It doesn't bother me at all about the bitbucket, sure it was convenient to use, but it did use up a lot of b/w. You have to keep in mind that most people upload more than one image. I myself had like 20 different images in there.
I have a photobucket account. Until know, I didn't know that PhotoBucket had a 1000GB transfer limit for free users per month. Keep in mind that I'm only one person that doesn't post that many pictures and I've used 1000GB of b/w in 20 days...they said they would halt my hotlinking of photos if my b/w exceeded 1500GB. I can't believe I used that much considering all of my images are less than 250KB.
#269442 by unknown[88345] at 2005-06-28 16:38:38 (8 years ago) - [Report]
1000GB?
dont u mean 1000MB?
#271576 by unknown[39869] at 2005-06-30 00:09:47 (8 years ago) - [Report]
np here 99.999% of sites dont have it so isnt really a loss :p
#271774 by unknown[9661] at 2005-06-30 04:57:26 (8 years ago) - [Report]
i miss it, since i use bitbucket. they're good for hosting files. :cry:
#273008 by negge (Power User) at 2005-06-30 21:50:12 (8 years ago) - [Report]
I don't really miss BitBucket, it was easy to host pics there but Imageschack is just as easy to use so I'll stick to that from now on.
#274890 by unknown[46654] at 2005-07-02 00:18:12 (8 years ago) - [Report]
yeah, it kinda sucks for those who don't have another source..
#274981 by unknown[81303] at 2005-07-02 01:12:00 (8 years ago) - [Report]
actually dont really giv a crap, no offense, it was a good tool for the newbs on here but for the most part, we know of alternatives
#282775 by unknown[97991] at 2005-07-07 00:53:42 (8 years ago) - [Report]
Simply upload your images to imageshack (google Imageshack) and it provides the links for you to use on these forums. If its going to help this site out i dont see how its that bad. Maybe take you each 45 seconds to change to imageshack's hosting. Remember, lets always do whats in best interests of the website.