I don't think I'm alone in having used links to photobucket to host (as best we can in absence of img tag) to link pictures for this site.
Seems they've changed their terms and now want a subscription.
Anyone know more?
|
I must have had 50 emails purporting to be from Photobucket telling me that my account is suspended as my storage is ' over 100% full'..... ??? I only have a dozen or so photos stored, none are important so presumably I can delete them and get back all my storage !
They follow by offering me more storage at a price...in US dollars.
I haven't responded ...might be a scam to get your CC details.
|
Trying to upload some pictures to add to a post here. Last night the Photobucket website was al over the place and googling pulled up several stories about billing. Thinking some more, even if it's true then issue is likely to be IMG tags in sites, not links in posts/emails etc.
Site is back up now but uploads are sticking at 90%.
|
I've always used www.flickr.com/
I used to use imageshack.us/ too at one point
|
Does seem to be about 'deep linking' or whatever it's called these days:-
www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/30/photobucket_charging_400yr_3rdparty_pgs/
|
>> Does seem to be about 'deep linking' or whatever it's called these days:-
>>
>> www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/30/photobucket_charging_400yr_3rdparty_pgs/
Hosting all that stuff and responding to constant calls for it from 3rd party sites must be costing a fortune and PB running at an unsustainable loss.
Suspect the $400 will be reduced to something much smaller, perhaps $50 - $100 and which will seem far more reasonable than if it had been demanded in first place.
|
At present its aimed at embedding, linking still works. And since this site is unable to embed, it'll make precisely no difference at all here.
I can quite understand PB's frustration; they are a pretty advertising obsessed site, and its difficult to advertise on embedded images, Far easier with linked images.
With embedding enabled they are hosting all the images for many other websites, saving them storage money, but then not getting any associated ad revenue in return.
EDIT: in case its not clear, if I embedded an image in this note, then the picture would automatically show up in this post, whereas if I link to it then you simply see a URL that you have to click on, which takes you from this site to the picture on PB's site.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 3 Jul 17 at 11:58
|
>> hosting all the images for many other websites, saving them storage money,
More of an issue with be bandwidth - they are also serving up images to browsers and saving the other site the bandwidth needed. I can see why they need to do this with their main revenue coming from advertising.
|
Photo Bucket - Ted
