A free online image host service that lets me organize?

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.

In article ,
(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.

Just curious: What would the business plan look like for a venture that
provides services like the one that you describe? Anyways: You could use
a free Dropbox account but it wouldn't hold a very large gallery...
--
teleportation kills

In article , 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.

because a file/folder hierarchy is horribly inflexible.

Also, uploading from many drive's
locations is a pain and tedious.

yet another reason why file/folders is a bad idea.

It would be nice to upload all at once
in their original locations to the server as well.

the original locations on your hard drive are meaningless in the cloud
as well as on your local storage.

it's *far* more flexible and efficient to search based on *content*,
which works rather well with google photos.

for instance, search for photos of dogs and you see photos of dogs.
search for photos of paris in winter and you see photos of paris in
winter. it's not 100% perfect (nothing is, not even any human-based
filing system) but it's way the hell more efficient than trying to
remember which photo is in what folder, especially when photos fit into
multiple categories and in your case, when the photos are scattered.

"nospam" wrote

| for instance, search for photos of dogs and you see photos of dogs.
| search for photos of paris in winter and you see photos of paris in
| winter.

"photo of aunt whose name I can't remember"

Oh, yeah. Works great. Or at least it's better than
nothing if you don't know how to use a computer
file system.

"Ant" wrote

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

Have you considered setting up your own website?
It's not very expensive. You can then arrange your
images any way you like and don't have to accept
the "terms" or limitations of hosting services.

Disadvantages: It would require some effort and
learning to get it set up. Also, you won't get easy
settings to limit who can see your images or download
them. You can set up private connections and you
can try to limit anonymous downloads, but you'd
have to handle all of that yourself.

In article , Tony Cooper
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.

because a file/folder hierarchy is horribly inflexible.

Also, uploading from many drive's
locations is a pain and tedious.

yet another reason why file/folders is a bad idea.

This is the type of statement that makes nospam such a poor source of
advice.

facts are always good advice.

There are many reasons that file/folder system can be a good idea. How
good depends largely on how the user expects to be able to locate a
particular file and what other tools (ie: keywording, date-based file
names, etc) the user employs.

wrong.

it's *far* more flexible and efficient to search based on *content*,
which works rather well with google photos.

Unless, of course, you are searching for images taken in Kenya and you
want to find images of people, not gorillas.

wrong on that too.

for instance, search for photos of dogs and you see photos of dogs.
search for photos of paris in winter and you see photos of paris in
winter. it's not 100% perfect

The number is far, far less that 100% perfect.

it's not far less. once again you have no clue.

it's rather accurate and getting better every day, as more people
upload images and they get analyzed.

for those who are privacy conscious, apple does the content recognition
locally on the device.

Search terms work when
the desired image is easily identifiable by a term. Like "dog".
Trying to find a particular image you took three years ago of a street
scene in, say, Barcelona, you would have to remember what
distinguishing thing was in that scene.

wrong yet again. search for photos taken in barcelona 3 years ago. very
simple.

Was there a dog in it? A
lamp post? Is it clearly a street scene or is it a scene of buildings
that face on a street? You could spend far too much time using the
wrong terms.

you could also spend far too much time trying to find something in a
maze of files of folders.

A folder (Barcelona2013) system would produce the image with less
effort. A keyword system (Barcelona2013) would work faster,
especially with multiple keywords (streetscene, etc) but a system with
a large number of keywords can get out of hand. And, importantly, you
have to use an app that uses keywords.

you're ignoring the effort to set up and maintain the folder system and
nobody said anything about keywords.

A file/folder system is not inherently "horribly inflexible".

yes it absolutely is, which is why various software developers are
moving beyond the limitations of the file system, including adobe,
microsoft, apple and google. perhaps you've heard of them.

It can
be if poorly designed, but it is as good as the user makes.

subject to the limitations of the file system, and also requires a lot
of effort to set up and maintain.

I can't tell how good Ant's system is. On the surface, I wonder about
a system that is a "deep system". That implies (but does not mean)
that the structure could be overly-complicated. But, Ant is evidently
working with a system that works for him and I wouldn't tell him he's
using a system that is a "bad idea".

apparently it doesn't work for him, otherwise he wouldn't have asked.

(nothing is, not even any human-based
filing system) but it's way the hell more efficient than trying to
remember which photo is in what folder, especially when photos fit into
multiple categories and in your case, when the photos are scattered.

Well, that depends. If you want to find a photograph of La Sagrada
Familia, a file/folder system can produce it quickly if you have a
folder of photographs taken on a trip to Barcelona and have
Barcelona2013 folder. If you've taken several trips to Barcelona, it
may take a little longer. If you break up those photographs into
subject folders (ie: churches), you can find it quickly. It depends
on how you've set up the system. A search term of "churches" may not
produce the photograph because La Sagrada Familia doesn't resemble a
church all that much in every shot.

search for barcelona 2013. very easy.

or search la sagrada familia, which will almost certainly work since
it's a well known landmark.

nospam's advice is - as usual - based on what works for nospam, not
what will work for other people. In that case, it's better to offer
suggestions and not declare - as he has done - that a different system
is a "bad idea" and "horribly inflexible". For someone like Davoud,
for example, a file/folder system that puts types of insects in
folders may be a good idea.

wrong again.

adobe, microsoft, apple and google are all moving beyond the
limitations of the file system, which means a whole ****load of people
agree with me, not you.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


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

Have you considered setting up your own website?
It's not very expensive. You can then arrange your
images any way you like and don't have to accept
the "terms" or limitations of hosting services.

Disadvantages: It would require some effort and
learning to get it set up. Also, you won't get easy
settings to limit who can see your images or download
them. You can set up private connections and you
can try to limit anonymous downloads, but you'd
have to handle all of that yourself.

quite a bit of effort.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| for instance, search for photos of dogs and you see photos of dogs.
| search for photos of paris in winter and you see photos of paris in
| winter.

"photo of aunt whose name I can't remember"

how would you find that if you organized it using a file/folder
hierarchy? you wouldn't even know which folder to look for!

Oh, yeah. Works great. Or at least it's better than
nothing if you don't know how to use a computer
file system.

you sure don't.

On 1/24/2017 12:45 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
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.

because a file/folder hierarchy is horribly inflexible.

Also, uploading from many drive's
locations is a pain and tedious.

yet another reason why file/folders is a bad idea.

This is the type of statement that makes nospam such a poor source of
advice.

facts are always good advice.

Especially the alternative facts, even though they may not be
applicable. For some reason, my doctor "listens," and asks questions
before giving me advice.






--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


Top posting for a change because interleaving comments between all
those line is too much hassle.

there is no hassle. you could have posted everything at the bottom and
snipped what is not relevant.

This is pretty much a standard nospam reply. He's here to argue, but
presents no argument. Simply writing "wrong" is not an argument or
statement of any valid disagreement. It's just a petty response and
what is ridiculed in the Python sketch as "contradiction".

if something is obviously wrong, then saying wrong is sufficient.

stick to the topic instead of bashing me.

Saying that using a folder/file system is a lot of effort is laughable
hyperbole. Creating a folder is a few keystrokes, and folder/file
systems are usually created on an as-needed bases. Folders are not
usually created for files not yet obtained. It's a few seconds each
time and over time. The same, or less, than the time to enter search
phrases.

that's effort that's not otherwise required and what you also ignore is
that there's ongoing maintenance to keep a file/folder hierarchy
organized, both of which are tasks a computer can do faster and better
than humans can.

I've yet to figure out what nospam considers to be a lot of effort. It
seems to be doing anything that he doesn't do or approve of.

wrong again.

i don't give a flying **** what you or anyone else does.

i am simply pointing out the limitations of primitive and outdated
methods so that people can make an *informed* decision on how to solve
their problem rather than stick with doing the same old **** because
it's all they know.

it's called learning new things, which you don't want people to do.

nospam has incorrectly said that Ant's file/folder system doesn't work
for him. It does, and has, but he's now embarking on something
different in seeking cloud storage. He may have to modify his system
for this purpose.

it doesn't, or he wouldn't have asked.

Evidently, nospam was whooshed on the gorilla reference. He must have
missed this:


http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2...after-photos-i
dentify-black-people-as-gorillas/29567465/

i didn't miss that at all. that's nothing more than a bug that was
fixed long ago. nothing is perfect.

i'm sure you've misfiled photos many times.

google currently reports a 94% accuracy rate in scene recognition,
which is exceptionally impressive for doing little more than uploading
images to google photos and that gets better every day as more photos
are uploaded and analyzed.

quite a few samples of what can be identified in the link below.

https://research.googleblog.com/2016...ge-captioning-
open.html
Today¹s code release initializes the image encoder using
the*Inception V3 model, which achieves 93.9% accuracy on the
ImageNet classification task. Initializing the image encoder with a
better vision model gives the image captioning system a better
ability to recognize different objects in the images, allowing it to
generate more detailed and accurate descriptions. This gives an
additional 2 points of improvement in the BLEU-4 metric over the
system used in the captioning challenge.
....
So does it really understand the objects and their interactions in
each image? Or does it always regurgitate descriptions from the
training data? Excitingly, our model does indeed develop the ability
to generate accurate new captions when presented with completely new
scenes, indicating a deeper understanding of the objects and context
in the images. Moreover, it learns how to express that knowledge in
natural-sounding English phrases despite receiving no additional
language training other than reading the human captions.

One would hope, but not expect, that nospam would offer suggestions
for alternative methods without resorting to demeaning what others -
and, evidently, Ant - find to be a practical and working system. It's
not his style, though.

i did offer suggestions.

My personal system is to use Lightroom to import images directed to a
folder/file structure with two main divisions: family photos and
hobby photos. In each main folder, the images are directed to a year
folder. Files are named by date (2017-01-24-03) so they fall
sequentially in the folder. In Lightroom, keywords (ie: vehicle or
baseball) are added.

My system is set up to function for my needs. I don't feel I need
additional sub-folders. The keywords assigned are search feature
enough beyond year.

nobody is interested in your particular system.

i'm talking about *concepts*, which are apparently beyond your
abilities to understand.

I don't particularly recommend my system because it is designed
specifically for my needs. As such, it works smoothly and
efficiently. I wouldn't criticize Ant's system because I know nothing
of his needs. It's unfortunate that nospam doesn't extend the same
courtesy to others.

it's unfortunate that all you do is insult and bash. you're a hypocrite.

nospam likes to make statements, like he has here, "software
developers are moving beyond (folder/file systems)" that implies that
he's some sort of top-drawer software insider. If he was, he'd be so
busy he wouldn't have time to post here.

it implies no such thing, other than i understand the technology and
you do not nor are you interested in learning about it.

Even the statement lacks informational content. What are these
developers doing differently now? Managing their own images?
Developing apps that manage other people's images? What? What
examples can be cited? As stated, it's a meaningless statement.

only because you haven't a clue, and instead of wanting to learn
something new, you choose to argue and insult.