Free image hosts

[Betelgeuse1547624869]

For some time now, I've been using min.us to host images that I post in various threads. Today, they announced that they are only going to retain images from non-registered users for 30 days and then they will delete them. So, I'm asking if anyone is familiar with an image hosting site that doesn't have such a rule -- or is that the new standard for such websites? :JC-thinking:

 

I used to use imageshack.us until they started blocking images in certain regions of the world. I'm thinking there just isn't much money for them to make so they have to keep changing things until they find a formula that works for them. Meanwhile, I'm just looking for a new place to share images by remote linking. Any suggestions, gang? :thinking-023:

[Guest]

Sorry. I used Imageshack when I need a host.

[Youri]

I use gaywatch.com, Betel. I used also image.vc, but this site went offline.

[Betelgeuse1547624869]

@Good Ol' TR - Yeah, I used to really like imageshack until they started restricting access. It's no fun my sharing pictures everyone can't see. :(

 

@youri1989 - I checked out gaywatch.com, but it appears you need to sign up for a membership, which I'm unwilling to do. :blush:

 

I guess I'll just have to keep looking. Thanks for the input, though, guys! :grin:

[hager75]

Sorry that I can't help, Betel. I use the ones you do not want, imageshack and gaywatch.

 

:hager75:

[hardrod]

Try imagebam.com Betel...

[Betelgeuse1547624869]

Thanks, Mr. Hardrod, I tried that one, but it doesn't allow me to hotlink to the image, only to a thumbnail (which means there's an extra step people have to take just to see something humourous). I guess I'll just stop posting images here. Thanks to all for the suggestions. :)

[Cool_a]

which means there's an extra step

 

That's no big deal Betel.

 

Keep on sharing matey.

 

 

;)

 

 

 

I would like to help you, but my choice is also ImageShack.

 

 

:cool_a:

[Betelgeuse1547624869]

...my choice is also ImageShack.

 

A few months back, a couple of people made a big fuss because pix on imageshack were all showing up as frogs because the host had restricted their geographical location from accessing them. I responded by tracking down min.us and using them, but that was clearly only a temporary fix, since they're now limiting access to 30 days for everyone. Anyway, I think most people who were using imageshack at that time just stuck with it. I know that one of the people who was complaining hardly ever visits the forum anymore. I think he felt disrespected because it seemed no one cared that he couldn't enjoy the forum like everyone else. That's why I'm resistant to using imageshack again. Or, have they reversed their policy and are now accessible from everywhere again? If so, I'd return to them in a heartbeat. :thinking-023:

[Cool_a]

frogs

 

Okay.

 

Please help me to understand the issue.

 

The only perspective I have is from the perspective of logging in from New Zealand.

 

 

I can see everything posted - no frogs anywhere.

 

 

 

Are you saying that there are, for example, areas of the Freshmen Chat where all that is visible to a whole bunch of new members are frogs ?

 

If that is the case, then I will be the first person hunting out another solution.

 

 

 

 

:)

 

 

 

 

I've never seen or heard any sign of that from the posting in there.

 

 

:cool_a:

[Betelgeuse1547624869]

No, the blocking by imageshack is based on the user's geographic location. It works just fine in my country (and, obviously, in yours), but I know that in some parts of Europe all they can see is frogs. For more details on the subject, review the posting entitled "I think our bgp has been attacked" by briangood in the General Discussion forum. He started the thread on Feb 24, and the last post was on Mar 12 by Evil Dildo. That may help fill you in. ;)

[Cool_a]

Yes.. thank you Belel.

 

I was was aware of that thread, but as you say, the last time anyone posted onto it was 6 months ago - so I guess I assumed whatever the problem was, had fixed itself.

 

Do we have any idea of how many people are affected by this ?

 

 

 

 

I also don't quite understand the idea that if a site completely unrelated to BGP goes and changes its approach, then it is BGP who is disrespecting its members.

 

Isn't it the other site which is the problem ?

 

 

 

 

I wonder if those who are disadvantaged in this way would wish no-one at BGP to ever enjoy your picture posts again because some other site was being difficult.

 

I'm really not understanding if there *is* anger directed at BGP because of this.

 

If some porn site disappears from the net, do we get angry at BGP because of that ?

 

 

 

I promise you Betel, I'm not looking to argue - I'm trying to understand.

 

 

:)

 

 

I know of late there are porn sites who now check the origin of the ISP of the person logging in and match it to the ISP of the password purchaser, thereby excluding all other countries from access - but surely that is not a reason to feel disappointment towards BGP either.

 

I guess I am just trying to say that we are ruled by the whims of external forces.

 

For example, what Corbin Fisher has got up to of late with torrent sites...

 

 

 

 

:cool_a:

[briangood]

It's unfortunate that it's not like a lot people suggested 6 months ago that all ice-cube frogs would soon disappear, I still see them here and everywhere. However, I still hope Imageshack can do the right thing...tomorrow. lol.

 

I don't know if my opinion weighs anything on this issue, I wanna state it clear that I am perfectly fine with anyone who uses Imageshack, All I did was telling and questioning Imageshack.

 

My dearest Betel, you did wonderfully because you have tried hard, but it seems our free world doesn't always give us choice to make.

 

It's like you wanna see people happy, I wanna see you happy, and have fun too.

 

Love you.

 

BTW, though I will not see your fun pictures again, I still can read the wonderful interactions between you and hardrod.

Edited September 7, 2011 by briangood

[Betelgeuse1547624869]

...Do we have any idea of how many people are affected by this ?

 

Nope. Does it have to be a large number of people before we care? :JC-thinking:

 

...I also don't quite understand the idea that if a site completely unrelated to BGP goes and changes its approach, then it is BGP who is disrespecting its members.

 

Isn't it the other site which is the problem ?

 

Yes, the other site is the problem. It is not BGP that is disrespecting its members and I did not mean to imply that. But when folks who regularly post to BGP using imageshack and become aware that there are members who cannot see those images basically shrug their shoulders and keep on posting to imageshack, those members unable to view the images posted may feel disrespected by the individual image posters.

 

I wonder if those who are disadvantaged in this way would wish no-one at BGP to ever enjoy your picture posts again because some other site was being difficult.

 

As you can no doubt see from briangood's post, which appears right between your last post and this one, some of those disadvantaged by the problem are taking it in stride. But I, on the other hand, don't want to make posts that treat some of our members like they are living in a third-world country (even if they are living in a third-world country). :nono4:

 

...I'm really not understanding if there *is* anger directed at BGP because of this.

 

...who said anything about "anger" being directed at BGP? :thinking-023:

 

At any rate, I continue to search for a new, egalitarian image hosting service. Each day, I check out a few more hoping to find one that is free, easy to use, and from which images can be directly hot-linked. It's just a matter of time, really, until I find one. I only started this thread in hopes that someone else might already have done the research and save me the time. That's okay, though, I'll just keep looking. Thanks to all who tried to help or offered suggestions! :respect-040:

[Betelgeuse1547624869]

Just to let y'all know, I bit the bullet and registered with min.us after all my searching. Times have changed and most of the free hosts require some kind of registration. Some of them get quite personal and Draconian in their required info, but min.us doesn't even require my e-mail address, so I ended up back with them. I'll start posting pix again effective today. :grin:

[jeff716a]

I use tinypic for uploading some images. And I'm pretty sure even images from years ago are still on there. They show up when I go to upload something new. Or you could just use twitpic or a twitter picture posting site to archive all your stuff. I think Twitter has their own now actually.

[Betelgeuse1547624869]

Thanks for the suggestions, jeff716a, but I've registered with min.us now so I guess I'll just stick with them. I've often had problems loading images from tinypic in the past, though, so didn't look into them. As for Twitter, well, I'm not a tweeter (or is that "twitterer"...or just "twit" for short... :JC-thinking: ;)), so I doubt I could use their image site. Still, I appreciate your input here! :grin:

[jcvdevera]

try imagebam for posting photos.

 

with regards to imageshack's frog photos, i know if you log into your own imageshack account those frogs will go away.

[Betelgeuse1547624869]

Thanks for the suggestions, jcvdevera, but I think I'll stick with min.us for now. They don't request any info to register, not even an e-mail address, so I feel less "exposed" using them for my little pictures. :grin: