Now personally I haven't used ImageShack to upload images but I've noticed since Feb 22 I've been seeing an Ice frog with these two images.





What does this mean? It means ImageShack have changed its policy that Site Owners and those outside the the country should register to them to view uploaded images.

Now that is the most idiotic policy change I've seen for image storage.

ImageShack used to be user friendly... Not anymore.

 

Do you have to pay to get an account?

 

I've never liked Imageshack - pop-ups can sod right off.

 

I only use them for my sig (otherwise it puts a lot of strain on my photobucket account). But I notice now you need to have an account in order to use their 'direct link' option  .

 

Photobucket >>>>> ImageShack

 

Interesting note, I can can still see Imageshack images and I'm not registered.

 

I was wondering what was up with that. Been seeing on a bunch of sites for the last couple days. Absolute stupidity if you ask me.

 

Upload image, right click on full size image and go to "View Image". Copy the link to that image and you have yourself the direct image link. Been using that ever since the policy change.

 

Switch to Majhost. I've never had image hosting issues with them.

 

thats what i always do. direct link to img do not contain pop-ups.

 

Majhost is great. I've been using it for years. No pop-ups and free to use.

 

I never particularly liked ImageShack to begin with. It never seemed very friendly to me. For example, I didn't like how if you clicked on the image to make it bigger, it would actually just go to the imageshack website. Although it may have been due to how people were posting links. I prefer Photobucket for image hosting.

 

All I ever use is ImageShack. I've never had a problem. Photobucket sucks ass. I always see places where a Photobucket picture should be and sometimes there's a "Photobucket bandwidth exceeded" note in its place. That's never happened to me with ImageShack.

 

Sites like imgur.com and even the newer min.us are much better options. Places like Photobucket tend to employ horrible compression which don't permit larger pictures to display accurately.

Even something like Dropbox, which is a file hosting service, is a good idea as they give you multiple gigabytes in free storage which can be used for picture hosting.

 

+1

I've used Photobucket for years and never had a problem. I upload pictures constantly and have yet to get the "bandwidth exceeded" thing.

 

I have. It's not upload that really eats bandwidth, it's display. And I have a looooooooooot of stuff displayed. But it's taken years for me to reach that point, I signed up in 2004. But here's the thing about Photobucket: A few years ago, they sharply cut the monthly bandwidth allowance free users get. It didn't affect free users who already had accounts, though, because we'd have all left them. Another thing to watch out for is the fact that recently they've become more conservative. But ImageShack really sucks, they have gotten on my nerves several times during Google image searches.

Whatever you do, though, DO. NOT. USE. ANGELFIRE. FOR. ANYTHING.

 

I have seen the promise land, and it is called "Photobucket".

 

For me, Imageshack>Photobucket. I've yet to encounter this problem myself, but one of my comic's readers said they couldn't see my comic recently.

I might still be using Photobucket had they not done the bandwidth limit thing. That was a deal breaker, as I can't have 60+ pages of my comic suddenly become unviewable for weeks until it resets. I'd rather have random panels randomly not show then that.

 

Imageshack is my first port of call if I need to quickly throw a pic up on the net. Here's a tip: you can click the forum code button and just delete the forum code to get the direct link...

 

i have a Flickr account, and i post images to my Facebook.
and for the most part i link to my Facebook images.

i have never liked 'bucket or 'shack.