Photobucket

[Scalper]

Photobucket is at it again I stop using them a while ago. They have ruined all my old post with huge water marks and now they keep sending me stupid warning emails. When will they stop ? 

They have ruined a lot of old post attached to this furom hey have should of grandfathered all the old pics before the change 

[Ace-Garageguy]

Some folks get mad when I say this, but I really don't care.

I was a paid user of P-bucket from the beginning. Because I ran an ad-blocker to keep from having to listen to the intrusive drivel from the marketing mavens, and to speed uploads, I realized they wouldn't be making any money on me from advertising.

So I got a paid membership. I never lost access to any of my pix, and it's still working just dandy.

The moral of the story is: if you get something for free, don't feel cheated when it turns out to be worth exactly what you paid for it.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Ace-Garageguy

[peteski]

You can participate in this forum for free, and you can upload photos to the forum for free. No need for paid photo hosting solution for me.  Plus, as a bonus, the photos in my posts will never show up as missing (due to a 3rd part photo hosting problem, or me canceling the subscription).  My photos will show up in my posts for as long as the forum is up. Can't ask for anything more.

[LDO]

On 9/6/2019 at 2:25 PM, Ace-Garageguy said:

Some folks get mad when I say this, but I really don't care...

The moral of the story is: if you get something for free, don't feel cheated when it turns out to be worth exactly what you paid for it.

Preach it! I’ve had a paid Fotki account for about 19 years. I get what I pay for. I also visit sites about hunting and target shooting. I am amazed at classified ads for $15,000 double rifles without pics. They can buy a rifle that costs as much as a car, but can’t pay for a photo hosting account? Gimme a break. 

 

[Force]

I get the messages too, but I stopped using Photobucket when they started to ask horrendous money for their service about 3 years ago and went over to a paid Fotki account,  Fotki was much cheaper at the time and easier to use and I have never looked back.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Force

[mrmike]

I stopped using Photobucket when they tried to extort (it's a strong word, but I think it applies here) $400 a year for third party hosting.  I cancelled both of my accounts with them.  Now they have their logo over the many pictures they host on their site and it ruins viewing the pictures.  And, they are still slow loading.   I have found a better site for hosting my pictures when I need it.

[Ace-Garageguy]

44 minutes ago, mrmike said:

I stopped using Photobucket when they tried to extort (it's a strong word, but I think it applies here) $400 a year for third party hosting. 

I had a $2.99/month account when P-bucket tried to "extort" money from the free users. They never tried to "extort" money from the paying users, my account still costs the same...and there's no watermark over my pix. Using an ad-blocker, the site loads plenty fast enough.

Like I've said...people who want something for nothing shouldn't whinge when they get what they pay for.

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Ace-Garageguy

[Snake45]

I notice that my avatar on another forum (where it's hosted by PukeBucket) is now blurred. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, Snake45 said:

I notice that my avatar on another forum (where it's hosted by PukeBucket) is now blurred. 

P-bucket's not perfect, but then again, I can't think of any web thingamajig that is. Occasionally, my own photos have been blurred, and I was concerned.

It turned out to be a temporary glitch. And though P-bucket has their fair share, pretty much any web thingy I use with enough frequency to be aware of its shortcomings will have the odd hiccup, or downright idiotic functionality issues.

Again, if somebody isn't paying, I don't see much validity in griping.

Kinda like...hmmmmmm...if I work on somebody's car for free just to help him out in an emergency, there's no guarantee the repair will last forever (though God knows, some fools will try to get one).

[mrmike]

4 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I had a $2.99/month account when P-bucket tried to "extort" money from the free users. They never tried to "extort" money from the paying users, my account still costs the same...and there's no watermark over my pix. Using an ad-blocker, the site loads plenty fast enough.

Like I've said...people who want something for nothing shouldn't whinge when they get what they pay for.

 

 

 

I'm not whining, just stating a fact.  I had been with Photobucket for ten years and yes it was a "free" account, but when the uploading process starts slowing down and then I am locked out of my accounts with no way to download my pictures, that's what I refer to as "extortion".  Call it what you want, I know otherwise.  BTW, I have all my pictures backed up on discs so I really didn't lose anything.  If Photobucket wants to charge for their services, then that is their right to do so, but it should be reasonable.  I will use and promote another service even if it is free.  

[Ace-Garageguy]

2 hours ago, mrmike said:

...I had been with Photobucket for ten years and yes it was a "free" account, but when the uploading process starts slowing down and then I am locked out of my accounts with no way to download my pictures, that's what I refer to as "extortion".  Call it what you want, I know otherwise.  BTW, I have all my pictures backed up on discs so I really didn't lose anything.  If Photobucket wants to charge for their services, then that is their right to do so, but it should be reasonable.  I will use and promote another service even if it is free.  

All I've ever paid was $2.99 per month. Since 2012. Until today. Pretty "reasonable", if you ask me. P-bucket never tried to "extort" anything from paid users. They just wanted to clear out the deadbeats. At the time of the "extortion" debacle, there were so many free users running ad-blockers that P-bucket was losing money. Part of the "free" deal is that people would at least be exposed to the ads. Ads blocked, zero income for P-bucket, but their expenses continue. Is that fair?

I agree the way they handled the whole thing was heavy-handed and reprehensible, it enraged me at the time because so much high-quality web content just disappeared...but one more time, people who weren't trying to get something-for-nothing didn't get "screwed".

Here's another comparison: let your engine run out of oil. It blows up. It costs several thousand dollars to get it replaced. Blame the car. But keeping watch on the oil level and maybe adding one quart for $3 each month would have prevented the problem.

And of course, not being a moron, I have all my photos stored safely on my own equipment too.

Anyone who stores all their data on the web with no hard backup is a fool.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Ace-Garageguy

[martinfan5]

I kicked the Bucket and took my photos( well most of them, I still have one account I use for storage only) and started to use my Flickr account I had for years for hosting, but they pulled a Photobucket last year, so I took those photos and went over to Fotki.    Pricing, they were the best option for what you got in terms of storage at the time.

[Tom Geiger]

Yup, always a paid Fotki user, both my personal and club/NNL East accounts.  Never an issue.

[StevenGuthmiller]

3 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

All I've ever paid was $2.99 per month. Since 2012. Until today. Pretty "reasonable", if you ask me. P-bucket never tried to "extort" anything from paid users. They just wanted to clear out the deadbeats. At the time of the "extortion" debacle, there were so many free users running ad-blockers that P-bucket was losing money. Part of the "free" deal is that people would at least be exposed to the ads. Ads blocked, zero income for P-bucket, but their expenses continue. Is that fair?

I agree the way they handled the whole thing was heavy-handed and reprehensible, it enraged me at the time because so much high-quality web content just disappeared...but one more time, people who weren't trying to get something-for-nothing didn't get "screwed".

Here's another comparison: let your engine run out of oil. It blows up. It costs several thousand dollars to get it replaced. Blame the car. But keeping watch on the oil level and maybe adding one quart for $3 each month would have prevented the problem.

And of course, not being a moron, I have all my photos stored safely on my own equipment too.

Anyone who stores all their data on the web with no hard backup is a fool.

The way that Photobucket handled this was unforgivable under any circumstance.

I wouldn't go back to them now if they paid me $2.99 a month!

It's the principle.

 

I get the fact that they might want to "clear out the deadbeats", but a normal operation that might seek to gain some paying customers instead of alienating everyone might want to offer a reasonable deal instead of threatening to hold their photos hostage unless they are paid an exorbitant ransom!

 

I have no issue with paying for a service, and I do with Fotki.

But after the stunt that Photobucket pulled, they're dead to me under any and all circumstances.

They get no second chances with me.

There are plenty of fish in the sea, as they say.

 

 

 

Steve

 

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by StevenGuthmiller

[Brian Austin]

Anybody remember Photopoint?

A paid service that went kaput.

 

I'm in transition from a free Flickr account to a paint Fotki account (eventually) but I seem to remember they had issues themselves some years ago.

[Ace-Garageguy]

3 minutes ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

The way that Photobucket handled this was unforgivable under any circumstance.

...after the stunt that Photobucket pulled, they're dead to me under any and all circumstances.

They get no second chances with me.

I agree the way they handled it was reprehensible, and unforgivable. Thing is, because I was a paid user, I never lost access, never had to re-load all my stuff somewhere else, so I have no need to "forgive" them, or give them a "second chance". They're still on their first chance with me, and they haven't even demanded I pay the current lowest-tier rate yet.

I'm not going to waste hours and hours and hours and hours of my life reloading all my stuff somewhere else just because a bunch of freeloaders got dumped rudely and had their images blocked.

Yes, P-bucket was WRONG in the way they handled it. But it's not my dog...because I always paid... and self-immolation just isn't my gig.

[Maindrian Pace]

I used Photobucket for free until 2013, when I started a build thread here that got very popular. When my free megabytes got used up and nobody could see my pictures until the next month, I started paying for the service so I could make updates to the thread. The price was $25/year, and it still is. It has never gone up, and they never approached me asking for more money. It's on an auto-pay arrangement, and it has never stopped working - no watermarks either. I guess I got grandfathered in.

[Ace-Garageguy]

15 minutes ago, Brian Austin said:

Anybody remember Photopoint?

A paid service that went kaput.

 

I'm in transition from a free Flickr account to a paint Fotki account (eventually) but I seem to remember they had issues themselves some years ago.

If you only post here, you don't need a hosting service. The good folks who run this site have taken on the task of hosting the photos...for THIS site...themselves.

Kinda the opposite way of doing business from the old P-bucket.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Ace-Garageguy

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 minute ago, Maindrian Pace said:

I used Photobucket for free until 2013, when I started a build thread here that got very popular. When my free megabytes got used up and nobody could see my pictures until the next month, I started paying for the service so I could make updates to the thread. The price was $25/year, and it still is. It has never gone up, and they never approached me asking for more money. It's on an auto-pay arrangement, and it has never stopped working - no watermarks either. I guess I got grandfathered in.

Yup. You got a better deal than I did because I went monthly, and still do.

The management does seem to appreciate the old paid users.

[Maindrian Pace]

Yes they do, so no reason for us to go elsewhere for now. The interface can still be a little clunky, but hey, it works; so I'm not complaining.

[StevenGuthmiller]

9 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I agree the way they handled it was reprehensible, and unforgivable. Thing is, because I was a paid user, I never lost access, never had to re-load all my stuff somewhere else, so I have no need to "forgive" them, or give them a "second chance". They're still on their first chance with me, and they haven't even demanded I pay the current lowest-tier rate yet.

I'm not going to waste hours and hours and hours and hours of my life reloading all my stuff somewhere else just because a bunch of freeloaders got dumped rudely and had their images blocked.

Yes, P-bucket was WRONG in the way they handled it. But it's not my dog...because I always paid... and self-immolation just isn't my gig.

It was unforgivable because it was an act of bad faith to begin with, regardless of whether I was affected or not.

I have all of my photos on my hard drive so it didn't affect me in the least.

I could care less what they do with my photos that they still have.

When a company.....any company, starts disregarding and gouging patrons, whether they were paid customers to that point or not, it shows me that they have zero respect for anyone.

Respect is a two way street, and Photobucket has shown no regard for anyone except themselves with this stunt.

No disrespect Bill, because I love you like a brother, but I think your opinion of them might be different if they hit you up for their $400.00 annual premium tomorrow.

 

 

Steve

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 minute ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

..Respect is a two way street, and Photobucket has shown no regard for anyone except themselves with this stunt.

No disrespect Bill, because I love you like a brother, but I think your opinion of them might be different if they hit you up for their $400.00 annual premium tomorrow.

I said I agree with you about the reprehensible part, even though it didn't affect me personally. Anybody who wants to waste their time is free to go back and read my irate posts about their conduct at the time too...even though it didn't affect me personally.

And yes, I'd be smoking mad if they held me up for $400 annually tomorrow...especially when everyone else using the tier I do is only paying about $84. 

[StevenGuthmiller]

1 minute ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I said I agree with you about the reprehensible part, even though it didn't affect me personally. Anybody who wants to waste their time is free to go back and read my irate posts about their conduct at the time too...even though it didn't affect me personally.

And yes, I'd be smoking mad if they held me up for $400 annually tomorrow...especially when everyone else using the tier I do is only paying about $84. 

I got you Bill.

Just wanted to voice my opinion on the subject.

 

The practices of a particular business interest me almost as much as the product does.

If the "reprehensible" acts outweigh the usefulness of the product, I'm out.

In this circumstance, it was a no-brainer for me.

 

And to compound the situation, now they have the gall to send constant emails to all of the "non-paying" potential customers that THEY alienated and now want them to come back to them?

That would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous!

 

 

 

Steve

[ChrisBcritter]

Only problem I have with Fotki is that since a couple months ago, I keep getting blocked images that lead to false warnings:

Guess it's an XP thing; I just end up opening them in new tabs and then reload the forum page.

[Belugawrx]

Well I caved, and restarted my Fbucket account for only 75 bucks a year...

All of my pics are clear and free of all watermarks, after a couple of emails to ensure I was who I said I was.

Big difference between 399.00 a year and 75.00