You are not logged in.

#26 2008-12-29 05:06:39

Pnevma
Member
Registered: 2008-04-11
Posts: 112

Re: **ImageShack Users**

I've always just directly linked to images using either Photobucket or Tinypic. But yeah, ImageShack is terrible. For some reason I have to click the link, reload it, then click the image to see its normal resolution.

Offline

#27 2008-12-29 06:04:30

weasel8
Member
Registered: 2008-12-15
Posts: 149

Re: **ImageShack Users**

bavardage wrote:

omploader beats them all hands down.
no adverts at all, no silly have to click picture to view it fullsize, speedy.

+1 for omploader. It absolutely rocks. They make BBcode with the thumbnail linked to the original and everything. Definitely recommended.

Offline

#28 2008-12-30 14:43:22

nightm4re
Member
Registered: 2005-12-30
Posts: 42
Website

Re: **ImageShack Users**

Please don't use xs.to, it is absolutely dog slow.  Omploader is the best, support omp!

Offline

#29 2008-12-30 18:26:00

weasel8
Member
Registered: 2008-12-15
Posts: 149

Re: **ImageShack Users**

nightm4re wrote:

Please don't use xs.to, it is absolutely dog slow.

Ditto on this; I hate xs.to. In fact, I hate any image host whose thumbnails direct to some HTML page with the image inside instead of the actual image file.

Offline

#30 2008-12-30 19:31:35

JoshuaK
Member
From: Ohio, USA
Registered: 2008-09-13
Posts: 66
Website

Re: **ImageShack Users**

merdenoms wrote:

Imageshack is a pain in the arse! Is there another script like imageshack-upload for the other image uploading sites?

Amen.
I used to use Photobucket but am in the process of moving my photos to Picasa. Picasa is TRUE "KISS"

Execute_Method wrote:

here's another:
If I want to see boobies(bottom right corner), I'll ask my wife.

I don't have a wife, but I don't like to look at porn on websites... I must say it is indeed offensive to some people (I don't really give a crap)

peets wrote:

I've been using http://deviantart.com for screenshots, but I have adblock on all the time, so I can't tell if there are ads or pop-ups.

I don't use deviantart, but they don't have many ads that I see when I go there. This was tested with Adblock Plus turned off (I only ever turn it off for Google)

I must agree, ImageShack is a PITA, non-KISS, and non-necessary image uploader.

And a good day to you lol


Meh has new account! This one left behind for history's sake...

Offline

#31 2009-01-15 22:26:45

linkmaster03
Member
Registered: 2008-12-27
Posts: 269

Re: **ImageShack Users**

This is only because people have no clue how to use ImageShack correctly. I've used it for years, and although admittedly they've added an unbelievable amount of advertising, they are reliable. Use the direct link and [img] tags and everything is dandy. Solarwind's script is absolutely awesome as well. (with a bit of modification to copy the direct link in [img] tags to the clipboard when uploaded, to be posted on forums easily)

Offline

#32 2009-01-16 12:24:32

Arkane
Member
From: Switzerland
Registered: 2008-02-18
Posts: 263

Re: **ImageShack Users**

I've also always bee n using imageshack without ever noticing they actually had ads or popups (viva NoScript). Going to start using omploader instead.

nightm4re wrote:

Please don't use xs.to, it is absolutely dog slow.

Seconded, it usually takes me about 30s to load a frigging desktop screenshot.


What does not kill you will hurt a lot.

Offline

#33 2009-01-16 22:18:27

linkmaster03
Member
Registered: 2008-12-27
Posts: 269

Re: **ImageShack Users**

I'm now using PetaIMG. No advertising. Fast. petaimg.com

Use solarwind's awesome script for it. http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~x-solarwin … aUpload.py

It looks like a very promising image host.

Offline

#34 2009-01-16 22:38:35

bavardage
Member
Registered: 2008-02-17
Posts: 160

Re: **ImageShack Users**

Omploader is still better - no adverts and nicer interface.

Offline

#35 2009-01-17 00:10:17

linkmaster03
Member
Registered: 2008-12-27
Posts: 269

Re: **ImageShack Users**

I've seen a lot of images from omploader posted here in the last few days. Why are half of them super small thumbnails, even when linked? Btw, petaimg doesn't have adverts either. And I think their interface is better, but who cares about interfaces when a script does the uploading for you? wink

Offline

#36 2009-03-21 08:51:13

rwd
Member
Registered: 2009-02-08
Posts: 646

Re: **ImageShack Users**

linkmaster03 wrote:

This is only because people have no clue how to use ImageShack correctly. I've used it for years, and although admittedly they've added an unbelievable amount of advertising, they are reliable. Use the direct link and [url]tags and everything is dandy. Solarwind's script is absolutely awesome as well. (with a bit of modification to copy the direct link in [url]tags to the clipboard when uploaded, to be posted on forums easily)

+1. I would think people using Arch would be capable enough to figure out to use a direct link to the image.

Offline

#37 2009-03-21 09:56:15

wolvieh
Member
From: Austria
Registered: 2008-04-01
Posts: 25

Re: **ImageShack Users**

Don't know if someone even cares, but iirc linking images directly isn't allowed at imageshack.

Offline

#38 2009-03-21 16:14:20

CheesyBeef
Member
Registered: 2008-06-04
Posts: 190

Re: **ImageShack Users**

Forget all this, create own ftp server ftmfw. big_smile (just kidding!)

Oh, and while I'm at it, I want to say that ImageShack can still be used, you just need to edit the links to bypass ads and stuff.


Here's how to do it:

When you upload an image to ImageShack, or want to use one of your previous images, you get a link under the category "Thumbnail Size" called "Forums."  The link looks like this:

[url=http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=200902211210531280x800s.png][img]http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3882/200902211210531280x800s.th.png[/img][/url]

What you want to do is copy the url enclosed in the  tags.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3882/200902211210531280x800s.th.png

Then paste that in for the url in the [url=] tag of the original image code:

[url=http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3882/200902211210531280x800s.th.png][img]http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3882/200902211210531280x800s.th.png[/img][/url]

Then remove the .th before .png in the [url]code.

[url=http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3882/200902211210531280x800s.png][img]http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3882/200902211210531280x800s.th.png[/img][/url]

Result is a thumbnail linking directly to the image, bypassing all the junk:

200902211210531280x800s.th.png

Last edited by CheesyBeef (2009-03-21 16:31:31)

Offline

#39 2009-03-25 00:42:18

linkmaster03
Member
Registered: 2008-12-27
Posts: 269

Re: **ImageShack Users**

wolvieh wrote:

Don't know if someone even cares, but iirc linking images directly isn't allowed at imageshack.

Well then why is there a big box with the direct link at the top? Hotlinking and linking to images directly is allowed at ImageShack. Agreeing with rwd, I don't see what's so complicated about pasting that link.

Last edited by linkmaster03 (2009-03-25 00:42:55)

Offline

#40 2009-03-25 12:55:29

bluewind
Administrator
From: Austria
Registered: 2008-07-13
Posts: 168
Website

Re: **ImageShack Users**

ImageShack allows unlimited bandwidth for videos and slideshows, and allows each hotlinked image 300 megabytes of transfer per hour. If a hotlinked image exceeds this amount, it will become inaccessible, and you would need to send us an email in order to have it enabled again.

http://reg.imageshack.us/content.php?pa … %20i%20use?


"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
-- Albert Einstein

Offline

#41 2009-03-25 13:25:55

X/ax
Member
From: Oost vlaanderen, Belgium
Registered: 2008-01-13
Posts: 275
Website

Re: **ImageShack Users**

Has anyone thought of using flickr? I read a lot of those upload scripts, and they're great for temporary uploads (like most of those here on this forum), but when you want to keep things for later, compare, etc... I think it's best to "manage" those pictures... Picasa / flickr shouldn't be that bad for achieving that... Right?


My coding blog (or an attempt at it)
Archer start page (or an attempt at it)

Offline

#42 2009-03-25 13:47:17

toxygen
Member
Registered: 2008-08-22
Posts: 705

Re: **ImageShack Users**

I just had a Stallman insight.. being users, fans and supporters of free software, we should do more to support sites that follow this philosophy.  omploader (in their very short faq) tells us:

Omploader will remain free as in FREEDOM, without ads, for as long as possible.  However, we don't appreciate when people use omploader on their high traffic sites instead of using their own damn servers (especially if they have ads on their site).

Omploader was written in Ruby, uses git/vim.. if for no other reason than they seem to be OSS supporters, we should support them. smile
but then as Linus said, Stallman is a "one-issue" man, so.. hmm


"I know what you're thinking, 'cause right now I'm thinking the same thing. Actually, I've been thinking it ever since I got here:
Why oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill?"

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB