Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Image Hosting on Reddit

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 163 posts

Re: Image Hosting on Reddit

#71

Post by Klathmon »

tzs wrote: post #45

No reference counting? This seems like it will cause problems: [–]iBeReese 1246 points 3 hours ago Is there a planned retention policy? Or is it an "as long as reddit has the money to maintain the servers the images will stay forever" kind of deal? [–]Amg137[S,A] 1421 points 3 hours ago We will keep the images as long as they are associated to a post. However if you delete a post we will also delete the image [–]spee…

IMO that's how it should act.

Just because someone else links to a picture doesn't mean that they get to say whether it's taken down or not...

If you want to be the "uploader" then upload it, don't just link.

Re: Image Hosting on Reddit

#72

Post by qu4z-2 »

loopbit wrote: post #63
dmerrick wrote: post #10

It's really unfortunate that Imgur took such a turn for the worse. Originally it seemed like Imgur was a benevolent gift to Reddit users... a clean, simple, easy to use image hosting service that everyone could use for free. I guess it was too good to be true, because now it's tricky to link to a direct image (though not impossible), and the standard landing page is filled with unnecessary clutter. As an aside: if yo…

I was wondering about what you said about linking to a direct image being tricky. As far as I can see, you can put the link to imgur (like http://imgur.com/gKt0Owa ) or directly to the image ( http://i.imgur.com/gKt0Owa.jpg ) and both (as well as the html, bbcode and markdown versions) appear directly in the image page.

It's tricky because your direct image link redirects me to the full page with ads, and it's not obvious to you. Try hard refreshing your image link.

(I'm pretty sure the way it works is: it shows the image for certain referrers, and when you load the "full" page it requests the image with a referrer of imgur. That way you get the image, and then subsequent requests to the image are served from your browser cache so the direct links work)

Re: Image Hosting on Reddit

#73

Post by gist »

nilved wrote: post #65
galistoca wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Google buy when they can just create one overnight if they wanted? Probably much more stable than Imgur too. Imgur is just a commodity. Youtube is not.

Imgur is exactly as much of a commodity as YouTube. The exception is that they host images instead, and when you consider that the images are silent webm videos a lot of the time, the lines are even more blurry. The value to both communities is just that, their communities.

> Imgur is exactly as much of a commodity as YouTube

Youtube isn't a commodity. It's the place that even your aunt, mother, grandmother, uncle will visit and knows to visit for entertainment or music. People who would never have a reason to visit imgur.

Re: Image Hosting on Reddit

#74

Post by ddorian43 »

pyvpx wrote: post #25
revelation wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what the lore tells us, but maybe it's just plain wrong and the old incumbents were just greedy and terrible. I think imgur was bootstrapped for a long time and didn't have much in the way of monetization, certainly hotlinking still worked then. The changes came when imgur took VC money.

imgur worked because a CDN named voxel could readily use the bandwidth bump provided by hosting images to decrease their overall network costs.

please explain, doesn't make sense

Re: Image Hosting on Reddit

#75

Post by alanh »

mmanfrin wrote: post #41
slig wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imgur has a community. Tons of users that goes directly there to see funny images and GIFs. Yes, Google can create a infinite scalable image hosting overnight, but creating a community is a lot harder.

Imageshack was in the same position 5 years ago. And Photobucket 3 years before that. Image hosts go through a cycle of upending the tyrant and then becoming the villain.

Ugh. Don’t remind me. I used yfrog (Imageshack’s Twitter-friendly brand) for years, and now I have probably hundreds of old tweets with missing images.

◔̯◔

Re: Image Hosting on Reddit

#76

Post by Kluny »

ythl wrote: post #14
dmerrick wrote: post #10

It's really unfortunate that Imgur took such a turn for the worse. Originally it seemed like Imgur was a benevolent gift to Reddit users... a clean, simple, easy to use image hosting service that everyone could use for free. I guess it was too good to be true, because now it's tricky to link to a direct image (though not impossible), and the standard landing page is filled with unnecessary clutter. As an aside: if yo…

> a clean, simple, easy to use image hosting service that everyone could use for free How do you monetize such a site without bloating into the current Imgur? It seems like the only way to have a "clean, simple, easy" image hosting service is to be a billionaire and to do it out of the goodness of your heart.

Limit gif uploads and don't insist on viral growth. Pretty simple.

Re: Image Hosting on Reddit

#78

Post by pki »

qu4z-2 wrote: post #72
loopbit wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was wondering about what you said about linking to a direct image being tricky. As far as I can see, you can put the link to imgur (like http://imgur.com/gKt0Owa ) or directly to the image ( http://i.imgur.com/gKt0Owa.jpg ) and both (as well as the html, bbcode and markdown versions) appear directly in the image page.

It's tricky because your direct image link redirects me to the full page with ads, and it's not obvious to you. Try hard refreshing your image link. (I'm pretty sure the way it works is: it shows the image for certain referrers, and when you load the "full" page it requests the image with a referrer of imgur. That way you get the image, and then subsequent requests to the image are served from your browser cache so t…

Also variably checks http accept headers ( produces accept of image/* iirc)

Re: Image Hosting on Reddit

#79

Post by walrus01 »

mmanfrin wrote: post #41
slig wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imgur has a community. Tons of users that goes directly there to see funny images and GIFs. Yes, Google can create a infinite scalable image hosting overnight, but creating a community is a lot harder.

Imageshack was in the same position 5 years ago. And Photobucket 3 years before that. Image hosts go through a cycle of upending the tyrant and then becoming the villain.

does anyone remember pbase.com for free photo gallery hosting, in around 2002? apparently it still exists with its same basic but functional UI.

Re: Image Hosting on Reddit

#80

Post by DocG »

jamiequint wrote: post #40
lostlogin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. The mobile site has a banner that takes up a lot of the screen advertising their app. I don't want their app, and I can't dismiss the advert. Still, it's saved me wasting time browsing.

Why don't you want the app?

Tabs. Loading on mobile still takes a second or two. Tabs help with this. All those native apps usually staring at blank screen half the time. And I have 4g and top of the line phone.
Post reply on HN