FLICKR WITHDRAWING FREE SERVICE

[Alteknacker]

To follow up on some earlier threads on this general topic ...

https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=85310
https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=84713
https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=80893&p=375086&hilit=flickr#p375086
etc.

...which I would expect to be of major concern both to WH (Paul) (because so many reports will be full of blanks, hence massively reducing their value to site visitors), and to a large number of Walkhighlanders...



How to deal with the Flickr problem?

From what I see, a large number of Walkhighlanders use Flickr to store photos that they hot link to in their reports.
If you are one of these, you will already have received notification from Flickr that henceforth free storage will be limited to 1000 photos, and any more will cost you $49.99 per year.

QUOTEl "Free members with more than 1,000 photos or videos uploaded to Flickr will no longer be able to upload new content after Tuesday, January 8, 2019 unless they upgrade to Pro. After February 5, 2019, free accounts that contain over 1,000 photos or videos will have content deleted -- starting from oldest to newest date uploaded -- to meet the new limit. Members may always choose to download content over the limit at any time prior to these dates."

Actually this isn't a huge amount of money, but what rankles is the way they've done it. Many of us have very large numbers of photos stored, and the Feb 5th deadline gives little time if you have such a large number. Moreover, there is absolutely no guarantee that they won't raise the price to $149.99 next year, and $449.99 the following year. So in any event, even if I were to decide it's worth paying for storage, I wouldn't want to stay with Flickr.

I've been looking into alternatives that:-
1. have a reasonable level of free storage
2. commit to that storage being free in perpetuity
3. allow a reasonable rate of photo downloads (some sites only allow a limited number per hour, day or week)
4. allow a reasonable image size
5. have an inbuilt BB code that you can access
6. transmit your original file name when you upload files (so that you can easily replace pics stored in Flickr for those stored by the new provider).

I've not finished my investigations, but so far have identified 2 candidates that seem to solve most of the problems:

Imgbox, and
imgbb

I have replaced Flickr files in my last 2 WHRs with files I've stored on one or other of these sites, and they seem to be working fine.

https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=85470 (imgbox). Quite laborious to swap file addresses.

https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=85064 (imgbb). Quite efficient to swap file addresses.

I've looked at around 30 different free providers, and have found issues with the majority (not meeting the criteria mentioned above). I'm having access difficulties with Imgur and Imgbam, as yet unresolved - they seem to meet the criteria on paper, but I haven't been able to test either because of the access problem..

The purpose of this post???

It seems to me that, instead of those of us affected (especially those who only use Flickr for WHRs and therefore have no interest in anything more sophisticated) investigating the hundreds of free storage and sharing sites, and discovering problems the hard way, we could share information on this site, and hopefully get to an alternative more quickly and efficiently.

Anyone got any information to share???

[weaselmaster]

I haven't got any more information but i do share your concerns on a couple of points.
I have been using flikr pro for a couple of years - used to be $24.99 which was really cheap - but the doubling in price this year may well mark the beginning of an annual hike. I'll continue paying for now - I only use Flikr for my reports on here as I always back up on a removable HDD
Secondly, your point about lots of walk reports losing their images is a worry for the site and all that use it.
Doubt if there are any free sharing sites out there that can guarantee to continue being so indefinitely.

[Paul Webster]

To be honest the very safest and free method if the intention is to keep your reports up is to upload your photos to Walkhighlands for us to host - then they are stored with your report (and free to you). The downsides are that we only store the images at the size needed to show in your report (you have to resize for that before uploading), and you can't upload lots of photos simultaneously.

If you are uploading large numbers of original photos and storing online then the new Flickr deal actually seems a reasonable one IMHO - better than I'd expected. They remain the largest photo host and are under new owners who are presumably committed for the long term. I'm guessing but I don't think I'd regard another host as being more (or as) likely to stick around.

If it was me I'm not sure I'd put in the large amount of effort moving photo hosts in reports to switch to a free host which is probably very unlikely to be around for long.

[rohan]

I have mixed feelings about this.
1) I wasn't able to access my Flickr account for 2 years due to a problem with my yahoo acount and flickr account creating some kind of circular error. No-one at Flickr or Yahoo would help, each referring me to the other (when I could get hold of a human) until I lost the will to sort it. The new company took over and I tried again and they were great.

2) $50 isn't a lot if they will also give some decent support. I remember the old days when it cost a £5.99 for every 36 frame 35mm film that you took to Boots to get developed and you had to buy albums to store them in (mind you I took a lot less photos!). My concern is that they may hike this up or limit the amount you can upload before hiking up the price.

3) The thought of transferring all my photos to another site..... aargh!

4) I take your point, Paul, but am I right in thinking we can only upload 20 photos per report. On a multiday trip this requires a lot of effort to stay wtthin the limit.

I will be signing up to the pro account, certainly for the first year. It is going to take me that long to sort out the composited photos in my TRs that I wrote when I couldn't access Flickr.

[Mal Grey]

Definitely useful to highlight the options, thanks for posting your thoughts so far.


I have upgraded to the Flickr Pro account. I have over 20000 images on there, linked a few Trip Reports on here, but to hundreds of similar on other websites, mostly Song of the Paddle. When I switched from Photobucketofpoo to Flickr, about 4 years ago, I'd already been spending a fair bit with PB hosting images. I found it hard to believe that Flickr were allowing me to upload 1TB of data for nothing, seemed too good to be true. So I've sort of been expecting this, and believe the new price reasonable for my usage, especially as its discounted initially by 30% if you move to Pro. Perhaps a middle level of account would be better for some users, maybe 10000 images for a tenner or something, but it is what it is, and I like the way Flickr works.

Uploading photos directly will also work for some, but not for me, as I want them hosted online somewhere else anyway. As well as being backed up on 2 hard drives. Call me paranoid...

[Alteknacker]

....Doubt if there are any free sharing sites out there that can guarantee to continue being so indefinitely.

A number of sites claim that they will provide the service indefinitely - eg

Obviously this will only work as long as the company is solvent!

To be honest the very safest and free method if the intention is to keep your reports up is to upload your photos to Walkhighlands for us to host - then they are stored with your report (and free to you). The downsides are that we only store the images at the size needed to show in your report ....

This is OK, but the resolution isn't great for big panos, etc. and some hill nerds like me like to view pics at high quality on a big screen

....If you are uploading large numbers of original photos and storing online then the new Flickr deal actually seems a reasonable one IMHO - better than I'd expected. They remain the largest photo host and are under new owners who are presumably committed for the long term...

I agree if the price profile over time was in any way predictable. They've just doubled the price of the pro offering, and there's no telling what they'll do in the future.

I'm guessing but I don't think I'd regard another host as being more (or as) likely to stick around.
If it was me I'm not sure I'd put in the large amount of effort moving photo hosts in reports to switch to a free host which is probably very unlikely to be around for long.

I guess that's an issue with all hosting sites. Certainly Flickr has been around a relatively long time at 14 years. Others are newer...
Imgur: 9 years
Shoebox: 6 years
imgbox: 6 years
imgbb: 4 years

[Graeme D]

I had only just started using Flickr to store images after Photobucket of poo did the dirty. I have only uploaded a very small amount while I have figured out how to use their system but was considering the longer term options. The 1000 limit for free hosting isn't going to get me very far. Now I am not so sure, as I suspect like others that their annual price is going to get jacked up severely on an annual basis from now on. Looks like I may just have to "slim down" many of my existing TRs and become more careful about how many photos I take in future. I now have all of those PB of poo files backed up and stored on a removable HD ahead of terminating my account with them in August 2019. In the meantime, most of my reports will now feature blank spaces after the 31st December external hosting deadline expires.

[johnkaysleftleg]

In defence of Flickr I've been pro for years and this is the first significant rise in that time. Less than £1 a day is certainly still a good deal. The changes the new owners of the site are making will hopefully encourage a return to an online community where people look at each others images and comment upon those they like, just as walkhighlands is a community.

[yokehead]

I wouldn't trust that any third party hosting service won't change in the future, especially if it is free. The business model just doesn't stack up.

I think the Flickr new cost is reasonable for the services provided but of course there's no guarantee there won't be significant price hikes in the future. Like many services we buy we are stuck with that risk.

With regard to trip reports, when I click on a report and the scroll bar goes up and up and gets smaller and smaller, denoting many linked photos, my heart sinks and I don't read that report! Apart from the time to load, personally I find having many photos unappealing. Just my opinion of course, perhaps some folk wish to have every one of their photos in their report.

I have always used WH's own facility for uploading photos, granted they are a small size and resolution and limited to 24 but I've found that fine for my needs, and no worries about ever having to re-link them when some third party charlatan changes their model.

So perhaps I should subscribe to WH's recent offer of donations gratefully accepted, for their hosting service that I'm using as well as the other fine elements of the site.

[Pastychomper]

Personally I think the more pictures in a report the merrier, however I also stick to WH's uploads. The best 22 + a couple of route maps can make a great report. Besides I usually browse walk reports from w*rk (during breaks ) and a lot of picture-hosting sites are blocked from here, so I already see some reports as a vast page of prose interspersed with dead links.

Otoh Flickr seems to from here at the moment, and when I click a particularly spectacular shot and get a screen-filling hi-res version it's a definite bonus.

[litljortindan]

Another option is creating slideshows on youtube videos. Low resolution but youtube will be free forever won't it?

[litljortindan]

Google photos seems to work ok now but only after I found advice suggesting use Chrome. Then it's a matter of click on photo in album then click on share icon then get link then click on gotten link then click on image then right click to copy image address. Well, fingers crossed that's it.

[Mancunian]

I agree that its a shame to many users that flickr limits the free service to 1000 photos. I've never used flickr for more than sharing the pictures of my yearly Highland trip there its not a big problem for me. But I'm afraid Alteknacker is right about many old TRs loosing their pictures which will in turn render them nearly worthless. For every other purpose in terms of photo storing and sharing I had used google photos so far. The only reason why I did not use Google Photos for Walkhighlands was, that I was afraid that I had to share the photos publically without any idea if that would affect the whole google photo album. This album also contains more private photos (like skinny dipping in some burn ) and I would not want to see these on the web.
So if anyone has any idea on how to share photos from Google photos without revealing additional information such as Google user name, album name or album access, I'd be thankful.

[Giant Stoneater]

With Flickr to keep within 1000 photos could you not have multiple emails.