New Photobucket charges back in July ?

Discussion in 'News' started by JDMvW, Feb 24, 2018.

  1. is not the only place where the dead walk...
  2. I don't understand the question. I used Photobucket in the past to contribute half a dozen pictures to some online discussions I no longer care about. If they want money, I understand their feeling because I 'd like to have some too... The only hope I have is for website admins to find a way to work around this issue by at least eliminating the Photobucket zombie ad boards.
  3. Unfortunately, it's a done deal and they're unrelenting. They're also effectively dying from what I can see.

    As a long time Photobucket user, it really rubbed me the wrong way as there was essentially no warning and the "ransom" was quite high at I think $400 a year. Had they been a bit more reasonable, I might have paid it, but I wans't paying that much.

    So, like many folks, I have a long trail of broken links in my wake and no good way to fix it.
  4. paul ron

    paul ron NYC

    thats the problem with storing your photos in someone elses house. people are being lured in and trust their pix are safe and belong to them, but in reality, the site your pix n info are on has you hostage. cloud users will be very suprised when clear skys come.

    a hiking club i belong to lost all their archives and important member lists in the cloud. where did it go? the cloud said they are not responsable for your lost luggage... and thats that!

    what happens when clouds start upping their price?... youre going to move all that data?... to where? who owns the information then?

    my negatives n my private business are safe n sound in my house!

    Moving On and PapaTango like this.
  5. PapaTango

    PapaTango Itinerant Philosopher

    Cloud this, cloud that. Another stupid label to make something common and well know sound trendy and exciting. The "cloud" is nothing but the internet and the server's connected to it. When something is "on or in the cloud" it is living somewhere like Amazon, Google, or another provider with a server farm's racks. Just like from the beginning when anything was stored on someone elses server.

    The only difference is when one's actual 'operating' system or other service is functioning there. Yes, this is called a web host if for internet--but the difference is scalability. At the end of the day it's all about your stuff, programs, and business on someone elses equipment. It's really too expensive to host your own anymore--so anyone who runs a service and does not have an archive of their website (amazon has really cheap rates on glacial storage) is an idiot.
    paul ron likes this.
  6. PapaTango

    PapaTango Itinerant Philosopher

    Photo Net had a brain fart.

    Nothing to see here.
    paul ron likes this.
  7. The discussion above answers my query. Thanks.

    This sort of situation is one of the reasons I do almost all my backups on my own hardware.

    But I know that in the event of a nuclear strike on Southern Illinois, I would thus lose it all.

    Of course in that case, access to my archive might be moot :rolleyes:
    DavidTriplett likes this.
  8. Although, think of what all your photos might mean to the zombies of the future, once we've killed ourselves off . . .
  9. Back up to local hardware first, the cloud 2nd. One backup is not enough.

    Back when I was a college student in the 80's I had a temp job over the summer working for a construction company. But the crew I was on actually did destruction. We tore a burnt out rambler down almost all by hand. It was the worst job I ever had. The house was nothing but a shell when we started and the shell was gone when we were done. Just the basement was left. It was surreal walking around the inside of it on that first day. If you've never seen a melted old style TV set, it is something to behold.

    Anyway, during the first day of shoveling up all the debris that had fallen on the first floor, I hit something that was a little more solid than what I had expected. It was a stack of photo albums. A lot of the photos were gone of course but some had survived. The owners very very happy to get them back.

    I'm not trying to make a case for film over digital. What I'm saying is that fire destroyed pretty much everything. That experience taught me that you can lose everything in a heartbeat. You need to store things at home and offsite if you really want to keep them safe.
  10. paul ron

    paul ron NYC

    you're absolutely right about losing everything in a heart beat. although your digital stuff will just outdate itself due to the technology to read it. im also finding some pictures are degrading just by sitting around... cant figure out why. ill post an example later.

    negatives are in my fire safe rated for documents!
  11. They sent me an email yesterday stating that they had restored my photos after I and others refused to be extorted w/ their crazy sudden pricing change. They also apologized about holding the photos as ransom until we paid up. I don't trust them, and would never buy a subscription, even at their new low prices.

    I use imgur now and it works fine (and it's free), but learned my lesson from the photobucket disaster. I very seldom post anything online anymore, which has saved me a lot of time not having to fiddle w/ resizing stuff and loading up files.

    Wow, Fox "News" had a story that was actually true? That's like one of those blue moon things.
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2018

Share This Page