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

IMGZ – Paid image sharing

imgz.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 409 posts

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#221

Post by normalocity »

mrmuagi wrote: post #216
awsthro00945 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well good news for you, he pretty much explicitly states all of that in IMGZ's terms of service! https://imgz.org/help/terms/ >This is my project, and I make no promises at all, even though you're paying. I'm not even promising I'll host your images. I don't believe in stealing your money or compromising your privacy, but even those aren't promises either.

TBH, I would avoid this service on the grounds it seems to be run by one person (to what extent its just clever self promotion hinges on charitable interpretation) -- this blurb whilst humorous is on line with the Discord cutesy error messages. It really hammers home this is not in the big leagues (or the minor leagues rather) and if you are using this service, you should be fine with that. However charging customers…

I haven't been this entertained for the mere price of $12 in a very long time. I think it's worth the price of admission even if I never even try to upload an image.

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#222

Post by stavros »

solarkraft wrote: post #174

> You are a guest here. You can use IMGZ, and it'll always be great, because I'm great > It's simple, what do you want No bullshit, you say? I like tongue in cheek stuff, jokes and all, but that tone sounds more like “fuck you” than a solid, reliable business relationship with adequate respect where the customer is not the product. Besides that: Props for so quickly capitalizing on the (probably still brewing) imgur…

> I like tongue in cheek stuff, jokes and all, but that tone sounds more like “fuck you” than a solid, reliable business relationship with adequate respect where the customer is not the product.

I kind of talk about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28677501

Basically, it's a bit funny that people complain that it sounds more like a "fuck you" when that's the entire point, and the site is completely explicit about it. We don't trust services to not want our money, even when they're telling us they don't. We just think it's a ploy.

> Besides that: Props for so quickly capitalizing on the (probably still brewing) imgur controversy!

Thanks! I made the site and bam!, two years later, Imgur imploded and I made $12!

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#223

Post by stavros »

normalocity wrote: post #221
mrmuagi wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH, I would avoid this service on the grounds it seems to be run by one person (to what extent its just clever self promotion hinges on charitable interpretation) -- this blurb whilst humorous is on line with the Discord cutesy error messages. It really hammers home this is not in the big leagues (or the minor leagues rather) and if you are using this service, you should be fine with that. However charging customers…

I haven't been this entertained for the mere price of $12 in a very long time. I think it's worth the price of admission even if I never even try to upload an image.

Oh no no no, that won't do. Please send your SLA and NDA for me to sign, we can't be spending $12 willy-nilly! We could have almost bought one movie ticket to Cats for that money!

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#224

Post by stavros »

normalocity wrote: post #212

I got so much joy out of the FAQ I nearly paid just as a thank you for putting a smile on my face.

> I got so much joy out of the FAQ I nearly paid just as a thank you for putting a smile on my face.

> I got so much joy out of the FAQ I nearly paid

> I nearly paid

> nearly paid

> nearly

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#225

Post by stavros »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #205
dd444fgdfg wrote: post #181

Stavros. You need to detach a little bit, get a 10,000m view. You've got something, you can be successful. But your approach is "out of whack" and people aren't going to support you. Conform to influence.

Conform to influence. OBEY. I was going to upload a nice screencap from a 1988 movie They Live to IMGZ and link it here, but it turns out my trial expired so no link for you.

Well guess what just UNEXPIRED

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#227

Post by [deleted] »

statico wrote: post #7

I've been hoping for an Imgur replacement for simple, hosted image sharing. I'm happy to pay $1/mo, but when I tried to upload https://camo.githubusercontent.com/9ec8d13de2878c899fda0bd43... I got this, which doesn't look like what I uploaded: https://cln.sh/4coS9T / https://imgz.org/i5qphFzd.gif

[deleted]

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#228

Post by awsthro00945 »

normalocity wrote: post #220
awsthro00945 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's absolutely fair game to post customer chats/emails that contradict a false and damaging narrative. Eh, not really. Most half-decent businesses have a privacy policy/TOS that explicitly makes this a no-go, and would be grounds for a lawsuit if a company posted a customer's conversations with said company. It doesn't look like Historious has such a policy, so legally it might be okay, but it's still scummy IMO. P…

I see humor in the entire project, and am okay with this. Given Stavros' clear intent to be funny and make it abundantly clear what _isn't_ being promised, it's pretty great. I mean c'mon - have a little fun. At any rate it's classic absurdist marketing, and I approve. Besides, I don't read the TOS of most other services. Why would I start now?

Oh I see the humor in it and I too am entertained, but I think it's a strange attitude to take in a paid product. This seems like more the territory of "optional donations accepted".

Just think, if this were a larger company doing this, they would be absolutely crucified for deceiving customers by hiding critical info in tiny text or TOSes that nobody reads.

And FWIW, I haven't actually tried paying yet, but if IMGZ is handling any actual payments info, a clever TOS that says "we don't make any promises about your privacy" won't protect you from fun legal action if that info is ever breached (though I'd guess and really hope that Stavros is using some payments provider like Stripe or Paypal).

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#229

Post by dijit »

sverhagen wrote: post #182
dijit wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... depending on the type of data. Binary data in databases is usually not a great idea, but tolerable in low amounts. I can't imagine storing images in a database, you're probably better off with a document store. Relational Databases (well, the ones that I know the internals of) tend to have soft limits on row sizes, in PostgreSQL this is 8kb (which is very small for an image); to overcome this limitation Postgres…

If you were to go with PostgreSQL, wouldn't you store this in a large object, which is effectively stored outside of the actual table row? So, if you can store enough rows of meta data AND you provision enough storage, why wouldn't the database be able to do this. I don't imagine you want to put a primary key on the actual image data column (not possible with large objects, since the column just contains an "oid"). I…

Large objects are _mostly_ an access method, the underlying implementation is staggeringly similar to TOAST.

> The large object implementation breaks large objects up into “chunks” and stores the chunks in rows in the database. A B-tree index guarantees fast searches for the correct chunk number when doing random access reads and writes.

You might try Foreign Data Wrapping.

In which case I still wouldn't because the database is going to be spending more time in doing round trips, better my application server does that, there's usually more of them.

Re: IMGZ – Paid image sharing

#230

Post by dsr_ »

debarshri wrote: post #127
stavros wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's a database. That's where you're meant to put DATA.

How about filesystem or object storage? That where you meant to put a FILE which is what the user uploaded.

If IMGZ was a file sharing service it would be called FILZ or something. Obviously this is not that.
Post reply on HN