The Case of the Disappearing Hat Photos

[Blackhorse]

Just a brief question. I've done several searches, trying to do a little research on hat designs, makers, materials, etc. and I've uncovered a disturbing circumstance. Many of the alleged photos of hats (not links, which can also wither and die) are simply NOT THERE any longer! These are not just for older threads, but for posts that are as recent as, say...six months? Whatever.

Is there a dark presence that ABDUCTS these photos, making it a federal case? Do the original posters remove them out of some sense of guilt or shame? Or, are they being STOLEN to end up in some seedy warehouse down by the docks???

Whazzup? [huh]

 

[Miss Neecerie]

Just a brief question. I've done several searches, trying to do a little research on hat designs, makers, materials, etc. and I've uncovered a disturbing circumstance. Many of the alleged photos of hats (not links, which can also wither and die) are simply NOT THERE any longer! These are not just for older threads, but for posts that are as recent as, say...six months? Whatever.

Is there a dark presence that ABDUCTS these photos, making it a federal case? Do the original posters remove them out of some sense of guilt or shame? Or, are they being STOLEN to end up in some seedy warehouse down by the docks???

Whazzup? [huh]

A guess:

People often use free photo hosting, which has a limited amount of space per user.

People upload new pictures for whatever reason, and remove the older ones, due to that limited storage space.

So then the links to those pictures no longer work.

Either that, or there are tons of pictures in the piles of socks that the dryer stole.

 

[Blackhorse]

Yes, I understand about the links posted in the body of thread texts and the limits in terms of numbers, etc.

And, I guess since photos appearing in the body of a post here at FL are actually set up as link inclusions - the same thing would apply.

Golly it's frustrating to look at a thread 6 months old bragging about some new Art wonderhat - and all the posts rave about how great it looks - but thee's no photo to be viewed! :eusa_booh :cry:

 

[Joel Tunnah]

It does suck. I've only got about 25% of Rundquist's Optimos!

 

[Blackhorse]

SEE! This is just what I'm talking about.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

SEE! This is just what I'm talking about.

Well volunteer some server space for folks to keep pictures on and then they might stay up.

 

[Vermifuge]

Just a brief question. I've done several searches, trying to do a little research on hat designs, makers, materials, etc. and I've uncovered a disturbing circumstance. Many of the alleged photos of hats (not links, which can also wither and die) are simply NOT THERE any longer! These are not just for older threads, but for posts that are as recent as, say...six months? Whatever.

Is there a dark presence that ABDUCTS these photos, making it a federal case? Do the original posters remove them out of some sense of guilt or shame? Or, are they being STOLEN to end up in some seedy warehouse down by the docks???

Whazzup? [huh]

Sites like image shack or photo bucket only allow users to store so many images and then they get deleted after a few months. services like this let you upload an image to a server and they can be displayed in a forum like the FL.

If people like i would be willing to set up a free gallery for members of the FL to upload images. i would have no restrictions or limits

 

[Baron Kurtz]

So do imageshack etc. limit the number of images you can store, or do they limit the total size of the combined images (MB, GB etc.)? If the latter, the problem could be solved by some FLoungers - and there are a number - whos images are truly MASSIVE. When i was using dial-up at home, it would honestly take 10 minutes or so to load an image-heavy page. Even with high speed internet at work it can take a while to load these pages.

I suspect this is a problem with taking images straight from the camera to the web host site without any processing. Process the images and "save for web". It cuts the image size to about 1/10 of the original (often in the hundreds of megabytes), with more savings if you crop the images. It only takes 30 seconds to process an image this way in photoshop or whatever program you get free with a computer.

bk

 

[RBH]

Either that, or there are tons of pictures in the piles of socks that the dryer stole.

lol I am with you lol

 

[Orgetorix]

So do imageshack etc. limit the number of images you can store, or do they limit the total size of the combined images (MB, GB etc.)? If the latter, the problem could be solved by some FLoungers - and there are a number - whos images are truly MASSIVE. When i was using dial-up at home, it would honestly take 10 minutes or so to load an image-heavy page. Even with high speed internet at work it can take a while to load these pages.

I suspect this is a problem with taking images straight from the camera to the web host site without any processing. Process the images and "save for web". It cuts the image size to about 1/10 of the original (often in the hundreds of megabytes), with more savings if you crop the images. It only takes 30 seconds to process an image this way in photoshop or whatever program you get free with a computer.

bk

Also, if you use imageshack, it will give you the option of resizing the photo automatically to various sizes, including one for message boards.

 

[BigSho]

I use FLickr and find it to be the most convinient one to use. They allow you 200 pictures when using it on a free basis, and give you html for different sizes as well as the origional size. Plus it has a little program that lets you upload from your computer and organize all at one instead of the tedious search and find for every photo.

Jeremy
http://www.hats-plus.com

 

[Fatdutchman]

I use Photobucket, and have had many of my photos up since I first opened the free "account"...I'd say well over a year ago. They do have a limit on how many pictures you can have, but I ain't reached it yet. I have probably six or seven albums with, I would suppose, over 200 pictures altogether. Photo size is limited to 600x800. I have taken some off, when they were up for a specific reason (to illustrate a point in a message board!), and that topic had long grown cold. I guess I'm guilty too!

I've found it irritating too to be looking for something, and the photos don't work anymore...I guess I need to keep all my photos up too from now on...I can't complain when I do the exact same thing!

 

[Blackhorse]

Great information everyone...thanks!