A free online image host service that lets me organize?

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| Well I'm not the best in organising such things but would your aunt be in
the people folder if the picture was taken say at a 1999 new years eve party
or a uncles birthday paty, Bar Mitzvah or funeral. ?
|
| I found the best method is to dump everything into an untitled folder that
way you know where any and everything is ;-)
|

It sounds like you're the target audience for
things like Picassa.

picassa has been replaced by the vastly more capable google photos.

For those of us who like to
organize and keep track of things ourselves,
a folder is not likely to be named "People".
Maybe something like \Personal\Family\Party99.
Or maybe just \Party99 if you don't go to many
parties.

that's very restrictive and inflexible. what if you go to a party that
isn't family? what if it's a mix? what if you want to find photos of a
particular person who may have been at that party as well as at
non-parties?

Everyone is likely to be different. If you
use Picassa or other image tracking software
then you've basically handed the job of
organizing over to your secretary. I guess
that will work for you.... as long as your
secretary is not out sick.

computers don't call in sick, nor do they complain about the tasks they
do. they don't take long lunches and have no problem working overnight.

It's a similar situation
with people who don't like computers. They
have no idea where their files are. When asked
they say, "Word knows where they are." That
works fine, until their hard disk crashes and
they discover there's no backup.

what does that have to do with anything?

if the hard disk crashes and there's no backup, then it doesn't matter
if they know which folder a particular file is in, does it?

I actually know
a professional photographer who had her Mac
crash awhile back. She had all of her work on
there with no backup! There was no choice but
to pay for retrieval. (I don't know what system
she was using to organize here work.)

then she's an idiot. hopefully she learned her lesson.

Of course, people using Picassa can still do
backup, but with that approach you've inserted
a superfluous level of abstraction between
yourself and your photos, making it less likely
and more difficult for backup to happen.

nonsense. one has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

"nospam" wrote

| picassa has been replaced by the vastly more capable google photos.
|

Imagine my excitement. Spyware and file
organization in one handy package. What'll
they think of next?!

| Of course, people using Picassa can still do
| backup, but with that approach you've inserted
| a superfluous level of abstraction between
| yourself and your photos, making it less likely
| and more difficult for backup to happen.
|
| nonsense. one has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

I can see why you wouldn't see the connection.
You probably also use automated software to handle
your backups. That might work out OK. Personally
I prefer to understand and manage the process. I
know where my files are and I know where my
backup is. You know where the cute button is
marked, "Back Up Now!".
As long as your backup
service works and you don't mind other people
holding your files, your method should be OK. But
it's hardly defensible as being superior to knowing
what you're doing.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| picassa has been replaced by the vastly more capable google photos.
|

Imagine my excitement. Spyware and file
organization in one handy package. What'll
they think of next?!

then use apple photos, which does the scene recognition entirely
locally. nothing is uploaded.

the downside of doing it locally is that google has vastly more
processing power to analyze images than any personal computer does, and
that the photos are accessible from any device at any time.

| Of course, people using Picassa can still do
| backup, but with that approach you've inserted
| a superfluous level of abstraction between
| yourself and your photos, making it less likely
| and more difficult for backup to happen.
|
| nonsense. one has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

I can see why you wouldn't see the connection.

the reason is because there is none.

You probably also use automated software to handle
your backups. That might work out OK.

this isn't about me.

nevertheless, i use several methods, each of which covers different
failure modes.

Personally
I prefer to understand and manage the process. I
know where my files are and I know where my
backup is. You know where the cute button is
marked, "Back Up Now!".

what button? backups should be automatic with no effort by the user.

if **** happens, restore the drive and after a short time, everything
is how it was prior to the failure, minus anything since the last
snapshot.

alternately, one can poke around and restore individual items, should
only one be corrupted.

having a simple and automated way to do something in no way prevents
doing something in other ways.

As long as your backup
service works and you don't mind other people
holding your files, your method should be OK.

where did you get the ****ed up idea other people hold files?

they *can* be, but that's not a requirement.

But
it's hardly defensible as being superior to knowing
what you're doing.

you clearly don't.

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 11:36:58 AM UTC+1, Ant wrote:
Hello.

I have hundreds of image files all over in many of their own deep
(folder/directorie)s since I specifically organized them on my drives. I
tried Flickr and Google Photos, but they do not organize them in
multiple folders deep with albums. Also, uploading from many drive's
locations is a pain and tedious. It would be nice to upload all at once
in their original locations to the server as well.

Does anyone know if there is a free online image host service can meet
my requirements?

Thank you in advance.
--
Quote of the Week: "What, like I had to live with all those ants? Do you
know what I did to those ants? HoooHooo! No more ants!" --unknown
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.


Why not just upload them to flickr and use album names that
reflect the full path? For instance, if you have a folder
'flowers' with a subfolder roses, you could simply store
those images in an album named flowers-roses on flickr.

In this fashion you would still have a fairly organized
collection of albums, since they are stored alphabetically
and all the subfolders of a particular folder would be listed
together in the overview of albums on flicker.
You'd need to have a ridiculous amount of subfolders to run
into problems with this method and with 1 tb of free space
at flickr you can still store a huge number of pictures.

sobriquet wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 11:36:58 AM UTC+1, Ant wrote:
Hello.

I have hundreds of image files all over in many of their own deep
(folder/directorie)s since I specifically organized them on my drives. I
tried Flickr and Google Photos, but they do not organize them in
multiple folders deep with albums. Also, uploading from many drive's
locations is a pain and tedious. It would be nice to upload all at once
in their original locations to the server as well.

Does anyone know if there is a free online image host service can meet
my requirements?

Thank you in advance.

Why not just upload them to flickr and use album names that
reflect the full path? For instance, if you have a folder
'flowers' with a subfolder roses, you could simply store
those images in an album named flowers-roses on flickr.

In this fashion you would still have a fairly organized
collection of albums, since they are stored alphabetically
and all the subfolders of a particular folder would be listed
together in the overview of albums on flicker.
You'd need to have a ridiculous amount of subfolders to run
into problems with this method and with 1 tb of free space
at flickr you can still store a huge number of pictures.

That is the problem. I have ridiculous amount of subfolders and files.
:/
--
Quote of the Week: "What, like I had to live with all those ants? Do you
know what I did to those ants? HoooHooo! No more ants!" --unknown
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

In article , Ant
wrote:


That is the problem. I have ridiculous amount of subfolders and files.
:/

which is why you should fix that.

On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 10:11:49 PM UTC+1, Ant wrote:
sobriquet wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 11:36:58 AM UTC+1, Ant wrote:
Hello.

I have hundreds of image files all over in many of their own deep
(folder/directorie)s since I specifically organized them on my drives. I
tried Flickr and Google Photos, but they do not organize them in
multiple folders deep with albums. Also, uploading from many drive's
locations is a pain and tedious. It would be nice to upload all at once
in their original locations to the server as well.

Does anyone know if there is a free online image host service can meet
my requirements?

Thank you in advance.

Why not just upload them to flickr and use album names that
reflect the full path? For instance, if you have a folder
'flowers' with a subfolder roses, you could simply store
those images in an album named flowers-roses on flickr.

In this fashion you would still have a fairly organized
collection of albums, since they are stored alphabetically
and all the subfolders of a particular folder would be listed
together in the overview of albums on flicker.
You'd need to have a ridiculous amount of subfolders to run
into problems with this method and with 1 tb of free space
at flickr you can still store a huge number of pictures.

That is the problem. I have ridiculous amount of subfolders and files.
:/


How many subfolders are we talking about? 1000? 10000?
How many pictures? 1000000?

sobriquet wrote:

How many subfolders are we talking about? 1000? 10000?
How many pictures? 1000000?

61 (folder/directorie)s with 171 files in total according to 64-bit
Windows 7's Explorer.
--
Quote of the Week: "What, like I had to live with all those ants? Do you
know what I did to those ants? HoooHooo! No more ants!" --unknown
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

"Whisky-dave" wrote


| didn't know about spyware and google photos is there some link between
them ?
|

Google is an advertising company with a business
based on targetted ads. Their basic business model
is to give away free services, collect data from those,
and process that data to build the biggest possible
dossier on the largest possible number of people.

| | Of course, people using Picassa can still do
| | backup, but with that approach you've inserted
| | a superfluous level of abstraction between
| | yourself and your photos, making it less likely
| | and more difficult for backup to happen.
| |
| | nonsense. one has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the other.
|
| I can see why you wouldn't see the connection.
|
| Because there isn't one.
|
It's the same connection as people using MS Office
and letting Word store their docs. I've run into it
numerous times helping people with their computers.
MS Word puts docs into the personal documents folder
without asking. That makes it very easy for people
who don't understand how to use the file system.
But it's an extra level of abstraction for convenience.
The result is that most people don't know how to find
their docs except by opening Word. When their computer
crashes they lose their files because they didn't
understand how the whole thing worked. This discussion
is a great example. You and nospam actually don't
believe it's possible for people to keep track of their
data! That's like a person who's only eaten in restaurants
thinking that you're lying when you tell them you cook
at home.

| You probably also use automated software to handle
| your backups. That might work out OK.
|
| It does for most adn most commercail organisation and for google and for
most.
|

They have IT staff to handle the whole thing.
It's not automated. It's delegated.

I know tech
people who set up their customers with something
called Aconite. I think it's something like $70/year
and does auto-backup. That's OK. The whole point
here is not that auto-backup is bad. Nor is an image
organizer bad. I'm just pointing out that they're
unnecessary steps with tradeoffs.
If the Aconite users understood their file system
and knew how to write a DVD or use a thumbstick
they could save $70 and not have to depend on an
online company. They also wouldn't have to trust
that company with their private files. Did you know
such sites are required by law to be nosey?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01...rotect_workers

What if you store a photo of your 3-year-old
grandchild, naked at the beach? There could
be people sitting around somewhere trying to
decide whether they should sic the Feds on you.
All of that because you didn't bother to learn how
to do your own backup.

| I know where my files are
|
| No you do not, I bet you have absolutly no idea what sector or track your
files are on, or where abouts that is on your disk.
|
No. A given image may not even be stored as
contiguous data. But as you know, that's irrelevant.
You're being silly. I know where my pickup truck is
even though I can't give you the lat/long coordinates
of my driveway.
I know how to find the theoretical photo of auntie.
I have it backed up on DVDs and hard disks. I have
copies in my safe deposit box. I just backed up my
entire graphics partition last weekend.

The file system *is* the abstraction layer that
makes your images available as files in your Family
folder on G drive, or whatever path. That's how you
know where they are. That's why I'm saying that
an image organizer is an unnecessary, extra level
of abstraction.

"Whisky-dave" wrote

| For those of us who like to
| organize and keep track of things ourselves,
| a folder is not likely to be named "People".
| Maybe something like \Personal\Family\Party99.
| Or maybe just \Party99 if you don't go to many
| parties.
|
| But how does that help yuo find your aunt, or someone.
| Was everyone you know at that party ?
|

I have no trouble finding photos, or anything else.
I store things systematically and the system makes
sense to me. If you can't do that then I guess you'll
need to keep using your image organizer. Luckily for
you this isn't 1999, when you would have needed to
actually understand how to navigate the file system
because there was nothing like Picassa.