9 ms·
They also use meta robots=noimageindex,noarchive on every page without an opt-out which is so incredibly stupid and walled-gardeny for an image sharing site. I
by near 7y ago
They also use meta robots=noimageindex,noarchive on every page without an opt-out which is so incredibly stupid and walled-gardeny for an image sharing site. I wanted to use Flickr instead but nobody else uses Flickr, then I tried making my own image gallery and I learned that browsers do not honor the JPEG rotation EXIF data and I don't want to write my own rotation/cropping code (that and Google completely ignores it), so now I'm trying Pinterest, but that one also wants you to log in to view full images.
Kind of silly I can't find a good image sharing site in 2019.
- TheChaplain 7y agoHow about imgur.com?
- rahidz 7y agoImgur's compression is awful, and especially on mobile, has a ton of dark patterns for logged-off users or anyone not using their app. Personally I'm using Instagram for casual "here's my life" photos where I don't care about compression or any of that, Flickr for more curated public photos, and Google Drive as a secondary private backup.
- bmer 7y agoImgur requires you to provide a valid mobile number in order to create an account.
- rainonmoon 7y agoChrist. It's strange to recall Imgur's genesis on Reddit as a simple, lightweight replacement for all the obstacles and mess that came with Imageshack/Photobucket/other popular image galleries at the time. Shame it eventually bloated into the thing it was meant to remedy.
- nolok 7y agoWell it happened in two easy steps: 1. They took VC money, 2. Reddit cut the middleman and offered direct photo sharing. At that point imgur became less about easy photo sharing on reddit and others, and more about creating its own community.
- jontro 7y agoHave you tried https://youpic.com/ https://youpic.com/?
- eitland 7y agoThere's also https://pixelfed.org https://pixelfed.org It is decentralized and open source.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- otachack 7y agoNever heard of this and love the idea. Thanks for sharing, will check it out.
- eitland 7y agoCame across it because someone boosted his messages on Mastodon. I loved the idea too, Mastodon is somewhat limited and if we can get more alternatives all the better.
- rapnie 7y agoYes, PixelFed is great. Based on ActivityPub open standard you can self-host your own instance and federate it to the Fediverse.
- moccachino 7y agoSpeaking of walled gardens. There is probably no service in this world that I hate more, as a non-user, than Pinterest.
- nolok 7y agoPinterest manages to do something horribly stupid and kind of abusive that I usually associates with adult sites ads: show you a preview of something that gets your interest, if you click to get access to it put you through a maze of forms and links all promising the result you asked for at the end, and then when you get to it they don't deliver and instead show other stuff you might like but really you don't because you did all that for this specific thing. I don't get it. You have it. You know the user wants it. You know the user wants it very much, enough to go through all that crap. Yet you are going out of your way to not give him access, making him so frustrated that any hope of "but he will crawl around more and do more stuff" is quickly replaced by "he closes the tab in anger at having lost 5 minutes" ... I'm sure there are metrics showing that it works, or maybe that it doesn't lose enough people to be worth changing, but it is so unnecessary.
- moccachino 7y agoThey have actually had one positive influence on my life. After having dealt with exactly what you described a few times, I learned that I don't need anything that's on Pinterest. If a search results returns a pinterest link, I ignore it. If I can't find it anywhere except that link, it's as good as a dead link so I move on. This can be extended to much of the internet. So much peace now.
- mikestew 7y agoIt is one of my main uses of Pi-Hole: “never, ever let anything from that domain into my network ever again.” If I accidentally click a link, it doesn’t go anywhere. I use it for quite a few domains that show up in a lot of places, but have proven to be an annoyance. I’m believe Pinterest was one of the first to be added for that reason. The ad blocking Pi-Hole provides is a nice bonus, too.
- netsharc 7y agoBut pinterest really really wants you to log-in, does it not? Another entry for the hall of fame is Quora. Someone should make a bugmenot browser extension...
- mattkevan 7y agoNow that Instagram has been totally Facebooked, I feel there’s a real gap in the market for what Instagram used to be. Just want something simple where I can upload some photos, do a bit of light editing, apply a nice filter and share with friends. And also see a chronological timeline of stuff they’ve posted. No likes, no engagement metrics, no personalisation, no skinner-boxing, no influencers. Well aware this makes me sound old - and this hypothetical service will never make unicorn money. But I’d use it in a flash.
- stevewodil 7y agoSo VSCO?
- mnsc 7y agoI recently started using it, and it does somewhat fill that itch of "looking at pretty pictures" that instagram used to fill (almost a year fb/insta-clean now). But to me it seem like a niche platform attracting photographers and creative people that showcase very good photos. I'm somewhat in that niche so I like it but when I stumble on the small clicks of people using it more as a social "hey frinds (insert "vsco girls" meme), here's what I ate for lunch, sucks to be you" I immediately think "hey, this is not instagram goml!". But maybe it is/will be?
- pay-to-play 7y agoVSCO costs $40 a month.
- stevewodil 7y agoNo it's free. They have a premium membership for $20 per year. Where are you getting your information?
- deltron3030 7y agoTying it to smartphones and camera apps sucks.
- pmlnr 7y agoI still use Flickr. The only place out there which doesn't want to immediately steal photo rights.
- nolok 7y agoI still maintain that if only Yahoo had any intent to do anything rather than sit around back then, Flickr would have won in the field of photo sharing and photo social media, and it would have been a much better end result for the users.
- sodosopa 7y agoAh but they have previously. They (at the time Yahoo) used non Creative Commons Flickr images in ads. This made me delete my old school pre Yahoo account and remove everything I uploaded.
- therealdrag0 7y agoI was surprised that I can't share a HD image on flickr with someone on mobile and have them be able to see the full image. If I remember correctly, it shows them a bulky UI with a scaled down version of the image.
- nolok 7y agoAs a viewer (not sharer), I find unsplash to be very enjoyable and not getting in my way https://unsplash.com/ https://unsplash.com/ And then there is also 500px, a bit more controlled but still very nice in my opinion.
- skyfaller 7y agoI was very upset with 500px when they abruptly stopped allowing Creative Commons licenses and forced me to re-license my existing photos on the service. Frankly I'm also slightly annoyed with Unsplash for reinventing the wheel with their own license instead of using standard CC licenses, reducing compatibility with other free culture projects.
- ppf 7y ago>Kind of silly I can't find a good image sharing site in 2019. Have you investigated paid options? Otherwise, it's kind of silly that people expect free image hosting years after everyone has started monetizing.
- sp332 7y agoI had a really good paid experience with SmugMug, which is now Flickr's parent company.
- dbdjfjrjvebd 7y agoIt takes a couple of hours to write code to handle exif rotations.
- matheusmoreira 7y agoSo why can't browsers handle it? Now that I think about it, browser image viewers are pretty basic...
- byuu 7y agoI was curious too and looked into it. Someone originally thought it would be a good idea to ignore EXIF data, and by the time someone else cared enough to address it, they were worried about breaking sites that had bad rotation EXIF data if browsers suddenly started honoring it. Mozilla tried to add image-orientation: from-image CSS for this purpose, so sites could say "no actually the EXIF data really is good", but then no other browser vendor followed along. So as usual, everything in computer science is just terrible for the sake of legacy compatibility with the first implementations ever made.
- SaladFork 7y agoRelevant Chromium bug: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=56845 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=56845 It works fine when you open the image directly, but it will not apply EXIF corrects for inline images (<img> tag). There are JS libraries that load the image as file data to read the EXIF data and apply the correct rotation, but those fail in some cases (HTTPS trying to load data for an HTTP-linked image, for example).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- _visgean 7y agoin python I use pywand: def generate_with_wand(self, wand_img: WandImage): # create stripped down version of our image: wand_img.strip() wand_img.auto_orient() wand_img.compression_quality = 90 thumb = wand_img.clone() thumb.transform(resize=self.size) thumb.save(filename=str(self.get_output_path()))
- xwdv 7y ago> then I tried making my own image gallery and I learned that browsers do not honor the JPEG rotation EXIF data and I don't want to write my own rotation/cropping code This just sounds like an excuse to yourself. It’s not hard to deal with this just strip out the EXIF data and bake the rotation into your images on upload. Problem solved, though I don’t know your experience level.
- twic 7y agoOr even just detect the rotation tag, leave the image untouched, and rotate it in CSS.
- xwdv 7y agoToo many edge cases I’d say. Images really shouldn’t be stored anyway with rotation data in the EXIF. By pre rotating it you normalize and make it ready to use in any context. The EXIF should be stripped out and used for other sorts of analytics.
- imglorp 7y agoAnd what's up with their hate of zooming images in desktop? They HAVE the full res image. There's even bookmarkets to snag the image. What twisted product goal led to the current state?
- Angostura 7y agoI seem to recall vaguely that this redesign was part of a response to a legal challenge for copyright infringement from one of the large photo libraries.
- rchaud 7y agoInteresting. I have wondered how IG and Pinterest get away with hosting so many photos that weren't uploaded by the copyright holder. Was that the solution? Upload the pics at a degraded resolution and claim that it's not infringement?
- shopkins 7y agoThe Write.as guys have been working on a good alternative with their Snap.as service [0]. It's tied to the blogging side, but looks like it'll be another simple tool that doesn't pull the same signup-wall crap as Instagram. [0] https://snap.as https://snap.as
- tjr225 7y ago> Kind of silly I can't find a good image sharing site in 2019. Flickr is very good. Amount of users doesn't really affect my use-case, which is offsite storage and being able to send links to my friends/family. In fact it is maybe the only service that I pay for.
- parliament32 7y agoLychee is a very good minimalistic self-hosted photo gallery: https://github.com/electerious/Lychee https://github.com/electerious/Lychee Stack is PHP/MySQL so it'll run anywhere. I've been using for years now with no complaints.