Imagehost Problems, Imagebam, Imagevenue, PimpAndHost, PixHost, ImgBox etc

[Protos33]

Looks like img.yt is yet another host that allegedly pays you for image views.

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by Protos33

Looks like img.yt is yet another host that allegedly pays you for image views.

Indeed.

Still, when I checked with the quoted post (before it was removed), the images were easier to get to (two clicks, no problem with ad blocker) than with imgclick, never mind imgtiger - and these two hosts seem to be tolerated here. (imgtiger is so bad that I have resorted to permanently blocking it in my browser)

[buttsie]

It would appear pimpandhost pics are now available direct in Australia again

No proxy required

recently tested by accident
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...&postcount=231


Nothing on the forum
http://pimpandhost.com/forum/index.php

[JCat]

I just got a Kaspersky AV warning when clicking on a pic hosted on ImageBam in a thread here. It redirected to an ad page that was blocked, just showing the url. However, when I clicked the same pic later the warning didn't show the next time. I seem to remember at least one other time recently, either at VEF or another site, where an Imagebam pic created a brief situation like this. Has anyone else had this happen with Imagebam?

[buttsie]

Originally Posted by buttsie

It would appear pimpandhost pics are now available direct in Australia again

No proxy required

recently tested by accident
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...&postcount=231


Nothing on the forum
http://pimpandhost.com/forum/index.php

That didnt last long

the ban appears to be back in Australia

Back to http://www.anonymouse.org


PS - 8th October 2016


now the images are flickering between blocked / unblocked - bizarre

From admin on their forum - PIMP

no idea what is this Interpol warning page, but we have been here all the time

http://pimpandhost.com/forum/t2568-g...-you-back.html

[O2B]

I find that some really great pics have poor resolution on "pimp and host". I also find that I usually have to click the resize option to "small" to even see the pics since they usually come through as huge. I do not find any of this to be true with Imagebam. So I ask myself why so many members use "pimp and host"?

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by O2B

So I ask myself why so many members use "pimp and host"?

Well, when you use the web-editor for editing posts and click the "insert image" icon then the image ends up on P&H.

[JCat]

Speaking of Pimpandhost: has anyone tested older uploads on that? I have noticed that on ImageVenue and ImageBam that pics can be gone after a few years. Is the same true of P&H?

[highwayman274]

Originally Posted by JCat

Speaking of Pimpandhost: has anyone tested older uploads on that? I have noticed that on ImageVenue and ImageBam that pics can be gone after a few years. Is the same true of P&H?

I have been using P&H for 5 years and can confirm that images are never scrubbed due to lack of viewer activity. I currently have about 1,000 folders with over 60,000 images.

I have lost several folders through the annual DCMA "purges" conducted by the Score Group; so I have largely stopped posting their material. It seems, however, that once P&H does a purge in response to a DCMA Notice, they bookmark your account at that date, and never go back to earlier posts. It is as if folders that survive a purge are never examined again, and enter a "safe" zone.

There was one occasion in 2014 (I think) when P&H had a server fail, and for a few days it looked like many folders might be lost. However, they were able to restore 99.9% and I maybe lost a dozen random images from a dozen random folders.

It works for me; but I am not a collector, or a prolific poster.

[buttsie]

Originally Posted by JCat

Speaking of Pimpandhost: has anyone tested older uploads on that? I have noticed that on ImageVenue and ImageBam that pics can be gone after a few years. Is the same true of P&H?

Depends entirely on what pics

Active pics can last a long time on any host

I've said it before but the rise of one image from a set sites has led to a lot of full sets
losing pics over time

I've got numerous imagevenue sets of 15 pics which are all missing 1-3 pics

The same ones on imagebam are in some cases completely dead

Just depends which content is being reported

If a dmca notice arrives for 15 pic posted on a forum their all dead
For the 1 on google the other 14 survive....just luck of the draw


As for p & h their biggest issue is they keep running the operation too close to the limit
Too much bandwidth being consumed too quickly and not allowing for it.

The recent cases of everything reduced to thumbs while new servers were being added or
Pics from 2013/14 disappearing while they were moving servers

From what i've seen of all hosts in recent years their all deteriorating in performance

Images that dont show manually but do using a download manager
Images that show up dead using a download manager that appear alive manually

You can only blame browser extension conflicts up to a point

Reliable wouldnt be a word i'd use to describe any of them when it comes to loose posted pics

The zip facility probably needs to be used more if we're to combat the one image dmca takedowns which the copyright snooping lawyers seem to specialise