattSplatt]

I certainly would not leave a forum database on the current server and move the frontend somewhere else. If they aren't in the same rack, or at least same data centre it will be very, very slow.

Also, yes, without input from the management there's not much point in us speculating about this other than for the purpose of moving our own images to an independent hosting solution.

[pcford]

I certainly would not leave a forum database on the current server and move the frontend somewhere else. If they aren't in the same rack, or at least same data centre it will be very, very slow.

Also, yes, without input from the management there's not much point in us speculating about this other than for the purpose of moving our own images to an independent hosting solution.

The people at pair suggested the possibility of splitting the forum software and the database. I don't think it would necessarily be slow but I am no expert...

I can't understand why the management has not put an oar in. Maybe if someone would say they saw a female breast....?

[RFNK]

I saw a female breast.

Rick