Talk:Photobucket/Archive 1

Archive 1

Popularity

Perhaps this might interest you http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2006/06/23/photobucket_is_the_top_picturesharing_site_flickr_nowhere.html

According to that Photobucket is way popular than any other sites in Photo Sharing. Maybe we should update this article

Well then, Be Bold. Also, remember to sign your posts with ~~~~

Peter Tangney 16:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm new to Wikipedia 138.88.165.85 22:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But also according to that article Photobucket is not really Photo Sharing, only Image Hosting. There is no social dimension such there is in flickr. Shinhan 05:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Allright then, after using this for a while, I noticed you guys were right. Thanks --138.88.76.69 19:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Neopets is supposed to be mentioned in there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.76.114 (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

January 05, 2008 crash

I feel there should be some notation on the frequency of their website being completely inaccessible. For example, right now. Anyone who night want to contest the assertion, try accessing your photobucket account right now. Their Main/Start page works fine but beyond that, nothing.

58.69.146.82 (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No. You can't go through every page, for every site, and start adding uptime/downtime statistics. First, You have no accurate statistics. Second, you would need to do this for every site referenced on Wikipedia. Third, this could be considered 'un-advertising' and you could be liable for inaccurate information that results in a loss of income.

name

Isn’t photobcuket’s name spelled with a lower case ‘p’?

RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no access right now as it has been hacked by some turkish group of hackers.I copied this from what was photobucket website.

References

6/17/08 hacking of Photobucket

can someone please make a mention of today's hacking of Photobucket by an Turkish Hacker Group named "NeTDevilz" --Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

it dont have the notabiliy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.7.6 (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

well it does now, there's an news story about it, i post the link in here since it's about what happened. http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/061808_Photobucket_DNS_Record_Hijacked.cfm--Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about this paragraph...

"One of Photobucket's most interesting features is it's apathy toward exploitation of any individual. An account called 'girls_of_yahoo' was set up as a collection bin of pictures stolen from several women and displayed on Photobucket without the consent of the women. One of the women contacted Photobucket about this, but Photobucket did nothing."

Thatanecdotal evidence and probably isn't what they usually do. And it was added in the most recent edit. 92.12.68.237 (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

hola soy el kechi

No, actually that's what they do to everybody. See "realwebwhores" (a site created originally as "photobucketwhores") and "obsessedwithmyself". They steal girls' pictures and repost them to generate hits and ad revenue. All photobucket did was get them to change their name but the women's pics are still there. Photobucket does nothing about content stolen from it's site and doesn't help users in any way who have had their pictures stolen due to their heavily flawed security. Photobucket is as concerned with their users as yahoo or goggle. Not in the least.

I shall put my criticism of Photobucket back up when I have proper evidence. -Photobucket artical vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.207.138 (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

== $Headlinetext$[[Media:

---

Example.oggInsert non-formatted text here]] == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.112.7.111 (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

I just resized an image on the page but was wondering what that image actually has to do with photobucket? There doesn't seem to be an explanation. londonsista ^Prod 12:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

really!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.164.3 (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Linux

It seems impossible, or almost impossible, to upload pictures to Photobucket from Linux. And it seems to be official PB policy not to support Linux in any way.

What about other photo sites? Is there a comparison table somewhere? -71.174.178.179 (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Privacy issues section

I added a section on a recently noted privacy hole in Photobucket, allowing 'private' photos to be accessed without the uploader's knowledge. I think the sources are good enough and the information is worth noting, but if anyone disagrees, please comment here. Robofish (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

81.178.229.6, if you can find citations for criticism, please cite them, but Wikipedia does not allow Original Research. That is, you are not allowed to post what you found out, only to cite what other, respectable sources have found out. Shinhan 06:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hate to nitpick here, but the word 'respectable' is an expired term. Consider using the term 'citable' in future. Black-Velvet 07:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why does PhotoBucket advertise unlimited bandwidth to paying customers? Unlimited bandwidth doesn't exist. And when a paying customer soaks up a lot of PhotoBucket's bandwidth, PhotoBucket starts looking for ways to get rid of this person, because they're costing PhotoBucket money. Or, PhotoBucket looks for ways to make money off of this person (getting them to promote PhotoBucket with ads or something). An example of PhotoBucket screwing paying customers for using their 'unlimited' bandwidth: http://winter-skin.livejournal.com/32460.html I'd appreciate it if someone added this to the article, if there's enough evidence out there of this occuring. Show PhotoBucket that reputation is congruent to money. --Pulseczar 21:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please check out WP:RS regarding what is a Reliable Source. Livejournal entries are self-published and are not usually Reliable Sources. I tried to find a Reliable Source reporting that photobucket is "screwing paying customers" and could not.MikeURL 16:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this. Photobucket's security is a joke. You used to be able to view private buckets by typing "pb5.photobucket.com" before the name of the bucket. Then there were exploits using photobucket mobile. Now there are sites like "photobucketwhores" (now "realwebwhores") who make a living exploiting photobucket weaknesses and reposting pictures of nude or scantly clad women found in their supposedly secure bucket. Now there are programs used to fusker the buckets and steal the pictures inside because photobucket stopped randomising the names of the pictures on upload. When sites like realwebwhores, navnet, ixtractor, fuskerfind and anonib exist because of photobucket's crap security and millions of unwitting girls are having their images stolen and hidden in rars files on sites like rapidshare I'd call that a "slight" security problem and certainly worthy of criticism. Especially when photobucket does nothing about it.

• I guess I'll have to wait for a citable source to mention that Photobucket now resizes images over 1280x1024, regardless of file size or if resizing the format will result in a larger file size. xnamkcor (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

page reads like an ad

This page reads like was written by someone at photobucket. It is more like an advert than an article. Does anyone else agree?

Agreed. Seems like it's a page advertising photobucket. NPOV tag added. Wizrdwarts

Yes, this page needs to be re-written so it doesn't read like an advert. It's almost like it was written by photobucket themselves.

I erased the part about the accounts to make it more NPOV. Does it help? Barrylocke

I actually don't think it really read like an ad to begin with. It *does* offer both premium and free accounts, and it *is* one of the better-known photo services. Maybe we should change "premium" to "paid," since "premium" is pretty much an advertising term? Sophy's Duckling 01:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I found this article quite a useful summary. It accurately states all the facts, it's using paid now instead of the advertising term, it's great. Thanks Nastajus 04:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

a This page reads like an ad to me. How is it even close to being encyclopedic? Peter Tangney 01:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the idea that it's an advertisement, even now as we approach 2008. Has anyone noticed the "History" section isn't its history, but rather a summary of its media accolades ("Fortune Magazine rating it, etc.)? There's more history in the header than anywhere else I'm afraid. And beyond that, the stats are out of date. That much I can fix. As far as article neutrality goes, the article needs to be completely rewritten, otherwise we'll just end up cutting it down until it's a stub. Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Still reads like an ad in March. I move to delete the article. sohmc (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Soh,c. If it can't be unbiased then it should not exist. I actually came to the talk page planing to start this discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.41.214 (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There should not be talk of account levels, prices, and usage instructions on the page. I third the move to delete the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.58.190 (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Needs update

1. Registration is required. 2. The limits for non-paid accounts are now quite low. The article indicates they are "unlimited" as of February 2011, but as of September 2011, that appears to no longer be the case. I put in a note and a "cite needed". --John Nagle (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC) ---

1. I couldn't find any redaction on Photobucket to the "unlimited access" referred to above - removed & inserted link to latest information about unlimited storage on photobucket blog.

2. The logo for Photobucket is out of date. See Photobucket blog header for logo.

3. "Unlimited space and bandwidth is valid only for non-commercial use." - the current TOU do not specify non-commercial use (see Photobucket TOU Cost and Pricing > Pro account). Suggest removing this line.

4. I believe the Palo Alto image is out-of-date as well. Photobucket is based in Denver, CO & San Francisco, CA (About Photobucket, 2nd paragraph). bripi —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

As all of the above are subject to change at any time, at the whim of photobucket, the correct thing to do would be to delete this info and the reader could go to photobucket for accurate account info, prices, storage limits, usage limits, restrictions, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.58.190 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Based in Denver or in Seattle?

Hi,

The picture is of their HQ in Denver -- but at the end it is noted as a company based in Seattle. Which is it?

If they moved, isn't it worth noting as part of the article? I know people in Denver who work for them (that's my home area).

In any case it's either a factual error or an inconsistency -- or both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanR (talk • contribs) 13:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Useless?

Photobucket site is getting to be useless now and I'm sure it will lose a lot of users when charging a lot of money. There's Flickr! The Channel of Random (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

In what way is the “Criticism” section “weasel words”?

Someone added the “weasel words” template to the “Criticism” section last month, but I can’t work out what is supposed to be weaselly about it. All the statements seem to be fairly simple declarations of fact with footnotes. Am I missing something here? Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

How do they make money?

How do they make money?69.114.85.180

Find out Azzstar (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

They sell your email address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.58.190 (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

They get money buy the number of clicks they get. For example if they had a video up that got 398 clicks then they would get more money than the video that had 3 clicks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.53.253 (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why even bother making such a reply? Centrepull (talk)

Photobucket generates revenue through premium accounts, and advertising on the site.techcrunch.com Centrepull (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember that they asked for donations around 15 years ago or so. Don't have any corroboration for that. Just a minor point to bring up here.2603:9000:CF0A:5F00:E0CE:1464:5D72:4320 (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

False Information

Many sections in this article state that the free hosting plan was completely dropped, and users were required to pay a monthly fee. This is not true. While the free plan is insanely limited, and (for a lack of a better phrase), complete crap, it does still exist. According to the beta website's account information for free plans, users get 2.5 GB of available storage space for up to 250 photos maximum. A reference on Reddit about a user complaint also mentioned that there may be a bandwidth limit of 25MB a month, as seen here: https://www.reddit.com/r/photobucket/comments/bltmv3/theyre_getting_forceful_now/

2601:204:CC00:2862:8CE9:3163:1216:E55C (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sexually Explicit or Objectionable Content? (woo!)

Under "Censorship policy" the page reads "Photobucket does not allow sexually explicit or objectionable content", but it looks like that's not entirely true. Their TOS reads "The free account does not allow any image hosting or storing/sharing of legal adult not safe for work ("nsfw") images. If you are interested in image hosting or storing/sharing legal adult nsfw images, you will need to subscribe to our Expert Level Paid Accounts." (emphasis mine).

That's a fairly minor detail... but what's more interesting is https://red.photobucket.com/ (caution, very NSFW), which brands itself as "PhotobucketRED" and appears to be some sort of low-rent porn site. It doesn't appear to be a third-party creation, either - not only does Photobucket not appear to offer custom subdomains in any of their plans, but it maintains the same header, footer links, and login, and some search terms forward directly from the main site to the "Red" version. Compare https://photobucket.com/images/cars to https://photobucket.com/images/porn (again, nsfw. except the cars).

It doesn't look especially new - the pictures show dates of Sep/Oct 2018, there's a 2018 copyright at the bottom, and it seems to use an older version of the footer (although the only snapshot on archive.org is from this April) - but I can't find any news, discussion, or press releases about Photobucket trying to break into the lucrative dozen-secondhand-porn-jpgs-slapped-on-a-page market.

(I wasn't planning to spend my night researching a shoddy imagehost's shoddier porn site, either - somehow this all came out of a quick search to see if there was a workaround for blurred images on a car repair forum. Oops.)

On a completely unrelated note, they seem to think they've regained customer trust: https://blog.photobucket.com/articles/how-we-lost-and-regained-customer-trust

--02:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)71.234.116.22 (talk)