Who's Running This Place Anyway?

[JoeIsuzu]

Not VBulletin. This is phpBB.

Jack

Thats correct, but VS only "supports" VBulletin and XenForo. So those are the options for upgrading.

Ah, I see. That's generally called "migrating" (not "upgrading").

As common as phpBB is, VBulletin and/or XenForo may have built-in tools to migrate from phpBB. But most migration tools don't even try to handle anything added on (plugins, extensions, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if they lost all attachments as well.

I ran a Simple Machines Forum for a while. It handled attachments completely different from how phpBB handles them.

Jack

[Enemigo]

Oh yeah, that was my other complaint about the photos. I'm just looking from another host site, so the size shouldn't matter at all. Unfortunately this current system still acts like you are attaching a file.

[JoeIsuzu]

Oh yeah, that was my other complaint about the photos. I'm just looking from another host site, so the size shouldn't matter at all. Unfortunately this current system still acts like you are attaching a file.

From a site operator's perspective--
Allowing images hosted on 3rd party sites is asking for trouble. The photobucket debacle is a perfect example. It disabled over a BILLION images across the web.

Jack

[Enemigo]

It's not at all asking for trouble. The Photobucket issue is completely on Photobucket and its users. No sites were harmed from an operational standpoint.

I also prefer to be able to disable photos from the hosting site, rather than having them directly uploaded to the site server where they are VERY hard to ever delete. Sure you can make the argument that your photos are still under someone else's control on Google or Photobucket or wherever, which is true. But if you have a problem photo, you can delete it, it change the address on it and instantly pull it from every where you linked it all at once. I like that option.

ETA: That's my opinion on the issue anyway.

[JoeIsuzu]

It's not at all asking for trouble. The Photobucket issue is completely on Photobucket and its users. No sites were harmed from an operational standpoint.

I also prefer to be able to disable photos from the hosting site, rather than having them directly uploaded to the site server where they are VERY hard to ever delete. Sure you can make the argument that your photos are still under someone else's control on Google or Photobucket or wherever, which is true. But if you have a problem photo, you can delete it, it change the address on it and instantly pull it from every where you linked it all at once. I like that option.

ETA: That's my opinion on the issue anyway.

My opinions here, respectfully:
The site owner should not cede control of any content to the mercy of a third party. Yes, the Photobucket fiasco was "on Photobucket". My point exactly. Don't give them (or others) that power. Didn't "harm any sites from an operational standpoint"? That's debatable. Disabling photos rendered some posts completely useless.

And that this could happen over and over without so much as a warning makes it even more worrisome.

It's ultimately up to the site operator, and I respect the choices made. However, what's not debatable -- allowing third-party photo hosting comes with risks as well as the supposed benefits. This site (long before VS came along) took the risk, and got burned.

The sites I operate were not affected in any significant way by the Photobucket fiasco.

And as long as you can edit a post, you should be able to delete images you uploaded, unless the admins have disallowed that.

Jack

[Enemigo]

I'm in full agreement that many build thread are now useless without the photos. My comments about not being able to delete photos comes from the experience of having removed photos from stores in the past, only to discover later that they still existed on that site server. I'm not pitching to have it only be allowed for third party hosting, but that should be part of the options. I often open a post I've made on here, copy the whole thing, then just paste it to another website. That's very convenient for users. I'd pitch it now as a Cayllie added option, like serving water at a bar. It's not going to make the bar any money, but they'd better have water available when needed. When I go to a website and you have to upload a picture, and then are capped on space you can use on the site server, I wonder if things haven't been updated since 1995.

Ironically, and maybe unfortunately, neither of us is running this site. :/

[JoeIsuzu]

Ironically, and maybe unfortunately, neither of us is running this site. :/

My plate is already full anyway.

Jack