81–90 of 163 posts
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.
I don't think this is going to work for reddit long-term unless they change it so that removing the post tied to the image doesn't remove the image itself. People are going to share these images endlessly, perpetuating on Facebook posts and Instagrams for years and years. If they don't change their minds, we're going to see endless broken image links all over the internet as those reddit posts get deleted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I could imagine that imgur traffic paid for itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What really killed them was the GIF explosion. Average image size remains largely static and bandwidth and storage costs steadily decline so if you get your timing exactly right, you can hit that sweet spot where your CPM declines slower than your hosting costs and provide an increasingly profitable business. However, GIFs completely upended that calculation by increasing the average file size by an order of magnitud…
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.
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.
Yes it can be dismissed. There's a link that says "No thanks", doesn't it appear for you?
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
What really killed them was the GIF explosion. Average image size remains largely static and bandwidth and storage costs steadily decline so if you get your timing exactly right, you can hit that sweet spot where your CPM declines slower than your hosting costs and provide an increasingly profitable business. However, GIFs completely upended that calculation by increasing the average file size by an order of magnitud…
I don't think this is going to work for reddit long-term unless they change it so that removing the post tied to the image doesn't remove the image itself. People are going to share these images endlessly, perpetuating on Facebook posts and Instagrams for years and years. If they don't change their minds, we're going to see endless broken image links all over the internet as those reddit posts get deleted.
The other big thing is censorship - when reddit wants to delete a post it will take your image with it. Not to be taken lightly in light of all the mod craziness during the Orlando shootings and related posts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's ironic because a stable link from Wikipedia must be some great way to improve one's SEO.
No, because Wikipedia citation links have rel="nofollow".
Imagine you're building the perfect internet indexer. In an effort to generalize your model, you anticipate a scenario where a nofollow link shows up consistently on various Wikipedia pages where it persists for a long time. What are you going to do? Ignore the link because, sorry, them's the rules?
Or are you going to realize that nofollow is about as useful of a signal as ?