11 ms·

Imgur pushing it's own website over direct image links is the exact reason I've stopped using it. I understand they have to make money by but I just want to put

by jswny 9y ago

Imgur pushing it's own website over direct image links is the exact reason I've stopped using it. I understand they have to make money by but I just want to put a damn picture on the internet and send the link to others. I don't want to have to deal with Imgur's album/site link crap and dumb expansion into being a social network. It's hard now to even find the direct link, nevermind avoid Imgur's annoying messages about downloading its app and using its other features.

stanmancan 9y ago
Why not use Dropbox public links or something similar?
- maxerickson 9y ago
  I've used imgur in the past because it is upload->url, no further messing around required.
  - stanmancan 9y ago
    If you're sharing with a limited option all you have to do is right click the file in your Dropbox folder and click "get public link" -- others are suggesting there's bandwidth caps so this isn't ideal for a Reddit post or something that might receive large amounts of traffic.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      That link does not go to the image. You have to manually edit it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- chrisper 9y ago
  Because they have traffic limits.
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  Unless I'm mistaken, that requires an account, accounts suck.
  - stanmancan 9y ago
    It does, but it was just an option. Really you have three options, free services have ads, paid services which require an account, or host your own.
    - jasonkostempski 9y ago
      Or, for now, use imgur.
      - stanmancan 9y ago
        That falls under the free service with ads
        jasonkostempski 9y ago
        Didn't even realize they had ads, I guess I should have assumed. Does it really count if you link directly to the jpg though?
- aleksandrm 9y ago
  Afaik, they discontinued offering public links as a way of hosting.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    My friend links me to pictures he's put on Dropbox all the time, usually screenshots. Is that what you're referring to?
    - dylz 9y ago
      No. Dropbox used to have a folder that let you share direct links. https://www.dropbox.com/help/files-folders/public-folder https://www.dropbox.com/help/files-folders/public-folder It's been retroactively removed from accounts.
      - ue_ 9y ago
        What do you mean by direct links? My friend can link me to things, but they display in the "dropbox viewer", and I can download them by clicking "download" in that webpage.
        dylz 9y ago
        Direct links, as in <img src=""> usable, etc. Not viewer, not ad/conversion/signup/referral filled bloated javascript page. It was pretty much the only reason I even kept a dropbox account. No point after that.
- astrodust 9y ago
  There's limits on what you can share. imgur's big benefit is no cap on hosting, so if your meme goes nuclear you're not going to get a "bandwidth exceeded" page.
  - stanmancan 9y ago
    Fair enough, wasn't aware of the bandwidth limits. Thanks!
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
Spivak 9y ago
As it turns out, it's really hard to monetize an S3 bucket at scale.
- TekMol 9y ago
  Would it be easier to monetize a small S3 bucket?
  - michaelt 9y ago
    No, but my $3 AWS bill is much easier to ignore than their $300,000 one.
- pier25 9y ago
  What if they moved to their own infrastructure? I imagine being an image hosting service it would be cheaper in the long run, although I have no idea by how much and if it would make sense all things considered.
  - fbnlsr 9y ago
    Unsplash wrote a nice piece last year on how much it cost their site to run. https://crew.co/blog/what-does-unsplash-cost/ https://crew.co/blog/what-does-unsplash-cost/
    - pier25 9y ago
      Thanks for the great article.
- takeda 9y ago
  Things like that makes me wish NDN[1] would succeed. Essentially in this network instead using addressing to address hosts, they address the data. This brings interesting properties, since routers are aware what data is being transferred they can start caching it. In the end no CDNs are needed (network takes care of it) so people can host data themselves without worrying of it getting too popular. [1] https://named-data.net/ https://named-data.net/
vermontdevil 9y ago
They used to offer a paid account which I gladly signed up for. Apparently they saw that the ad model was the way to go and discontinued the paid accounts. Which is too bad because that's where we stand right now. I wish they would still offer an ad-free paid account. I guess in the long run we'll see how Imgur current business model will last.
- jaymzcampbell 9y ago
  I too was a (happily) paying customer of Imgur and was surprised when they refunded my prepayment for the year and went free. I had a feeling it was going to go downhill quickly thereafter.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
TremendousJudge 9y ago
ironically, image hosting sites being crap was the reason imgur was created in the first place. turns out you have to pay the bills somehow
- digi_owl 9y ago
  And most of them were crap because of mess, noisy sites with intrusive ads. The basic problem seems to be that the web has a trust issue, not between users and services. But between services and advertisers. Until that trust issue is solved, so that sites can bring ad hosting under their own domain rather than embed unsupervised ads from third parties, there will be no end to this runaround. That said, inhouse ad management do not always do a good job either. Right now i have Reddit ads killed because i got tired of having some rotting face glare at me from the sidebar just because i visit the odd gaming sub-reddit from time to time.
  - hinkley 9y ago
    Do you think it's possible to create an ethical ad network? It's something I wonder about at least once a month, but I'm not sure if it could compete.
    - Springtime 9y ago
      There was one that I recall: The Deck, which shut down recently [1] after more than ten years. Could be seen originally on sites like A List Apart where its ads were small, felt relevant and were of good quality (they had a limited monthly pool of decent brands and artists that used them last time I checked). I actually liked them, though after switching to uBlock Origin years ago I'd forgotten about the network and to whitelist them, sadly. [1] http://decknetwork.net/ http://decknetwork.net/
    - gboudrias 9y ago
      > Do you think it's possible to create an ethical ad network? It's something I wonder about at least once a month, but I'm not sure if it could compete. I'm highly skeptical, in that I believe the nature of ads makes this inherently unfeasible. The point of ads is to be seen by as many people as possible. In dramatic terms, you could say the purpose of ads is to invade your mental space against your will on behalf of product makers. How could that ever be ethical? That aside, ads also present a conflict of interest for content makers. You want your site to be nice and high-quality. But you need money, so you put up ads and comprise on the aesthetics. You want more people to see your ads so you're tempted to make more content, or arbitrarily divide your content into smaller pieces (fighting the end user's ultimate desire which is to peruse your stuff). And then there's the whole "biting the hand that feeds" problem. I personally don't believe anyone showing ads can be truly objective regarding them. So maybe Google is evil, maybe not, are you going to turn down their money either way? Most smaller ad networks seem shady to me. I think this seemingly theoretical problem is why ad blockers are still on the rise, going so far as to be baked into browsers (Brave on mobile is awesome). Not only do people dislike ads, I think they don't trust advertisers, and I think most users nowadays are aware of these ethical conflicts at least on a semi-conscious level. In short, this is why I've personally made a promise to myself never to rely on ads. Maybe that means I can't get rich off of "killer apps", or even earn a living. But part of me believes that anything useful is worth paying for, so I'm focusing on building something useful. Edit: Didn't mean for this to turn into a rant. Oh well!
ortusdux 9y ago
An interesting side effect of imgur integrating a social feature is that imgur-only users now push back against reddit users using 'their' site. https://www.reddit.com/r/IgnorantImgur/comments/6cowy8/imgur_user_complains_that_rhearthstone_uploaded/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IgnorantImgur/comments/6cowy8/imgur...
- komali2 9y ago
  It's hilarious, I see it all the time on /r/fitness. Someone will post progress pics and get huge upvotes because the reddit post goes into detail on their lift schedule, diet, etc. Post will be hovering at 2-5k upvotes on reddit, but meanwhile will have been downvoted to oblivion on imgur, where I doubt the OP even meant for it to be a "post."
coldpie 9y ago
> I just want to put a damn picture on the internet and send the link to others Either put up with the free-image-host cycle of crap[1], or pay for your own domain and hosting. [1] Free image host N is awesome, bandwidth is expensive so free image host N needs money, free image host N starts to add shitty anti-features, free image host N+1 enters at the start of the cycle, free image host N closes... Before Imgur there was Photobucket, Imageshack, and many others. Now Imgur is at the end of the anti-feature cycle. Reddit's own hosting is entering the cycle, right on cue.
artursapek 9y ago
They really have some dark stuff going on. When I upload an image, right clicking to copy the URL copies a useless blob URL the first time. When I try again, it copies the proper URL.

by jswny 9y ago

stanmancan 9y ago

Why not use Dropbox public links or something similar?

maxerickson 9y ago
I've used imgur in the past because it is upload->url, no further messing around required.
- stanmancan 9y ago
  If you're sharing with a limited option all you have to do is right click the file in your Dropbox folder and click "get public link" -- others are suggesting there's bandwidth caps so this isn't ideal for a Reddit post or something that might receive large amounts of traffic.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    That link does not go to the image. You have to manually edit it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
chrisper 9y ago
Because they have traffic limits.
jasonkostempski 9y ago
Unless I'm mistaken, that requires an account, accounts suck.
- stanmancan 9y ago
  It does, but it was just an option. Really you have three options, free services have ads, paid services which require an account, or host your own.
  - jasonkostempski 9y ago
    Or, for now, use imgur.
    - stanmancan 9y ago
      That falls under the free service with ads
      - jasonkostempski 9y ago
        Didn't even realize they had ads, I guess I should have assumed. Does it really count if you link directly to the jpg though?
aleksandrm 9y ago
Afaik, they discontinued offering public links as a way of hosting.
- ue_ 9y ago
  My friend links me to pictures he's put on Dropbox all the time, usually screenshots. Is that what you're referring to?
  - dylz 9y ago
    No. Dropbox used to have a folder that let you share direct links. https://www.dropbox.com/help/files-folders/public-folder https://www.dropbox.com/help/files-folders/public-folder It's been retroactively removed from accounts.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      What do you mean by direct links? My friend can link me to things, but they display in the "dropbox viewer", and I can download them by clicking "download" in that webpage.
      - dylz 9y ago
        Direct links, as in <img src=""> usable, etc. Not viewer, not ad/conversion/signup/referral filled bloated javascript page. It was pretty much the only reason I even kept a dropbox account. No point after that.
astrodust 9y ago
There's limits on what you can share. imgur's big benefit is no cap on hosting, so if your meme goes nuclear you're not going to get a "bandwidth exceeded" page.
- stanmancan 9y ago
  Fair enough, wasn't aware of the bandwidth limits. Thanks!
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Spivak 9y ago

As it turns out, it's really hard to monetize an S3 bucket at scale.

TekMol 9y ago
Would it be easier to monetize a small S3 bucket?
- michaelt 9y ago
  No, but my $3 AWS bill is much easier to ignore than their $300,000 one.
pier25 9y ago
What if they moved to their own infrastructure? I imagine being an image hosting service it would be cheaper in the long run, although I have no idea by how much and if it would make sense all things considered.
- fbnlsr 9y ago
  Unsplash wrote a nice piece last year on how much it cost their site to run. https://crew.co/blog/what-does-unsplash-cost/ https://crew.co/blog/what-does-unsplash-cost/
  - pier25 9y ago
    Thanks for the great article.
takeda 9y ago
Things like that makes me wish NDN[1] would succeed. Essentially in this network instead using addressing to address hosts, they address the data. This brings interesting properties, since routers are aware what data is being transferred they can start caching it. In the end no CDNs are needed (network takes care of it) so people can host data themselves without worrying of it getting too popular. [1] https://named-data.net/ https://named-data.net/

vermontdevil 9y ago

They used to offer a paid account which I gladly signed up for. Apparently they saw that the ad model was the way to go and discontinued the paid accounts. Which is too bad because that's where we stand right now. I wish they would still offer an ad-free paid account. I guess in the long run we'll see how Imgur current business model will last.

jaymzcampbell 9y ago
I too was a (happily) paying customer of Imgur and was surprised when they refunded my prepayment for the year and went free. I had a feeling it was going to go downhill quickly thereafter.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

TremendousJudge 9y ago

ironically, image hosting sites being crap was the reason imgur was created in the first place. turns out you have to pay the bills somehow

digi_owl 9y ago
And most of them were crap because of mess, noisy sites with intrusive ads. The basic problem seems to be that the web has a trust issue, not between users and services. But between services and advertisers. Until that trust issue is solved, so that sites can bring ad hosting under their own domain rather than embed unsupervised ads from third parties, there will be no end to this runaround. That said, inhouse ad management do not always do a good job either. Right now i have Reddit ads killed because i got tired of having some rotting face glare at me from the sidebar just because i visit the odd gaming sub-reddit from time to time.
- hinkley 9y ago
  Do you think it's possible to create an ethical ad network? It's something I wonder about at least once a month, but I'm not sure if it could compete.
  - Springtime 9y ago
    There was one that I recall: The Deck, which shut down recently [1] after more than ten years. Could be seen originally on sites like A List Apart where its ads were small, felt relevant and were of good quality (they had a limited monthly pool of decent brands and artists that used them last time I checked). I actually liked them, though after switching to uBlock Origin years ago I'd forgotten about the network and to whitelist them, sadly. [1] http://decknetwork.net/ http://decknetwork.net/
  - gboudrias 9y ago
    > Do you think it's possible to create an ethical ad network? It's something I wonder about at least once a month, but I'm not sure if it could compete. I'm highly skeptical, in that I believe the nature of ads makes this inherently unfeasible. The point of ads is to be seen by as many people as possible. In dramatic terms, you could say the purpose of ads is to invade your mental space against your will on behalf of product makers. How could that ever be ethical? That aside, ads also present a conflict of interest for content makers. You want your site to be nice and high-quality. But you need money, so you put up ads and comprise on the aesthetics. You want more people to see your ads so you're tempted to make more content, or arbitrarily divide your content into smaller pieces (fighting the end user's ultimate desire which is to peruse your stuff). And then there's the whole "biting the hand that feeds" problem. I personally don't believe anyone showing ads can be truly objective regarding them. So maybe Google is evil, maybe not, are you going to turn down their money either way? Most smaller ad networks seem shady to me. I think this seemingly theoretical problem is why ad blockers are still on the rise, going so far as to be baked into browsers (Brave on mobile is awesome). Not only do people dislike ads, I think they don't trust advertisers, and I think most users nowadays are aware of these ethical conflicts at least on a semi-conscious level. In short, this is why I've personally made a promise to myself never to rely on ads. Maybe that means I can't get rich off of "killer apps", or even earn a living. But part of me believes that anything useful is worth paying for, so I'm focusing on building something useful. Edit: Didn't mean for this to turn into a rant. Oh well!

ortusdux 9y ago

An interesting side effect of imgur integrating a social feature is that imgur-only users now push back against reddit users using 'their' site. https://www.reddit.com/r/IgnorantImgur/comments/6cowy8/imgur_user_complains_that_rhearthstone_uploaded/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IgnorantImgur/comments/6cowy8/imgur...

komali2 9y ago
It's hilarious, I see it all the time on /r/fitness. Someone will post progress pics and get huge upvotes because the reddit post goes into detail on their lift schedule, diet, etc. Post will be hovering at 2-5k upvotes on reddit, but meanwhile will have been downvoted to oblivion on imgur, where I doubt the OP even meant for it to be a "post."

coldpie 9y ago

> I just want to put a damn picture on the internet and send the link to others Either put up with the free-image-host cycle of crap[1], or pay for your own domain and hosting. [1] Free image host N is awesome, bandwidth is expensive so free image host N needs money, free image host N starts to add shitty anti-features, free image host N+1 enters at the start of the cycle, free image host N closes... Before Imgur there was Photobucket, Imageshack, and many others. Now Imgur is at the end of the anti-feature cycle. Reddit's own hosting is entering the cycle, right on cue.

artursapek 9y ago

They really have some dark stuff going on. When I upload an image, right clicking to copy the URL copies a useless blob URL the first time. When I try again, it copies the proper URL.