Talk:ImageShack
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
|
Contents |
[edit] Deletion
From VfD:
Description of a web service less than a year old. Notable? --Ianb 01:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I know that a lot of people on Fark use ImageShack for image hosting. Couldn't tell ya more than that. Rhymeless 01:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: It's a free image hosting service. It's very notable, used a lot on discussion forums where they post photographs. Apart from that it seems to be a very good service (not very relevant, I know). It has a Google PageRank value of 5(/10), en.wikipedia.org has 8(/10). Did you really research this before submitting or just post on vfd to find out if its notable? --Dittaeva 19:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- comment: enough not to be sure whether this is another step on Wikipedia's slippery slope to becoming a self-service DMOZ. It does get a lot of hits (57,000), but is relatively new and I've never heard of it, despite having interests in that kind of area. Regarding page rank - hadn't occurred to me to look (not being a IE user); are there any guidelines on this? Page rank is logarithmic, so 8 is probably several orders of magnitude greater than 5. (FWIW I run one site with PR5 which I don't consider worth its own article). --Ianb 20:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Your assumptions about pagerank are probably true, but you should also look up the favourable Alexa comparison between imageshack and wikipedia. --Dittaeva 20:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- comment: enough not to be sure whether this is another step on Wikipedia's slippery slope to becoming a self-service DMOZ. It does get a lot of hits (57,000), but is relatively new and I've never heard of it, despite having interests in that kind of area. Regarding page rank - hadn't occurred to me to look (not being a IE user); are there any guidelines on this? Page rank is logarithmic, so 8 is probably several orders of magnitude greater than 5. (FWIW I run one site with PR5 which I don't consider worth its own article). --Ianb 20:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
[edit] Financing
"It's a free image hosting service." How is this service financed?
Nobody can host anything for "free" for a longer period of time! If you click on the link "ImageShack Corporation" you don't find _any_ information about this company!
And now it's even 'advertised' in the Wikipedia?
- Donations (see the link on the top of the page) and banners. Kieff | Talk 11:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Advertisments, donations, and some people pay to upload multiple images in .zip files. 67.169.118.149
[edit] Recreation
I think 2.5 years of service, as well as increasing popularity amd use warrants the recreation of this article. As you can see, http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=379&h=216&r=6m&u=photobucket.com/&u=imageshack.us almost identical traffic to Photobucket, and if you google "imageshack" result 12 I believe it is, is a link to the old article that used to reside here. The recreation is based mainly on that. I added a bit at the end. I'll see about expanding it the first chance I get. --Crossmr 06:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Something Awful
Imageshack has stopping providing bandwidth to many sites that abuse their bandwidth, I don't see anything notable about the situation at something awful. --Crossmr 00:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- MacBeth, the guy who runs the site, was a loyal member of Something Awful before he even created the site. It was basically devised on SA and started as a service to host the majority of images posted on the forums. He even removing the feature that disabled images after they used too much bandwidth as a favor to SA. That's why this is more notable than what's happening at any other site. --Liface 08:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Then source it. Thats just conjecture and unencyclopedic until you can provide credible sources for the information. The fact that they had their link priveleges cut off isn't notable since I've seen it occur in many high traffic communities whose members don't link properly by using thumbnails. A 50 page thread on the something awful forum is subjective. Perhaps you'd like to create an article <removed link to attack site>--Crossmr 16:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is sourced. Did you read the links? --Liface 17:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I did. Something awful isn't a credible source in an alleged conflict between imageshack and themselves. A link to a randomly hosted generic image that imageshack uses to say hot-linking has been disabled on a site doesn't provide any credible proof of anything. 50 pages of garbage off something awful doesn't provide a usable source for this information. Not to mention this is being pushed by someone whose userpage clearly states they have a bias towards something awful. --Crossmr 18:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've placed this dispute on Wikipedia:Current_surveys#Polls and Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements in hopes of reaching a concensus regarding this information. Should that fail I will request mediation. --Crossmr 19:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is sourced. Did you read the links? --Liface 17:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Then source it. Thats just conjecture and unencyclopedic until you can provide credible sources for the information. The fact that they had their link priveleges cut off isn't notable since I've seen it occur in many high traffic communities whose members don't link properly by using thumbnails. A 50 page thread on the something awful forum is subjective. Perhaps you'd like to create an article <removed link to attack site>--Crossmr 16:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have to take Crossmr's side on this. The information is not sourced reliably as per WP:RS and is therefore original research. Posts on forums (even those as grand as Something Awful) don't qualify as reliable sources, especially about conflicts involving themselves. We'll need to find some mention of this controversy in some established media or other reliable source before it can be re-added. Fagstein 00:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Jumping in here, having come from the aforementioned Wikipedia:Current_surveys#Polls. Whilst WP:RS does indeed state that messageboards are unreliable, I think a little leeway should be allowed in situations where the messageboard itself is the subject. In this particular instance the owner of the site (Macbeth) posted in the thread in question so his comments regarding the discontinuation of service, at least, would seem to fall under WP:V#Self-published_sources. As to whether the issue is noteworthy, I'm torn. On the one hand it is true that Imageshack emerged in large part due to the SomethingAwful forums, the discontinuation is not necessarily that noteworthy in and of itself. I'd support a mention, but only as part of a section on the origins of Imageshack and connection to the SomethingAwful forums, which would itself need to be sourced. Daduzi 02:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Given that imageshack cuts off domains on a regular basis, there isn't anything notable about this at all, other than the fact that they were born of the site. However, since imageshack doesn't make any mention of that on the site and its not common knowledge outside that area, I think this falls under the clause of only being notable to a limited group. I can pretty much guarentee that the average imageshack user has no idea that this happened. Were it that imageshack had closer ties with something awful, I've been using it well over a year and never associated the two until now, it might be more notable. A history section of where it came from would be nice since this doesn't seem to be common knowledge, but appropriate sources are a must on it I think. --Crossmr 02:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Late comment, I just saw this on Wikipedia:Current surveys. It seems to me that a good rule of thumb is that if your only source is a messageboard, the information is not especially notable. The third-party sources rule is good because it establishes notability. If there were at least a press release we could report the press release, and board comments can be used to illuminate an issue otherwise. But notability, as much as reliability, is the key. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Jumping in here, having come from the aforementioned Wikipedia:Current_surveys#Polls. Whilst WP:RS does indeed state that messageboards are unreliable, I think a little leeway should be allowed in situations where the messageboard itself is the subject. In this particular instance the owner of the site (Macbeth) posted in the thread in question so his comments regarding the discontinuation of service, at least, would seem to fall under WP:V#Self-published_sources. As to whether the issue is noteworthy, I'm torn. On the one hand it is true that Imageshack emerged in large part due to the SomethingAwful forums, the discontinuation is not necessarily that noteworthy in and of itself. I'd support a mention, but only as part of a section on the origins of Imageshack and connection to the SomethingAwful forums, which would itself need to be sourced. Daduzi 02:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion Attempt
As discussed in my recreation message: Website has been around 2 1/2 years, extremely prevalent in many places and has high traffic. I believe that qualifies as notable. This point was already raised, if you take issue with it, why not attempt to discuss instead of just pointlessly prodding things. This was previously deleted because at the time of creation the site was non-notable. There was nothing wrong with the content at the time. --Crossmr 03:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Prods are are not pointless. Articles flagged with prod can be deleted without a full Articles for deletion debate after five days if no one objects to the proposal. If removed they can then go Afd.--Dakota ~ 06:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- They are when I made a case for recreation only 12 days ago, its obvious I would object since I gave valid reasons for its notability. --Crossmr 15:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Since Crossmr is the guy that owns ImageShack, maybe we ought to take his words with a grain of salt, hmm? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.54.15.129 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 June 2006.
- uhm.. I don't own imageshack what would you possibly base that on? --Crossmr 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, let's see: your Wikipedia profile matches Macbeth's almost exactly. You have a bizarre devotion to the ImageShack wikipedia entry (an entry which continues to read like a DMOZ entry to this day, under your watchful eye). And you refer to the conflict with SA using language no other human being would unless he had some affiliation with ImageShack (notably, "...stopping providing bandwidth to many sites that abuse their bandwidth" and "don't link properly by using thumbnails" and "50 pages of garbage off something awful"). Either you are Macbeth, you work for Macbeth, or you have absolutely no ability to write or edit anything without a metric shitton of bias. Either way, you have no credibility here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.129 (talk • contribs)
- uhm.. I don't own imageshack what would you possibly base that on? --Crossmr 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Since Crossmr is the guy that owns ImageShack, maybe we ought to take his words with a grain of salt, hmm? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.54.15.129 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 June 2006.
-
-
-
-
- Well you're welcome to your opinion but I'm certainly not MacBeth. I just don't support people pushign agenda's on wikipedia. I use that language because that is the language used on the Imageshack website. I strive to ensure credible factual accuracy on this page and any other page I watch. --Crossmr 03:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Not Quite Minor
I just changed "persons he gives" to "persons they give" as "he" was biased, it seems a very small edit to me, but is outside the definition of a minor edit. I also wonder if it's really necessary to have a link to "pornography" on this page?Zoltan Pandemonium 11:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The only problem with that is that "they" is not a gender neutral pronoun in the English language, even if people use it like it is in everyday conversation. Since we're speaking of a single user, it has to be either he or she. As far as the link to pornography, I see nothing wrong with it. Pornography is referenced in their terms of service, and image hosting sites can often be used for it, and people are often curious which sites tolerate the hosting of adult materials and which do not. As for as a link to it, if someone isn't overly familiar with pornography, it provides context. See WP:CONTEXT.--Crossmr 14:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Crossmr, but I see it's now "people he gives," "he" was the original problem, but I am not exactly sure what the perfect gender-neutral language is here, would "the user" do? Are there any guidelines?Zoltan Pandemonium 08:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. The guidelines for the english language are to pick either he or she, and usually stay consistent through-out the article. Unlike french for example, which has il or ils as a semi-gender neutral pronoun (in which you assume that in group x, the amount of males >= 1, otherwise use elle/elles), english just doesn't have one. Repeating "the user" over and over during a paragraph also isn't great writing as it becomes reptitive. There is no need to be overly concerned about using a gender neutral pronoun everywhere, articles consistently have to pick one or the other, most people realize that such a thing doesn't really exist in the english language. I've heard there is a push to use "they", but it could be another 10 or 15 years before that becomes a writing standard if it does.--Crossmr 13:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess we can just leave it until someone actually cares. I know I don't.Zoltan Pandemonium 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Users may purchase bulk credits?
What's this "users may purchase bulk credits?" thing? Maybe this information is outdated? I've been using imageshack, and I can upload images in bulk and I've never needed to buy any kind of credits.Tejastheory 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- That may be. I still have credits from when I bought them like a year or two ago. You used to buy credits and upload zip files of bulk images. The system would deduct a credit for each image in the zip. I'll dig around and see if I can find anything out.--Crossmr 01:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mashable reference
http://www.mashable.com/ is a blog that has a million subscribers, and is mostly written by one person; it is widely followed by the Venture Capital community as a source of information on emerging Web technologies. According to WP:RS, "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." The author Pete Cashmore is also a journalist for www.guardian.co.uk. - Peregrine Fisher 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Advertisement in front page image?
I know it's sort of encyclopedic to include a screenshot of the main page of imageshack in the article, but there's a big ol' ad in it. Is that alright, or should someone change it somehow? 24.239.185.57 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- If that is what the front page looks like, that is whats used. If it happens to contain an ad we don't censor it for that reason.--Crossmr 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- A screenshot of the ImageShack front page displaying a certain particular ad is not merely "what the front page looks like", but what it looked like to one individual user at a very particular moment. Ads displayed on webpages are rotated frequently and can even change depending on the location of the viewer, and most frequently they are not hosted in the same server nor even in the same domain, but the webpage merely links externally to a third-party adserver and the viewer's browser loads from it the ads independently from the webpage (which means that if you block that adserver you can view the webpage without the ads). There is no reason to justify granting permanent free exposure on Wikipedia to some particular ad as part of a screenshot when it is not properly an integral part of the website and contributes nothing to illustrate it which is the purpose of including a screenshots in articles. Uaxuctum 10:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Screenshots of front pages are websites are often included in articles. We're not going to alter a screenshot to photoshop out an Ad or otherwise. Of course the ads will change, that is the nature of them, there happened to be an ad in that spot, and no matter when you take a screenshot, there will be some ad there. If people want to use ad-blocking software that is up to them, but in an encyclopedia we provide the screenshot as the creator of the website intended. Not as we wish to show it to people.--Crossmr 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- What if I take a screenshot of the ImageShack frontpage as it appears on my screen? It would actually show the webpage as it is, the webpage content only—what is hosted on the ImageShack domain server, without the addition of extraneous third-party content. The creator of the website did not conceive the page with one particular ad in mind; at most they conceived it with blank spaces of standardized sizes (which is how it appears on my screen) to be filled later with unrelated content by external advertising companies. Most certainly the add is not part of the webpage, it's an ephemeral and external addition which contributes zero content to the page itself and is unrelated to it, so keeping it on a screenshot meant to illustrate the website is not justifiable. There's no need to show the add, because it is not part of the webpage itself. One doesn't even need to edit the screenshot to remove extraneous content that is unrelated to the webpage and hosted on external serves; just make your browser load only the actual content hosted on the website server and take a screenshot of that. You don't need any ad-blocking software to view webpages ad-free, it's as simple as to add the line "127.0.0.1 [insert adserver domain here]" to one's hosts file. That way your browser will load only the actual content of the webpage you're viewing without wasting your bandwidth, resources and attention with third-party advertising content hosted elsewhere. There are many lists of adsever domains freely available on the Internet for people to incorporate to their hosts file. Moreover, even if one had to edit the screenshot manually to remove the ad, it wouldn't be a reason not to do it, just as one should edit out personal data from a photo illustrating a passport, or the car plate number from a photo illustrating a car model, before uploading them to Wikipedia. An ad should only appear on Wikipedia if the screenshot is meant precisely to illustrate that ad in particular (Wikipedia has articles on several notable ads). I repeat my point: Why should Wikipedia grant free permanent exposure to one particular ad that is not a proper nor a permanent part of the webpage the screenshot is meant to illustrate? Wikipedia has strict policies concerning its "no advertising" nature. What if a company's employee purposefully uploads a selected screenshot of a website which they took precisely at the moment when it was showing their company's ad, so that it gets free advertising exposure on Wikipedia? How do we know the one who uploads an ad-populated screenshot hasn't done precisely that? Or, going further, it would be a very easy and cheap strategy to gain free advertising exposure to do the following: Take a screenshot of a very popular website whose Wikipedia article is likely to be read by many people, replace someone else's ad from the screenshot with your own company's ad, and upload that modified version on Wikipedia, so that it supposedly illustrates how the webpage looked on someone's screen at one particular moment. How do we know someone hasn't already done that? How do we know the ad showing on a website screenshot is "genuine"? Uaxuctum 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- As I pointed out. Unless you want to provided hundreds of screenshots, you're not going to be "fair". The creator intend AN ad to be there. We take a screenshot and we upload it. Using ad blocking software or modifying our host file to manipulate what is shown on the page is in fact giving a false representation. If you do that and someone goes to the page and finds it with a big giant ad in it, it looks nothing like the screenshot. If you can point to a policy which states we should edit out ads (ads are nothing like personal information in passports or license plates on cars) feel free to point to it. The only policies and talk I've ever seen about that is people posting links in the external links section and people linking to heavily ad-laden pages when there is a more suitable link. I've never once seen anyone say we should be cutting ads out of screenshots of websites.--Crossmr 23:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- What if I take a screenshot of the ImageShack frontpage as it appears on my screen? It would actually show the webpage as it is, the webpage content only—what is hosted on the ImageShack domain server, without the addition of extraneous third-party content. The creator of the website did not conceive the page with one particular ad in mind; at most they conceived it with blank spaces of standardized sizes (which is how it appears on my screen) to be filled later with unrelated content by external advertising companies. Most certainly the add is not part of the webpage, it's an ephemeral and external addition which contributes zero content to the page itself and is unrelated to it, so keeping it on a screenshot meant to illustrate the website is not justifiable. There's no need to show the add, because it is not part of the webpage itself. One doesn't even need to edit the screenshot to remove extraneous content that is unrelated to the webpage and hosted on external serves; just make your browser load only the actual content hosted on the website server and take a screenshot of that. You don't need any ad-blocking software to view webpages ad-free, it's as simple as to add the line "127.0.0.1 [insert adserver domain here]" to one's hosts file. That way your browser will load only the actual content of the webpage you're viewing without wasting your bandwidth, resources and attention with third-party advertising content hosted elsewhere. There are many lists of adsever domains freely available on the Internet for people to incorporate to their hosts file. Moreover, even if one had to edit the screenshot manually to remove the ad, it wouldn't be a reason not to do it, just as one should edit out personal data from a photo illustrating a passport, or the car plate number from a photo illustrating a car model, before uploading them to Wikipedia. An ad should only appear on Wikipedia if the screenshot is meant precisely to illustrate that ad in particular (Wikipedia has articles on several notable ads). I repeat my point: Why should Wikipedia grant free permanent exposure to one particular ad that is not a proper nor a permanent part of the webpage the screenshot is meant to illustrate? Wikipedia has strict policies concerning its "no advertising" nature. What if a company's employee purposefully uploads a selected screenshot of a website which they took precisely at the moment when it was showing their company's ad, so that it gets free advertising exposure on Wikipedia? How do we know the one who uploads an ad-populated screenshot hasn't done precisely that? Or, going further, it would be a very easy and cheap strategy to gain free advertising exposure to do the following: Take a screenshot of a very popular website whose Wikipedia article is likely to be read by many people, replace someone else's ad from the screenshot with your own company's ad, and upload that modified version on Wikipedia, so that it supposedly illustrates how the webpage looked on someone's screen at one particular moment. How do we know someone hasn't already done that? How do we know the ad showing on a website screenshot is "genuine"? Uaxuctum 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] File length limit
the file must be smaller than or equal to 1.5 megabytes
Are we talking about decimal or binary megabyte? Wouldn't it be better to express this value in bytes? -- J7n
I'm fairly sure this is binary bytes. Do we really need to get this technical though? Tejastheory 07:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
