Alternate hosts

[buttsie]

Originally Posted by retroanalyst

Indeed, that sucks big time.
On the bright side, it makes my decision to kiss ImageBam goodbye even easier.

Just a thought but imagebam as i see it are the only ones to still offer a
zipfile (up to 250mb)

Probably something to test before abandoning the biggest host with proven capacity


I've noticed about a few folks offering loose pics on 1 host
backed up by a gallery on another - imagevenue / imagebam

Why not a zipfile as the 2nd option? edit - OOPS

It removes the threat of the one off random picture sites that get a dmca notice
that in turn starts whittling away at full sets posted on forums like ours.

Zipfiles like filehost files presumably remain untouched? obviously not


Picking imagehost winners in the current climate is like trying to predict the share market

As Sam Spade said early on - the forum needs to diversify

You could broaden that to say every post with 2 options stands a good chance of avoiding a white out - like the some image posts still about - and avoiding putting too much stress on 1 host.

[deezer]

Originally Posted by buttsie

Just a thought but imagebam as i see it are the only ones to still offer a
zipfile (up to 250mb)

Probably something to test before abandoning the biggest host with proven capacity


I've noticed about a few folks offering loose pics on 1 host
backed up by a gallery on another - imagevenue / imagebam

Why not a zipfile as the 2nd option?


Zipfiles like filehost files presumably remain untouched?

AFAIK is it only a zip-file upload option.
You can upload your images packed in a zip-file. Imagebam unzips the archive and you get a regular image-gallery. So they don't store the zip, but the single images. It's only a different way to upload.

[G-Type]

Originally Posted by buttsie

...
You could broaden that to say every post with 2 options stands a good chance of avoiding a white out - like the some image posts still about - and avoiding putting too much stress on 1 host.

Principally yes...and perhaps feasible for smaller pic-sets. But when you upload large sets (more than 50 pics, more than 50 MB´s for example), then this "doubling" of files can be an issue for those who have slower connections.

BTW: PixHost.org automatically creates a ZIP-File when uploading numerous pics (chose "Gallery"-option) which can be used to download the complete batch later. As far as I am aware of, also PimpandHost creates a ZIP-File after upload...but only if you are holder of a (free) account. Once logged in to that account, you can also download the ZIP´s of others.

Downside is, we don´t know what will happen to the ZIP´s when pics are to disappear. Perhaps the ZIP is going to shrink as well.
.

[buttsie]

That would explain why i've always opted for a filehost link backup / 2nd option

I could never figure out why a zipfile only went to 250mb but a loose post could run up to what ever the maximum was ?

Now I know

cheers
B...OZ

[deezer]

Downloading bigger files from p&h with ImageHostGrabber will bring you smaller images back as the original file.
Even when downloading manually, you have to click twice, otherwise you will get only a reduced file with the suffix _l in the file-name.

The zip-download of a gallery brings original file-size and original file name. But you need to be logged in at p&h for using this option.

More info in the p&h-test-thread.

Thanks effCup for heads-up!

[deezer]

Originally Posted by deezer

Downloading bigger files from p&h with ImageHostGrabber will bring you smaller images back as the original file.

I updated the hostfile of IHG with effCup's search pattern and I get now the full image with IHG.

Great job, effie!

[beechcott]

I noticed that IMGBox now seems to work differently than I remember regarding photo names.

Now, even the direct link to a photo has a randomly-generated filename. But when I download the photo, it has the original filename on my hard drive.

For instance, I uploaded the photo linked below as a test:

https://i.imgbox.com/4cjQLIp9.jpg

(Here's the image page link, which also has the same randomly-generated name: http://imgbox.com/4cjQLIp9)

Now, the link is listed as 4cjQLIp9.jpg, and the photo appears to have that filename when viewed in a browser. But if you download the photo, it should save to your hard drive with the original filename (albeit with the blank spaces replaced by _).

Is this something new?

[retroanalyst]

Originally Posted by beechcott

I noticed that IMGBox now seems to work differently than I remember regarding photo names.

Now, even the direct link to a photo has a randomly-generated filename. But when I download the photo, it has the original filename on my hard drive.

For instance, I uploaded the photo linked below as a test:

https://i.imgbox.com/4cjQLIp9.jpg

(Here's the image page link, which also has the same randomly-generated name: http://imgbox.com/4cjQLIp9)

Now, the link is listed as 4cjQLIp9.jpg, and the photo appears to have that filename when viewed in a browser. But if you download the photo, it should save to your hard drive with the original filename (albeit with the blank spaces replaced by _).

Is this something new?

I started to note it yesterday, but ImageBam (which is run by the same people) has done it for a few days already.

At least imgbox provides that small download button, but you know what? For some twenty years I have been downloading pictures via right-click, "save image as...". That's a habit which is hard to break.

[deezer]

Originally Posted by retroanalyst

I started to note it yesterday, but ImageBam (which is run by the same people) has done it for a few days already.

But in opposite to imgbox you don't get the original file-name from imagebam when you dl the image. When you dl the image, you get only a random file-name from imagebam, while imgbox seems to deliver the original file-name.

[beechcott]

Originally Posted by deezer

But in opposite to imgbox you don't get the original file-name from imagebam when you dl the image. When you dl the image, you get only a random file-name from imagebam, while imgbox seems to deliver the original file-name.

Exactly. I knew about the Imagebam situation, but the IMGBox situation was a bit different, which is why I mentioned it in such a detailed manner.