Attention Imageshack users.

[CodeRedR51]

Best of luck @jacque74.

I am so thankful @Jordan created the new free image importer for this site. It is insanely easy to use. You simply drag and drop it from your computer (desktop or wherever the image is saved) directly into your reply. For those that didn't know, make sure you check it out. Works better than any other site I have seen and its free. I am always surprised when I see people not using this new feature. Thanks again Jordan. My top favorite feature with the new site. 👍

I'll use it from time to time, but I also use those images elsewhere so I need somewhere to upload them to. Flickr offers 1TB of space with unlimited bandwidth on a free account, which is why it has become my favorite image host. No offense to imageshack, but I think they could have at least offered a free account with limited service...

 

[jacque74]

I'll use it from time to time, but I also use those images elsewhere so I need somewhere to upload them to. Flickr offers 1TB of space with unlimited bandwidth on a free account, which is why it has become my favorite image host. No offense to imageshack, but I think they could have at least offered a free account with limited service...

It does not work in our case unfortunately. A lot of people upload few images per month, and don't even come to landing pages to see the ads, so the ad revenue has always been low. However, there are millions of those people, so overall the load and cost of supporting them is higher then the ad model can pay for. So we figured, if we have at least 10% of dedicated user base we could actually support them better and make more money in the process.

Its easy for Yahoo to run Flickr for free, they make their ad dollars elsewhere

-Jack

 

[Grayfox]

@jacque74 if you really are the CEO of imageshack and not just some random kid troll.

You could have offered a free service side by side with a paid one where you could still upload.

 

[Mike Rotch]

@jacque74 if you really are the CEO of imageshack and not just some random kid troll.

He is. .

You could have offered a free service side by side with a paid one where you could still upload.

He operates a business, not a convenience. We had the benefit of a free service for 10 years, and now he is moving with the times.

 

[CodeRedR51]

He operates a business, not a convenience. We had the benefit of a free service for 10 years, and now he is moving with the times.

So which other, previously free image hosting service, is moving to all paid? Cause I am not aware of any.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't used my Imageshack account in years. I moved to Photobucket and then have since moved to Flickr which is far superior to any others, but it just seems to me like they don't really care about the 90% of users they are losing, since they can survive on the remaining 10% that decide to pay. "Oh well" is what I get from what he's saying.

 

[Grayfox]

They also have one subscription plan.

They don't add levels like others do

Just $1, unlimited storage, no ads.

He is. .

But how do you really know?

There would be a few threads like this on a few forums on the internet, has he signed up to each of these to explain the reason.

Heck, I could make a new account(which I won't), I can use the same name as the head of immigration of the U.S and post in the deport Bieber thread and say how we won't be deporting him.
The internet makes you some what anonymous and there is no way to proof it.

 

[terminator363]

I just use Tinypic

 

[jacque74]

They also have one subscription plan.

They don't add levels like others do

Just $1, unlimited storage, no ads.



But how do you really know?

There would be a few threads like this on a few forums on the internet, has he signed up to each of these to explain the reason.

Heck, I could make a new account(which I won't), I can use the same name as the head of immigration of the U.S and post in the deport Bieber thread and say how we won't be deporting him.
The internet makes you some what anonymous and there is no way to proof it.

Just to prove that I am who I say I am, I just logged to img30 server, and here are some anonymous files that were uploaded back in a day before people could even have accounts:

-rwxr-xr-x 1 apache apache 47017 Sep 20 2004 DSC_2671.jpg
-rwxr-xr-x 1 apache apache 56671 Sep 24 2004 elle_macpherson_072.jpg
-rwxr-xr-x 1 apache apache 54639 Oct 11 2004 1918.gif
-rw-r--r-- 1 apache apache 4150 Oct 14 2004 SigforJOliotoworkwith.th.jpg
-rwxr-xr-x 1 apache apache 101537 Dec 12 2004 1113728-twBsGikg5.jpg
-rwxr-xr-x 1 apache apache 36987 Dec 30 2004 cake2lx.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 apache apache 4035 Jan 11 2005 p11001868up.th.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 apache apache 19395 Feb 5 2005 wwe37pn.jpg


You can access them like this http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/1/1113728-twBsGikg5.jpg

Speaking of $1, we are thinking about adding lifetime (or until hell freezes over) account, I would take suggestions on what the cost should be.

-Jack

 

[Sanji Himura]

He is. .


He operates a business, not a convenience. We had the benefit of a free service for 10 years, and now he is moving with the times.

@R1600Turbo is right. I seriously doubt that ad revenue is that low to warrant an all pay service. The Internet economy has been strong for far too long for webmasters to not consider having a free, limited account alongside a paid one. The math just doesn't cut muster.

@jacque74: Even you must understand today's economy. Though I have said that the Internet economy is strong, in real life, things are different. People can't purchase things like they used to. It isn't a comparative Roaring 20s anymore. If you do offer a lifetime membership, at least price it reasonable and the people that you have lost in making this transition will come back. It may not be right away, but it will be a slow process.

 

[jacque74]

@R1600Turbo is right. I seriously doubt that ad revenue is that low to warrant an all pay service. The Internet economy has been strong for far too long for webmasters to not consider having a free, limited account alongside a paid one. The math just doesn't cut muster.

Lets consider for a second how large ImageShack is:

* 3,000,000,000 (thats three billion) image requests per day
* 2.5 Petabytes of Storage used
* 500,000 image uploads per day

You can imagine that if we used amazon S3/EC2 we would be spending close to $10ml/year.

Now imagine that most of the images are hotlinked and do not lead people back to ImageShack landing pages where ads are being served, thats pretty much applies to every forum, including this one.

So our options are, enforce image size to be lower, put more ads on pages, restrict hotlinking to thumbnails, enforce bandwidth limits, etc etc... Or move to pay-for model and leave everything unlimited.


-Jack

 

[Sanji Himura]

Lets consider for a second how large ImageShack is:

* 3,000,000,000 (thats three billion) image requests per day
* 2.5 Petabytes of Storage used
* 500,000 image uploads per day

You can imagine that if we used amazon S3/EC2 we would be spending close to $10ml/year.

Now imagine that most of the images are hotlinked and do not lead people back to ImageShack landing pages where ads are being served, thats pretty much applies to every forum, including this one.

So our options are, enforce image size to be lower, put more ads on pages, restrict hotlinking to thumbnails, enforce bandwidth limits, etc etc... Or move to pay-for model and leave everything unlimited.


-Jack

I'll concede your point. I know that ImageShack has been around for awhile, so addressing this concern is a big one. As one of the biggest hosts on the web, I know that server space is at a premium. What is not understood is that Pay-per-upload is a entirely new concept. Most internet users just flat out don't see the benefits of paying to have unlimited storage on a per-item basis, for lack of a better term.

Personally, I think this would benefit users in the end who upload less than 100 images every quarter, but having an option that would allow you to upload as many pictures as you want(or in other words, maintain the status quo) would also benefit end users because they can upload at the pace that they want as long as the price is fair.

The biggest obstacle that I see you currently have is you are not explaining it properly. Some decent PR would go a long way in correcting this mess.

 

[Grayfox]

I would take suggestions on what the cost should be.

-Jack

A way to keep current free users and provide more for people who want to pay.

Free: 5MB file upload limit, 5GB storage limit, ads
$1/month: no file upload limit, 250GB storage limit, no ads
$2/month: no file upload limit, 500GB storage limit, no ads
$3/month: no file upload limit, 1000GB storage limit, no ads

 

[jacque74]

A way to keep current free users and provide more for people who want to pay.

Free: 5MB file upload limit, 5GB storage limit, ads
$1/month: no file upload limit, 250GB storage limit, no ads
$2/month: no file upload limit, 500GB storage limit, no ads
$3/month: no file upload limit, 1000GB storage limit, no ads

This does not scale, we have about 30 million user accounts under 5GB. And only 300,000 above 10GB.
People who seldom upload do not generate ad revenue to cover the expenses.

-Jack

 

[jacque74]

Also, while we are on topic, I wanted to say few things about new ImageShack:

Just because it cost $2/mo does not mean we are less cool . Besides the fact and Photobucket and Imgur are free, the new ImageShack.com – I dare to say is better in every way. How?

1). We have drag and drop upload that let you get all your links instantly, no need to hop between landing pages that are covered with ads.

2). All images are uploaded in their original format, however you can post resize it on the fly: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800×600q90/856/3yr3.jpg (try changing 800×600) to something else.

3) We have 4 copies of every image uploaded! I dare someone find a missing image on Imageshack.com.

4). We have 20 on-the-fly dynamic image filters, http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800×600q90f21/856/3yr3.jpg change “f21” to any number between 1 and 21. (more example here http://imageshack.com/pages/resize/)

5). We have awesome desktop Apps that sync your images, don’t even have to go to the site if you don’t need to. Our Skypath Apps run on Android, iPhone and Windows Phone.

6). If you call us we pick up the phone .

7). We have keyboard hot keys for you to move around your images, you don’t even need a mouse.

8 ). Did I mention no “porn ads”?

9). Bandwidth limit ? – Nada

10). Storage duration – til hell freezes over.

We are dedicated to image hosting and beautiful visualization of your images, we are not trying to copy Reddit and Facebook features. Want to have your images look cool, here is a sample of me racing my M3 https://imageshack.com/a/bwDq/1

 

[Mike Rotch]

@R1600Turbo is right. I seriously doubt that ad revenue is that low to warrant an all pay service. The Internet economy has been strong for far too long for webmasters to not consider having a free, limited account alongside a paid one. The math just doesn't cut muster..

With all due respect, unless you and R1600Turbo are running similar business ventures, your theories are just that. I'd give more weight to someone who is running a long established enterprise who has done the business case to see what is viable.

The internet makes you some what anonymous and there is no way to proof it.

To some extent - you are forgetting the tools staff have at their disposal to identify users.

My view - Imageshack has been providing a free service for a decade and asked nothing in return. If I have to pay $12 to have my images hosted, in a secure location that isn't open to selling my information, then I'll pay it. A small price to pay give the decade of free use I got out of them.

One thing I would say @jacque74- it would be nice if the costs would more easily accessible on the website with just a mouse click or two - I had to go to FAQ-Settings-Subscriptions to find it

 

[Grayfox]

The prices and what you get were just quick examples

 

[jacque74]

With all due respect, unless you and R1600Turbo are running similar business ventures, your theories are just that. I'd give more weight to someone who is running a long established enterprise who has done the business case to see what is viable.


To some extent - you are forgetting the tools staff have at their disposal to identify users.

My view - Imageshack has been providing a free service for a decade and asked nothing in return. If I have to pay $12 to have my images hosted, in a secure location that isn't open to selling my information, then I'll pay it. A small price to pay give the decade of free use I got out of them.

One thing I would say @jacque74- it would be nice if the costs would more easily accessible on the website with just a mouse click or two - I had to go to FAQ-Settings-Subscriptions to find it

Wow - thanks for the kind words! Btw, clicking UPGRADE on the left shows this:

http://imageshack.com/a/img24/1205/z3ou.png

-Jack

 

[CodeRedR51]

Also, while we are on topic, I wanted to say few things about new ImageShack:

We have 4 copies of every image uploaded! I dare someone find a missing image on Imageshack.com.

This is after the update, right? Because I've had a non-active account for years on Imageshack and I have quite a few missing photos...

With all due respect, unless you and R1600Turbo are running similar business ventures, your theories are just that. I'd give more weight to someone who is running a long established enterprise who has done the business case to see what is viable.

I'm not telling anyone how to run their business, I'm just saying there's still a way to have a free option with limited use like most other sites. The attitude I get from Jack here is that they are happy to cater to 10% of their user base and basically "screw everyone else". Sorry if it's not that way, but that's how I see it. Like I said, I haven't used that site for years so it's really no issue for me beside having to re-download the photos I do have there (ones that haven't been lost) before my free time runs out.[/quote]

 

[jacque74]

This is after the update, right? Because I've had a non-active account for years on Imageshack and I have quite a few missing photos...

Yes, after the update.

I'm not telling anyone how to run their business, I'm just saying there's still a way to have a free option with limited use like most other sites. The attitude I get from Jack here is that they are happy to cater to 10% of their user base and basically "screw everyone else". Sorry if it's not that way, but that's how I see it. Like I said, I haven't used that site for years so it's really no issue for me beside having to re-download the photos I do have there (ones that haven't been lost) before my free time runs out.

[/quote]

I would say "screw everyone else" is strongly worded. Everyone whoever uploaded pictures to ImageShack were guests in our home, well, now we are just asking the guests to pitch in and pay for the light. We have not locked out anyone, and not even deleting images from people's accounts that are not premium. We have free tools that allow people to download their images relatively easy. So we are neither screwing neither do we not care. In fact we care enough to spend time, money and energy, listen to user's feedback and give them what they want. Yes, a lot of people actually voted to pay with their dollars if service was better, well, we are giving those users priority, since they are voting with their dollars. We were first "pastebin" like Image Host out there, and many others (including tinypic and imgur) copied our model with small degree of variation causing market fragmentation while battling for pageviews.

Currently, ImageShack's interest is aligned with the user's interest 100%. We do not require page views, because we don't show ads, period, this means the users get what they want - high quality image hosting system that works for everyone (that is for everyone who demands quality). We hear from some people that they would rather see ads, well, usually its not the owner of the images that sees ads, its the people who see those User's images. So in reality the User is not bothered by ads too much, its mostly "hit and run", "upload and hotlink", but someone will be seeing ads on landing pages of popular images. There are all kinds of tricks image hosts play to stuff backlinks under the hotlinked images, not at ImageShack - Our conviction is simple - Ads degrade user experience, period.

 

[Touring Mars]

But how do you really know?

Remember that we can see profile details that are not publicly known. It is also unlikely that members of staff, including the site owner, would respond unless they were fairly certain that the poster was genuine.

@jacque74 I sincerely hope that you manage to keep ImageShack alive. I've been an intermittent user ever since it first became the 'default' option for sharing pictures here on GTPlanet many years ago, and I still use it now and then. I must admit, I know squat about how to run a business let alone a business on the interweb, but even I can understand that there are limited options when it comes to keeping afloat, without having to completely rely on advertising revenue.

ImageShack has always been easy to use and reliable, and I hope that the user base you have built up over the 'free' years will have generated enough goodwill and positive user experiences to convince enough people that the site is worth supporting via a modest subscription fee. Convincing people to pay for something that was once free, however, is a challenge that many online services have had to address, and not always successfully - but quality is something that people will always pay a premium for... anyway, good luck with it and look out for our Gran Turismo photomode pics 👍

 

[Grayfox]

I know admins and mods can see some parts to nearly all parts of our profile and our IP address too.

 

[gtw62]

Watch out before subscribing: I have subscribed, but they are charging me double...
Over the last month I sent them many mails and reminders just to try and get in contact with them and get a refund. They simply donot reply. Period. In the end I have sent them an email advising that I cancelled my subscription.
Received a kind of automatic confirmation.

I think on their forum https://getsatisfaction.com/imageshack [tab: "Recent Activity"] some customers are reporting problems as well. I came accross this post, reason why I would like to share this with you.
=

 

[Sanji Himura]

With all due respect, unless you and R1600Turbo are running similar business ventures, your theories are just that. I'd give more weight to someone who is running a long established enterprise who has done the business case to see what is viable.

Well that is something that an ignorant person would say. Obviously we are not telling people how to run their businesses. I was simply stating, to put it another way, that most goods and services that are purchased today are through sites like amazon, ebay, craigslist and the like. However, if there are 40 sites that offer the same service, and 39 of them offer some form of a free option, 90% of internet users would choose the free option, no matter how many restrictions that are placed on the account.

Obviously, ImageShack has been around for a long time, so they have a lot of images in their servers. So changing to a pay-for site to help pay the bills would benefit them (emphasis added) in the long run because they keep their server costs down, and provide a better service to the end user.

I admitted that I was wrong, but you didn't need to be an 🤬 about it when you didn't get the full context of my previous post.

One thing I would say @jacque74- it would be nice if the costs would more easily accessible on the website with just a mouse click or two - I had to go to FAQ-Settings-Subscriptions to find it

If it is worth doing, it is worth over doing. It should be plastered on the front of the site.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Anyone know a good image downloader, maybe an extension for chrome that I can use to download all my images before the free period ends and I lose the remaining images I have that aren't lost?

 

[Grayfox]

Anyone know a good image downloader, maybe an extension for chrome that I can use to download all my images before the free period ends and I lose the remaining images I have that aren't lost?

I used free download manager
Download it and install it
Select all images
Click the button to get direct links,
Make sure you get the links for full size.
copy all links
Open Free download manager
Go to file>import>import list of URLs from clipboard
click start download

 

[jacque74]

Anyone know a good image downloader, maybe an extension for chrome that I can use to download all my images before the free period ends and I lose the remaining images I have that aren't lost?

Much easier to use Skypath for Mac to get all your images downloaded to local desktop folder. Its our official app.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Much easier to use Skypath for Mac to get all your images downloaded to local desktop folder. Its our official app.

No Mac, sorry.

 

[Moglet]

I'm not sure what everyone is getting annoyed about here; plenty of people have pointed out that there are free image hosting sites out there. So why not just use them instead? Personally I've used Imageshack for ages and will continue to do so once my 3 month free trial runs out. It's only $2 a month! That's the equivalent of less than 2 chocolate bars a month when converted to sterling, and I'm definitely willing to pay that small an amount for the ease of use, unlimited backup and unlimited storage with no ads. 👍

 

[CodeRedR51]

...and I'm definitely willing to pay that small an amount for the ease of use, unlimited backup and unlimited storage with no ads. 👍

Not sure about the backup (I keep an original of all my photos now anyway) but I get everything else for free at Flickr. Only limitation is the space limit (1TB) which I will never fill, and it's super easy to use so it works for me. Not sure if Flickr usually has ads as I use adblock.

 

[Moglet]

I tried FlickR but I couldn't get on with its layout, especially when using a mobile device. It's a shame because my dad is very active on there and I'd love to share my photography with him!