Notice re: Lost Images

[newey]

To all users:

You will notice that many of the images posted to this forum over the years can no longer be viewed. This is because, for years, many users used a third-party service, photobucket.com, to host images posted here. This was done because ProBoards software does not support image hosting itself.

However, Photobucket has recently changed their TOS so that users must now upgrade to a paid account in order to post images to other sites. The cost to do so is substantial. And, to make matters worse, rather than simply barring users going forward, they have retroactively deleted all the prior links to their hosted images.

To existing members, I suggest downloading all your materials from photobucket. As you come across images of your that have been lost, you can repost them as attachments to your original post, or host the images elsewhere if you have that capability.

For new users, if you are interested in a particular lost image from one of the currently active members, please PM that member to see if the member can resurrect the image in question. If it is from a member who has not signed on in awhile, you may not get a response to the PM, so feel free to PM me or other staff and we'll see what (if anything) we can do.

This has been a major setback for the historical continuity of this Board, but we will simply have to try to work through this as best we can.

Also, if anyone has other/better ideas, please share them. I have left this thread unlocked for that purpose.

[col]

Hi newey,

When I spotted this, and the explanation by/at Photobucket, I hoped the fee would not be too onerous (though, any fee would have a very negative effect). As a matter of interest, how much does Photobucket charge account holders to restore third-party viewing of the images?

As you appear to have hinted at: the retroactive aspect of their actions demonstrates contempt for their present members. The negative result for places like Gnuts is serious. Unfortunately, I see this pattern continuing with image hosts.

What was the name of the image host who did something similar a bout a year ago?

[col]

www.ghacks.net/2017/06/30/photobucket-now-charges-399-for-third-party-hosted-images/

Crap. So, $40/month or $400/year. I'd be surprised if any Gnut members go for that. Hopefully, some of them will retrieve their images and choose to have them hosted somewhere else (and eidit their posts to reflect the new location).

For the moment, at least, the placeholder image/message from Photobucket does link to the original image. But, I am uncertain how many members will realise this and assume that the image is permanently unavailable.

Gnut Admins/Mods could try harvesting the images, copy them to another host, and edit the post to point to the new location. However, the original poster might not be happy about that and it raises obvious issues around copyright.

[newey]

However, the original poster might not be happy about that and it raises obvious issues around copyright.

Yes, and more basically, who has the hours of time needed to resurrect the images? That's why I think we have to leave it to each member to try to resolve the problem for their own posts.

[sumgai]

I've managed to log in this morning, here in beautiful, sunny, downtown Fargo, ND. Only 78 degrees (F), at 9:17 in the AM (PST), and about 120% humidity.  Gotta love it, right?

I too am greatly saddened that the 90-day wonders have finally struck at Photobucket. Mr. Honda was most certainly correct when he said, something like 40 years ago, that the best thing that ever happened to the burgeoning Japanese business environment was the Harvard MBA.  Go look it up.

I for one have been posting images here for 10 years and some, so going back and finding/editing thousands of posts to see which has an image is gonna be a non-starter, that's for sure.  To the best of my knowledge, I have everything I ever made backed up on both my internal hard drive, and on two external drives.  If anyone wants an on old image to figure out what was going on in that thread, I should be able to make them happy... I hope.

But worse, this business of saying "FREE!" and then changing their minds, that's nothing more than a childish tantrum, IMO.  Greed is certainly the underlying cause, yes, but doing what they did, no warning or nuttin', that was immature at best, and a-hole behavior in most people's opinion, I'm sure.  However....

What does this portend for ProBoards and their 'attachments'?   For years, as long as this forum has been alive, we could've paid a $2 per month fee to have PB host images, seemingly forever.  We went down the link-to-a-hoster path, being as how none of the staff wanted to get started with a "ding to the card every month" situation that nearly always ends in tears, be it a few months or several years down the road.  Then, not too far back, ProBoards opened up their attachment process.  It used to be that either newey or I could modify that setting to restrict it to Staff Only, Everyone, or No One.  I of course chose No One, due to security concerns.  (Imagine what this place would be like if the spammers learned that they could attach a garish image to their crapola....)  But the most recent upgrade removed that setting from Forum Administrators - they forced it open to all and sundry, come Hell or high water.  Way to go, PB.

But now, in light of ImageShack and Photobucket going the way of the dodo bird (not-free equals not-a-user, equals dead on arrival), I have to wonder if ProBoards will soon follow suit - once again charging for the abililty to attach images.  At that point, many of us will really be at their mercy.  And of course, this raises once again the ugly spector of having to consider "other options".  I'm sure the majority of you can guess what I mean here.

newey's correct in that each user must make the effort to collect and store all posted images, then re-post in some fashion as a question might arise.  In fact, in answer to you, col, greekdude and I both got caught in a snafu set up specifically by ProBoards to ensnare people who wanted to capture postings and images exactly as you described.  In essence, it meant using a "spider" to crawl the entire site, and downloading desired items to one's local hard drive.  PB didn't like that one bit, and immediately locked out the offender... including your's truly.  newey had to rescue both of us.  (Which poignantly points out why I immediately elected to appoint a co-admin, when I took over in 2007.  Backups, and all that jizz-jazz.)

That's all I have to say on the matter for now, I'll keep monitoring as I can get access over the next 10 days or so.

(BTW, for those that didn't know.... we put our house on the market at just the right time, and it sold in two days.  That means that when we return to the Northwest, we'll once be again looking for a new home.  If it ain't one thing, it's another!)

On to reading the rest of the Forum....

sumgai

(p.s. Fender and Gibson have adapted to traveling in a motorhome.  Gibson loves it, Fender is still not sure, but at least he's not howling.)

[col]

Hi sumgai,

I case you missed it, there is further discussion about this matter here:

guitarnuts2.proboards.com/thread/7960/photobucket-fail

The problem is that PhotoBucket's financial model is probably broken. Ad revenues were probably always fairly marginal, and ad revenues have been dropping for the past few years (across the Web). PB were probably forced to make changes, but the path they have chosen breaks good will. But, the more I think about this, maybe they have decided that they can longer afford to host images indefinitely. Even if they have their own data centers (for old material), with their own servers, there are still huge electricity costs, costs associated with replacing worn our servers, and staffing costs. My guess is that PB will eventually completely drop all the accounts (and their associated images) of those customers who choose to not upgrade. Or, they will re-enable third-party display of the images and overlay them with adverts. The first would be terrible outcome for their members, forums and blogs; the second, would cause a lot of anger. The reason I think that they will do one of these things is that it is obvious that PB has decided that it will accept the bad will caused by the changes, and if the model is already broken, it is only likely to get worse (so why support the old images at all unless they can increase revenue).

Surely, not many people will go for the new charges. But, if only a fraction of a percent divvy-up $40/month, it probably will be a lot more profitable for them than the present model. Time will tell if they have chosen correctly. But, to me, $40/month is way too much. With the large cloud storage providers, you could store at least 2TB data per month (about 200,000 10MB images) for $40. OK, there are some bandwidth charges too, but $40 seems greedy. I think if they went with a much lower price point, and charged incrementally for storage, that would be a better model. PB surely must understand their business better than I do, but their new business makes little sense to me.

[sumgai]

col,

Yes, I agree that PhotoBucket's business model is broken, but not for the same reasons. Number 1, I'd have to point to Google Analytics, whereupon we'd learn that advertising on the Internet in general is up, even considering year over year. It's print and radio/TV that're suffering big-time ad-dollar shrinkage.

But worse, any sane person has to ask, why didn't they at least give fair warning. Would it have really killed them to let users know 30 days ahead of time? Imageshack tried that stunt (witness cynical1's avatar), and look where it got them. (Hint: down the tubes.) Talk about kissing good will (what my father used to call "blue sky") good bye.

Overlaying with advertising is exactly what layed Imageshack low, IMO. But yes, other reasons abound, that's only my personal pet peeve.

All in all, a small core of us deeply-involved members are going to have to do something about this, permanently if possible.  We're working on it.

sumgai

p.s. Good connection here in the Walmart of Shakopee, MN.  But the wife is tired and wants to return to the RV, so I've gotta go read the rest of what's happening, rather quickly.  Later.

[col]

Hi sumgai,

My readings were somewhat anecdotal (but referenced general problems with ad revenue); the writers were looking at ad revenues from the display end (not the ad providers end) - blogs, forums, etc. What I read indicated that revenues had been dropping for a few years. I assume because more websites make use of them (so revenues are spread more thinly and/or advertisers are unwilling to spend as much money). More people utilise ad-blocking; and I think people are more savvy at not mistaking adverts for content, and probably so used to seeing adverts now that they are more easily ignored. I'm speculating. I know that I get annoyed with the unresponsiveness of so many websites because of poorly implemented third-party advertising schemes.

Maybe all that's wrong. I'll read around for some more solid information. Thanks.

[col]

It's not easy finding the right kind of information. Mostly, no matter the terms I try using, I come up with articles detailing very atypical blogs who make lots of money. However, here's one article that discusses the matter of declining ad revenues:

amylynnandrews.com/how-much-do-real-bloggers-actually-make/

Not that Photobucket is a blog site. But, I think there comparison to be reasonable. PB relies upon adverts displayed to members when logged into their site. If anything, I'd expect an even lower hit-rate for ads at PB because there is no text (to speak of) for contextualising which adverts should be displayed to the member. Random placement of ads is even more inefficient than the often exclaimed average hit rate of of 0.5% of unique blog visitors hitting an ad.

So, what's the increase in ad revenues about? Is it that advertisers are actually paying more and less is being distributed to websites making use Google Ads, etc.?

[cynical1]

It appears this is the second time someone's business model has sent my images into the ether, as I'll eat gravel before I pay to host images on some Indonesian server.

Storage is cheaper now than 10 years ago when I first started using Photobucket...and Fox owned Photobucket when I started using them. Now, Ontela ownes them...and I'm amazed someone can turn out to be more self-obsessed than Fox...

Archie, Veronica and Jughead are dead...long live the whores that rule in their stead...

HTC1

[col]

Hi C1,

Not that I am arguing that PH (photobucket) have handled this well, but irrespective of how storage costs have reduced considerably over the past ten years, the problem of costs continue to grow over time. The longer photobucket is in business, the more data they must store (I expect that the increase in the amount of data stored has increased more rapidly than the cost of storage has reduced). Their business model depends upon untargeted advertising to their members when they login to their accounts (though, I guess they might spider any sites where the images are being used to increase ad context to aid better targeting). But (from what I've read) the adverts appear to be generic/random. Worse (if my previous speculations are correct), PB advertising revenues (per page impression) is declining. Worse still, because (I think it fair to assume) PB have a large proportion of delinquent accounts, where the member never logs in, so they never view the adverts PH hope they will click. It was/is an unsustainable business model over the medium to long term. I think it is unrealistic (and probably unfair) for individual posters and websites to expect that what they have always received for free, will continue to be free. At least in this case, I presume, you are able to retrieve your images. This will not restore your broken links and embedded images at the websites where you posted them, but it is better than what happened to you last time when you lost all your images (with ImageShack). Still, this is crap situation for Gnuts (and for sites like Gnuts).

[newey]

I'm certainly not going to be an apologist for Photobucket, but I will point out that there appears to be more to the business model than simply untargeted ads. First, their ads were targeted to a certain degree, although they certainly didn't get into the extensive targeting that some sites do. Also, they sold services (I assume through third-party vendors, but doubtless Photobucket got a cut)for prints, custom albums, canvas prints, putting your pix on coffee mugs and so forth. I in fact paid them for some of this stuff, as it was pure simplicity, since your images were already up there to start with.

I don't know how much that stuff brought in, obviously not enough to obviate the need to pull the plug on free hosting. But $400 for a year seems way out of touch, it seems like they are purposely putting themselves out of business. I wonder if whoever bought them did so to be able to close them down, like GM bought up the bus transit companies in LA during the '50s.

[cynical1]

Not to get sentimental, but back in '92 when I first went "into that good night" that was the early Internet I admit to being in awe at the possibilities and potential. It truly was like taking a drink from a fire hose. I believe this is where my persistent insomnia first manifested itself.

25 years ago it was an open platform where raw data and information is freely transmitted. Sure, it was clunky. Only the brave of heart willing to invest in clunky technology were able to navigate it with any satisfaction. It was like someone found the light switch when the World Wide Web and things like Lycos and Yahoo actually began to return results that applied to your search. Then, some genius figured out how to perform a secure transaction online. To me, this was the point when the worm turned.

The genie is not going back in the bottle, so no sense lamenting how it all turned out. However, I reject your argument that these poor exploited franchises like Imageshack and Photobucket just couldn't sustain life off of advertising revenues alone. Why? Radio. It's survived against television since the 50's and the Internet since the 90's and it's still here.

Bill Gates put it best: "The first rule of any technology used in a business is that automation applied to an efficient operation will magnify the efficiency. The second is that automation applied to an inefficient operation will magnify the inefficiency."

Marketing. Marketing and the crack which is social media are the cancers eating away at the Internet. But hey, Ajit Pai is going to Make the Internet Great Again...so what, me worry?

HTC1

[col]

I could be mistaken, but weren't the Photbucket placeholder images clickable, taking you to the original image? If so, they are no longer.

cynical1 I don't disagree with your sentiments. I have a problem with the datamining of so much personal information. I don't understand why so many people are so willing to give up so much of themselves for incremental improvements in 'connectiveness'. I don't really understand the attraction of Facebook (well, I guess I do, but it is not for me) - but I sure as hell don't like how it operates (the extreme mining of data and the feeding of confirmation biases via its news-feed algorithms). As for Twitter - it seems pointless to me. I wonder if it will still be there in ten years time, or will have everyone moved onto 'the next great thing' (and a couple of other things in between).

However, I still think there are financial realities which mount up over time for the likes of Photobucket. The amount of data keeps increasing, but the number of delinquent accounts must be increasing too (so, no income from adverts from that data). They could try monetising the other end (where the adverts are displayed), but that would probably create an ever greater backlash (and websites disabling the images/adverts).

I don't see an analogy with radio. Radio can occupy smaller niches. They are unburdened by the ongoing costs generated by past customers (unlike delinquent accounts at an image host). I think it was inevitable for Photobucket to make some radical changes. I'm not saying I agree with what they have handled this, but it is unrealistic to expect their free service to continue ad infinitum. I don't know their financial situation, but I assume it was pretty serious to make those kind of changes. They must have assumed they would have an awful lot of very unhappy members (and third-parties making use of the images at their forums and blogs) - and they still did it. I cannot see how their new service will earn them a fortune (I assume that nearly everyone who is serious about their images and files already pay for storage). This too suggests, to me, that the Photobucket old model was broken.

I too am concerned for the future of the Internet. Some huge forces out there trying to wrestle control over it. Net neutrality and big data being my main concerns. But, for the most part, I try not to think about it. The situation is probably far worse than I even suspect.

newey I have opened a Photobuceket account or two in the past when I needed to attach an image somewhere. Those accounts long forgotten about and abandoned (but, no doubt, maintained). I have no recollection of what it was like to login there (it has been many years), and it might have changed anyway. I hear what you are saying, but at the end of the day, (the way I see it) Photobucket would only radically change their product for one of two reasons: either they foresaw a huge opportunity to make much more money (and thought it worth the risk); or their old business model was in serious trouble and thought it worth a throw of the dice. My guess is that it is the second scenario (I could be wrong, of course).

[Deleted]

flickr always did the trick for me. + they (yahoo) were not pro-Clinton, which lately I started doubting as a good thing.

[cynical1]

I suppose I really should be happier that it's taken 20+ years to take the Internet to the place it lives now. Internet v1.0 is dead. v2.0 is coughing up blood and Gen3 is beginning to spread it's wings. Humor helps.



And this is where we are. Advertising is no longer the profit stream it was...or at least, not in the volume to satisfy those in the industry. Ask why YouTube is continually trying to push paid content at us...because the old adverting model from v2.0 is failing. Sure, if free image hosting was profitable it stands to reason that Google, Amazon or Microsoft would be doing it.

The Internet is going the way of everything else these days...if you can't monetize or collateralize it...then piss on it. What's the answer? To be honest, I have ceased to care.  I read books again.

HTC1

[Deleted]

Jul 14, 2017 11:55:19 GMT -5 cynical1 said:

What's the answer? To be honest, I have ceased to care.  I read books again.

HTC1

IMHO the next war will be between humans and computers. Maybe not the current young generation but the next one will set the foundations. Return to agriculture without the use of electricity will be the future. And those populations will need to be protected by some use of even more advanced military technology than exists today (otherwise it will be sheep VS wolves). Ahh.... typical human history ....

[cynical1]

Entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, predicts the party's gonna end anyway. While I tend to take a more hedonistic approach to it all it would be nice to see the party end without everyone staring in panic at a dead phone...

I'm comforted knowing I'm closer to the end than the beginning.

HTC1

[col]

Jul 15, 2017 16:39:02 GMT -5 cynical1 said:

Entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, predicts the party's gonna end anyway. While I tend to take a more hedonistic approach to it all it would be nice to see the party end without everyone staring in panic at a dead phone...

I'm comforted knowing I'm closer to the end than the beginning.

HTC1

No point in worrying about entropy - the Earth will have been swallowed up by an expanding sun (part of the cycle for Sun-sized star) long before entropy snuffs us out. But no need to worry about the expanding Sun - humans are likely to be killed-off long before then due to a massive asteroid or meteor impact. But no need to worry about meteors and asteroids - we could be killed off long before such an event through thermonuclear war or (man-made) disease. Chill.

[b4nj0]

G-F-B?

Where are you when we need you ? ;<D

e&oe...

[sumgai]

Jul 16, 2017 3:17:17 GMT -5 b4nj0 said:

G-F-B?

Where are you when we need you ? ;<D

e&oe...

Good call!

Sadly, he's busy just now, fighting the bitterly cold weather and stuff. Do you want me to stand in for him?

sumgai

[b4nj0]

Working on the principle that the first art of management is that of delegation I can only say "fill yer boots".

e&oe...

[newey]

humans are likely to be killed-off long before then due to a massive asteroid or meteor impact. But no need to worry about meteors and asteroids - we could be killed off long before such an event through thermonuclear war or (man-made) disease. Chill.

"Not with a bang, but with a whimper . . . ."

[col]

Jul 16, 2017 20:16:37 GMT -5 newey said:

humans are likely to be killed-off long before then due to a massive asteroid or meteor impact. But no need to worry about meteors and asteroids - we could be killed off long before such an event through thermonuclear war or (man-made) disease. Chill.

"Not with a bang, but with a whimper . . . ."

What are you quoting, newey? Of course, that could well be the case. Climate change, being the most obvious concern. There are all kinds of (positive) feedback loops. Some loops, maybe some very important ones, we know nothing about so have not even formulated the question. We do not know where global warming will go. It is entirely possible that green house effects go completely out of control. Unlikely? Maybe so. But how unlikely? There is no answer to that.

Anyway - time to take my own advice and 'chill'.

[newey]

The quote is from T.S. Eliot's "The Hollow Men":

"This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper"

And, actually, I misquoted it. It's not "with a whimper", just "a whimper". My apologies to Mr. Eliot.

[cynical1]

I would guess there will be a lot more than whimpering going around when the fossil fuels run out... Concentrations of CO2 and methane have been this high before...about 350,000 years ago. Oddly enough, about the same time that humans learned how to use fire. While I doubt the two events are related, it's not like we haven't existed through this type of climate previously. How about a graphic from the 800,000 year ice cores:

Don't misunderstand me. I am not, unlike our Comic Relief in Chief, a climate change denier. It would be reckless to assume we don't have a significant impact on climate or the consequences attached to our activities.  By our mere presence within the system it would be more than naive to claim we are a benign factor.

While climate change is significant and will impact millions on this planet, I just don't see it being the action that will be our undoing. More to the point, it's our reckless faith in technology to save us from ourselves that presents itself as our Achilles Heal. Problem being that resource depletion is exponential while technology advancement tends to be more linear. This being the case, we're most likely to run out of resources premature to a technological solution being arrived at.

But hey, crap happens.

HTC1

[sumgai]

Jul 18, 2017 1:02:04 GMT -5 cynical1 said:

.... presents itself as our Achilles Heal.

I saw what you did there!

And to b4njO,

I think this thread had already been derailed enough by others, eh? Not sure I can do any better.....

[b4nj0]

Yoo could, but only by standing on the shoulders of giants...

e&oe...