This time last year I was agonizing over which photo service to go with for the review photos; ultimately, I picked Yahoo because (1) it's free (2) I could link individual pictures to a review and (3) it's free. But I had (still have) a huge backlog of reviews (I got 2002 and a bit of 2003 updated...but I still have most of 2003 and 2004 left) with broken Photoworks links that I need to go back and fix. But Yahoo upgraded their photo site last year too and...the old links don't work there, either. Well,let me correct that, they sort of work; it'll go to the homepage, so a determined review reader *could* click around until the correct photo was located, but I'm sure it's frustrating. I know it bugs the stew outta me.
And, with the 'upgraded' Yahoo photo site, it is necessary to click through about 2 additional windows in order to get a photo uploaded to a correct album. It seems to me I *should* be able to upload directly to a specified album, but my attempts to do so have resulted in creation of a new album with the same name and one photo in it, instead of the new photo added to the exisiting album. So everything gets uploaded to the 'All Photos' album, then copied to the correctly labeled album. And it's not enough to have the album flagged as public...each photo must be individually tagged 'public' in order for Jane Review Reader to see it. Now, I know that by using the tags I could create 'smart albums',so maybe Yahoo is trying to discourage folks from having a bunch of albums and substituting the tags instead? Or do you suppose they're deliberately trying to get us to visit as many windows as possible in order to maximize the advertising opportunities?
All I know is that it has become a longer, more tedious process to upload photos...and I've got a bunch of links to add to the 'fix this' list.
But it is still free and I still can (eventually) link an individual photo, so I guess I'll learn to live with the headache.
Lisa,
ReplyDeleteFlickr is free, isn't it? And I think it's not so convoluted as Yahoo's photo hosting for either the viewer or the share-er. ;-)
Flickr was one that I checked last year when I was trying to decide which one to use; if I remember right, there were bandwidth restrictions that sounded complicated to deal with. But maybe I'm confusing them with photobucket....anyway, I'm about to come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter which free service one uses...sooner or later, they'll mess with it and it'll be back to square one. But it's free...so we can't complain...right? :rolleyes:
ReplyDeletei've been quite happy with photobucket. i don't recall any bandwith restrictions with them, and i've started uploading videos too.
ReplyDelete