PhotoBucket

[Hallabutt]

Sorry folks, but I plead ignorance, not hard because I know little about this computer stuff, but I finally took the time to figure out why, many responder's, photo images failed to appear. I had never heard of PhotoBucket, but I don't usually post pictures and have to get help every time I do post. Not receiving a picture often leaves the whole thread useless. I understand that users must pay an additional $39 dollars to use the service.

I have several questions. Does everyone who uses PhotoBucket realize that they are not communicating fully with all of the forum members. Second question, if they are aware of the problem why do they continue to use the service? Third question, is there a solution that has surfaced that would allow receipt of photos without having to pay the $39 monthly fee? which I refuse to do!

[Skip Lackie]

Good point. Those constant reminders from Photobucket are a bit of pain.

[Jerry Forrester]

Sorry folks, but I plead ignorance, not hard because I know little about this computer stuff, but I finally took the time to figure out why, many responder's, photo images failed to appear. I had never heard of PhotoBucket, but I don't usually post pictures and have to get help every time I do post. Not receiving a picture often leaves the whole thread useless. I understand that users must pay an additional $39 dollars to use the service.

I have several questions. Does everyone who uses PhotoBucket realize that they are not communicating fully with all of the forum members. Second question, if they are aware of the problem why do they continue to use the service? Third question, is there a solution that has surfaced that would allow receipt of photos without having to pay the $39 monthly fee? which I refuse to do!

https://imgur.com/

It's free. And that's what us Studebaker people like.

[Dick Steinkamp]

If you google "free image hosting services" you get lots and lots. Here are what "Lifewire" considers the 11 best...

https://www.lifewire.com/free-image-...-sites-3486329

If you have pics on PhotoBucket now (as I do), it is relatively easy to download them to your computer and then to either store them on your computer or upload them to another image hosting site (I now use Flickr). I've done this to replace photos originally hosted by PhotoBucket in my blogs including my Stude related ones...


Wagonaire - Installing the Windshield

Studebaker Sliding Roof Wagonaire Headliner

Stude Ute

[rockne10]

Any time I want to share an image I have stored in Photobucket I now open it and save it to a dedicated flash drive, so they don't hog up my hard drive. Then I delete them from Photobucket. Still can't post them to "Stove Huggers", as I haven't set up a new image host yet.

[sweetolbob]

I just found out that if you have a newer Android, I have the new Pixel 2XL, that Google will let you store all your photos at full resolution on their servers at no cost until at least 2022. At that time they will apparently resort to a compressed version like all other sites.

This is a shot taken a couple of days ago and downloaded from Google. I'm not sure how you change size but it looks like another good option to me.




Bob

[Xcalibur]

Photobucket was once THE place for hosting pix. I gave up on it some time ago as it became more convoluted and constantly grubbing for money and pushing all their great new features. There are others out there. I just decided to give imgur at shot.

[wittsend]

... Does everyone who uses PhotoBucket realize that they are not communicating fully with all of the forum members. Second question, if they are aware of the problem why do they continue to use the service? ...

My suspicion is that some do not. But, most are likely frustrated with Photobucket and the time it would take to go back and reassign the missing photos to ALL the posts they have ever made is daunting. And I think that fact is what PB was counting on. Basically their pictures are "hostage" to the photo links they set long ago. And if you don't want to find a new "free" service, upload all the pictures - again, then dink their way through YEARS of posts to to re-associated the pictures - why you simple 'pay up.'

[ddub]

Interesting how we, and I include myself, expect things on the web to be free.

[sweetolbob]

Interesting how we, and I include myself, expect things on the web to be free.

I'm not sure I expect things to be free but at $39/mo to be able to host some pictures to me is exorbitant. I could setup my own website for a few bucks a month but Google has offered me a chance to store an unlimited amount of pictures in uncompressed form in return for using them to help develop their face recognition technology. I call that a win/win not free.

Bob

[Noxnabaker]

A friend of mine who has his own computer company said to me:
"If it's on internet it should be free, otherwise keep looking, there's always free sites."
I reckon it's relativly so...

[wittsend]

I'm not sure I expect things to be free but at $39/mo to be able to host some pictures to me is exorbitant. I could setup my own website for a few bucks a month but Google has offered me a chance to store an unlimited amount of pictures in uncompressed form in return for using them to help develop their face recognition technology. I call that a win/win not free.

Bob

I agree with Bob. It would be like going down to the public library and finding it cost $39 a month to check out book/videos etc. . Now my library does rent the latest books and videos but it doesn't cost $39 a month for that. It is like $1 for most rented materials. I'd think if Photobucket said free up to a point and then $3, $5 a month or something similar (reasonable) then most people would have still grumbled, but not been irate at what Bob rightly states "Exorbitant."

This action by Photobucket has a bit of the "company store - held hostage" aspect to it. And in a way I hope it comes back to bite them because if it doesn't I think 'the internet as we knew it' will not be the future.

[studegary]

I agree with Bob. It would be like going down to the public library and finding it cost $39 a month to check out book/videos etc. . Now my library does rent the latest books and videos but it doesn't cost $39 a month for that. It is like $1 for most rented materials. I'd think if Photobucket said free up to a point and then $3, $5 a month or something similar (reasonable) then most people would have still grumbled, but not been irate at what Bob rightly states "Exorbitant."

This action by Photobucket has a bit of the "company store - held hostage" aspect to it. And in a way I hope it comes back to bite them because if it doesn't I think 'the internet as we knew it' will not be the future.

I don't think that the public library is a good example. I know that it is a major line item on my annual property tax. I like our local library and use it occasionally, but it is paid for by taxpayers (as well as fees) in nearly hidden ways.

[Skip Lackie]

Several years ago I established a free Photobucket account. Life interfered for a few years and I stopped using it -- to the point that I forgot that I ever had it. I went years without ever hearing anything from Photobucket -- until a couple of months ago. All of a sudden I am getting several emails from them a day touting their many fine features. They must be getting desperate.

[8E45E]

My suspicion is that some do not. But, most are likely frustrated with Photobucket and the time it would take to go back and reassign the missing photos to ALL the posts they have ever made is daunting. And I think that fact is what PB was counting on. Basically their pictures are "hostage" to the photo links they set long ago. And if you don't want to find a new "free" service, upload all the pictures - again, then dink their way through YEARS of posts to to re-associated the pictures - why you simple 'pay up.'

That's the upsetting part. Some excellent posts with descriptive photos were made over the years here on the Forum.

Craig