Talk:Image sharing/Archives/2012

Examples of sites

16:23, 18 September 2007 Beetstra (Talk | contribs) (10,428 bytes) (remove spam magnet examples. We really don't need those examples to tell about properties)

I really really valued the examples! Wikipedia is my resource for many things, and last month when I was researching which photo sharing website to use, this was my primary starting point to checking out all of the different choices. I strongly suggest putting all the examples back on, or at least to a different page which summarizes all the examples. Many other pages have examples, why not this one, I think it was extremely valuable. Debbie 59.101.96.234 13:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Rationalisation

Photo-sharing is quite extensive in its scope. Whilst I'm in the process of elaborating this in the main article (I'll move some of the intro paras into their own section shortly), I think it would benefit from seperate articles for lists of services and applications. Having providers listed in the main article is not good and just encourages more links, of which there are many. If anyone has opinions please chip-in. I agree that identifying the orientation of providers is beneficial, although frankly wikipedia is not a database, and simply identifying services as photo-finishers/ad-based/subscription is potentially misrepresentative. Verseguru 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that listing providers in the main article is probably not best, but perhaps creating a related article on photo communities (sorry, I'm a beginner wiki contributor, please help me stay within site architecture guidelines) with detail on basic features included in such sites would be valuable. I've been working on a chart comparing some of the more popular sites (there are hundreds) and which include these basic features such as public/privacy & group options, photo tweaking, blogs, tagging, photo printing or gifts, storage of full-size files, free vs charged service, etc. Would there be a place for such information here, accompanied by full explanation? Stephe78 02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem making an exhaustive list of free sharing sites and paid sharing sites; I'd break them out into two lists at the bottom of the page, alphabetical and as bullet lists. This would be more readable than listing them all in paragraphs. Wainstead 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The addition of a separate article describing different community orientated sites could be beneficial, although it might only warrant a section in the main article, unless each service is going to be described in detail. I'm still against having an exhaustive list of services for spam-related reasons. Services mentioned on the Photo sharing article should conform to some measure of notability, i.e. having had an impact on the sector as a whole, or for standing out in a significant way. Having a separate exhaustive article listing services would be fine however, any provider could then add themselves to it freely without the main article being impacted by spurious links to un-notable services. The list should however attempt to be more than just a list of names, perhaps including some basic 'standardised' details of functionality such as found here. --Verseguru 08:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Should look at Alexa's Top 10 in Photo Sharing list then. This article doesn't even come close to reflecting that list, with many of them not even mentioned (or without Wikipedia entries at all), while others in this article are extremely obscure. 76.167.145.143 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(C)

Please include something on the copyright angle. And if it is for one country, rather than another, please say so.--MacRusgail 18:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Image sharing?

The same technology that allows photo sharing can be used for image sharing in general. c.f. DeviantArt. After all, a jpeg's a jpeg, whether it's a photograph, or a scan of a hand-drawn picture. Similarly for any other file type people might care to use. But there is no wikipedia article on 'image sharing' and the most relevant alternative links are this article on photosharing and the more general one on filesharing. And most people will think of the term 'photo sharing' before thinking of the more general term 'image sharing'. So I'm inserting a paragraph in on image sharing in general. 212.32.36.253 08:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The question that is not address in any of these categories, of course, is the issue of copyright and whether or not photo-sharing means one can then download the images and use them on other websites. It is an important question and one that should be answered. Hana Levi Julian 89.138.223.17 (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

History

The paragraph below was entered by a non logged in user, concerning early share sites. Perhaps reliable sources can be found to confirm this historical description, at which point it will also be worth copyediting. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This segmentation is completely inaccurate and does not represent the very first round of sites that were built between 1996 - 1998. I produced the world's first online photo shareing forecast in 1998 and nearly all of the sites mentioned were not even around at that time. In 1999, there were exactly 54 sites in this business WW. Nearly all were offering free hosting and charging for prints. Those few who were offering ad based revenue - hosting / sharing only, quickly used up their VC funding and went dark. Within a matter of two years, this field was narrowed down to about 5. Then the sites you mentioned jumped in around the 2002 and later time frames. - Ron Tussy-The Imerge Group

I would hate to see terms like "a non logged in user" being tossed around for no other reason than terms like "Mexican," "Jew," "girl," and so forth are tossed around, adding nothing to the subject, but rather to "alien-ize," or disparage the person in some audiences.
--69.110.91.50 (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford