A free online image host service that lets me organize?

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:45:25 -0500, nospam
wrote:

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!

If the aunt was the principal feature in it, I would look under
'people'.

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.

I do, but I can't be bothered for this application.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
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!

If the aunt was the principal feature in it, I would look under
'people'.

and then what? you can't remember the person's name, so what are you
going to look for?

and what about groups of people? in which folder would a photo of said
aunt, uncle, their kids and other family members be?

and what if the folder hierarchy is not sorted by people, but more
commonly by date and place? that photo of the mystery aunt could be
pretty much anywhere. you'd have to remember all the places she's been.

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| If the aunt was the principal feature in it, I would look under
| 'people'.

I don't know where I'd look, but I *would* know
where to look. I keep things organized. It doesn't need
to be findable by just anyone. It only has to be findable
by me. And I'm the one who designed the organization.

Even my ladyfriend, who takes a lot of pictures and
knows little about computers, has no trouble creating
folders for various trips she takes and for categories,
like family. She also backs them up without any trouble.
I just had to show her how. And she does it all without
any help from Picasa or any other middleman tool.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| If the aunt was the principal feature in it, I would look under
| 'people'.

I don't know where I'd look, but I *would* know
where to look. I keep things organized. It doesn't need
to be findable by just anyone. It only has to be findable
by me. And I'm the one who designed the organization.

Even my ladyfriend, who takes a lot of pictures and
knows little about computers, has no trouble creating
folders for various trips she takes and for categories,
like family. She also backs them up without any trouble.
I just had to show her how. And she does it all without
any help from Picasa or any other middleman tool.

yet she had to have help from you.

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.

As a courtesy to others so they don't have to scroll through all your
nonsense.

usenet etiquette is to bottom post.

top posting, and in particular, changing mid-thread, is discourteous to
everyone reading.

that makes you a hypocrite.

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.

You have never understood the concept of "topic", have you? The
"topic" is what is presently being discussed. It expands or branches
off according to what the poster wants to say. If the poster wants to
point out your failings presented in a previous post, that's on topic.

i understand the topic much better than you ever will, which is why you
repeatedly resort to insults rather than discuss the topic.

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.

What? Maintenance? Once a folder is established, it requires no
maintenance. Files can be added or removed. It can be left empty.

there is ongoing maintenance.

Of course a computer is involved. Do you think the topic is a metal
file full of manila folders?

idiot.

Nothing else you've added is of any consequence.

translated: you can't refute what i wrote.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:54:08 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
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!

If the aunt was the principal feature in it, I would look under
'people'.

and then what? you can't remember the person's name, so what are you
going to look for?

and what about groups of people? in which folder would a photo of said
aunt, uncle, their kids and other family members be?

and what if the folder hierarchy is not sorted by people, but more
commonly by date and place? that photo of the mystery aunt could be
pretty much anywhere. you'd have to remember all the places she's been.

I suspect I have a better visual memory than you. I don't need all
those index tags. Once I get into the right folder I search by
thumbnail.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:46:42 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| If the aunt was the principal feature in it, I would look under
| 'people'.

I don't know where I'd look, but I *would* know
where to look. I keep things organized. It doesn't need
to be findable by just anyone. It only has to be findable
by me. And I'm the one who designed the organization.

Even my ladyfriend, who takes a lot of pictures and
knows little about computers, has no trouble creating
folders for various trips she takes and for categories,
like family. She also backs them up without any trouble.
I just had to show her how. And she does it all without
any help from Picasa or any other middleman tool.

yet she had to have help from you.

And of course she wouldn't have required help if she was going to have
to learn how to index them with Lightroom.

No, of course not.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I suspect I have a better visual memory than you. I don't need all
those index tags. Once I get into the right folder I search by
thumbnail.

it has nothing to do with your memory and you can't remember each of
tens of thousands of photos anyway, plus, who wants to look at zillions
of thumbnails, hoping to fine the right one?

the computer can determine what's in the photos for you, so you can
concentrate on taking more photos, or something else if you prefer.

query for what you want and it returns the results. it's a servant who
will never complain.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


| If the aunt was the principal feature in it, I would look under
| 'people'.

I don't know where I'd look, but I *would* know
where to look. I keep things organized. It doesn't need
to be findable by just anyone. It only has to be findable
by me. And I'm the one who designed the organization.

Even my ladyfriend, who takes a lot of pictures and
knows little about computers, has no trouble creating
folders for various trips she takes and for categories,
like family. She also backs them up without any trouble.
I just had to show her how. And she does it all without
any help from Picasa or any other middleman tool.

yet she had to have help from you.

And of course she wouldn't have required help if she was going to have
to learn how to index them with Lightroom.

No, of course not.

far less than learning and maintaining a file/folder hierarchy, as in
little to none.

shoot photos and the computer analyzes them and they're automatically
sorted and organized. done.

you're making this into something it isn't.

apple's photos app will automatically process images, no configuration
needed by the user. google photos requires the photos to be uploaded to
google, but that's very easy to do.

lightroom doesn't currently do scene recognition (hopefully in the next
major version), but it does do face recognition and supports geotagging
as well as date/time and other info from exif.

On 1/24/2017 5:49 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

As a courtesy to others so they don't have to scroll through all your
nonsense.

usenet etiquette is to bottom post.

You dare to accuse someone of violating Usenet etiquette. when you don't
snip in a manner that makes it easier to follow a point, and don't
bother to follow capitalization rules. When called on that you claim, in
essence, that this group is not important enough for you to bother
capitalizing.



top posting, and in particular, changing mid-thread, is discourteous to
everyone reading.

that makes you a hypocrite.


Bwahahahahaha!



--
PeterN