Talk:List of photo-sharing websites/Archive 1

Archive 1

Openphoto

By the way, I don't know how "notable" this site is, but there is not much info on "free software" type of services. JunCTionS 02:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Creative commons

I think that it could be useful for Wikipedia editors, if the list indicated which websites used a creative commons licence for their users to use. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Freefoto.com

Is Freefoto.com notable? Please answer here. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Photoshop.com

Just noticed that the online service of the granddaddy of all photo apps, Photoshop.com isn't listed - I added to the basic list. If someone has more time please create its entry in the comparison matrix - you can find all information about Photoshop.com here: http://www.adobe.com/support/photoshopdotcom/ Szlevi (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

text browser

View this page in a text browser like w3m. Tons of errors. 218.163.0.112 (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Gelbooru.com Ok to add?

There's an Image Search Engine called Gelbooru. Its Alexa rating is 5,211. It has recived nearly 18 Million Unique Webhits since it opened. There are nearly 800,000 Images and is growing by the minute. Here's the proff of its ranking: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/gelbooru.com . My question is simple, can I add this website? --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Twitter related photo-sharing services

It seems there are a number of fairly popular photo sharing sites especially used by folks on Twitter that are not on this list:

• TwitPic
• TweetPhoto
• YFrog (but for some reason the URL is on the SPAM Blacklist :(
• MobyPicture

Anyone have a problem if I add them? Geek8ive (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Which sites should be included?

I think there are quite a few sites on this list that aren't even notable enough to be included. I'd say that we should only keep ones that ALREADY have articles or DESERVE articles. Thoughts? --Dan Leveille^TALK 23:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to draw your attention again to "editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;" Some guy (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

rendering size on galley is a criteria

every web gallery has its own resolution, even if they have the option of "full res"; so it's an impotant criteria. people are looking for a web service which shows pictures in big size, as a gallery, listing big versions of pictures vertically.

Possibly true, but since there are many different formats and styles of presentation, this criterion does not lend itself to being included on a table. I would also expect it to be difficult to find third party sources with this information to prevent resorting to original research. If anyone can think of a way to successfully incorporate this idea, I would be interested to hear it. VQuakr (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

inactive/disabled time

I'm really interested in the maximum logging time difference at which the account will become inactive/disabled and the pages/posts/blogs/entries which contain the image will display a notification of such statue instead of displaying the image. Fore additional privacy, I sometime use different nicknames so won't log as much as those with this moniker. DynV (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Add Pbase.com?

This is a major photo sharing site that has been around for many years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.162.21 (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Mobile device related photo-sharing services

I also like the idea of segmenting the list to indicate primary use or origin of the image, such as twitter-related. For mobile devices, how about adding:

• Instagram
• Path

Bwdesign (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable sites

The article starts off with the statement Please note the list is non-exhaustive, but is limited to notable, well known sites. This is a subjective statement; where are the definitions of notable and well known. Who has the right to remove sites because they fail such subjective definitions? Surely it would be in the spirit of Wikipedia to include all photo sharing sites. If you must have criteria, they should be objective and not subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.245.123 (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Within the source text of the article (which can be viewed after clicking "edit") are the objective criteria that have been established by consensus - a preexisting article on Wikipedia or a global Alexa rank of less than 100,000. VQuakr (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I also realise that if I had read the earlier parts of the above, my question would have been answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.245.123 (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

free software?

Do you know any public image hosting sites that are free software?--Imz (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've found one: http://www.mihalism.com/mihalism-multi-host/ --Imz (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC) It's used to run http://www.freeimageparking.com/ , http://www.imageocean.net/ --Imz (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• I don't know if openphoto counts since after creating an account it states that: "...initial contributions are subject to an approval process to ensure the quality of your submissions.. " JunCTionS 02:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to know, so if you know one please add it here in the discussion. I'll keep a watch on this page. JunCTionS 02:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "image hosting sites that are free software?" Do mean file storage sites that store free software (freeware?) such as .EXE files and so forth?
--69.110.91.50 (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

the Alexa rating??

The Alexa rating needs explaining. (Hypertext links that require digging out info (lazy hypertexting) is....lazy and disrupts the flow, and requires the user to do his own research on a side-topic. Worse, the linked sites most often also use lazy hypertexting, leading to an endless, unfocused journey.)

(And thanks for the "no registration required" criterion, — my number-one values: personal info, privacy & non-stickyness.)
--69.110.91.50 (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Comprehensive list is important

I actually disagree with the statement above. Applying the same standard here as for full articles strikes me as overly strict. Since the purpose of a table like the one in this article is to give readers some guidance on which of the entries may match their feature criteria, the list would be much less helpful, if we'd restrict it. For example, I just added Photoshelter to the list, which is one of the leading portfolio services for professional photographers. It did not have its own article yet, so I figured I should create it while I'm working on this. However, I ran into the "notability police" right away. Now, it strikes me as odd that other companies that are very similar (Smugmug et al) are represented with their own records and did not seem to have any of this trouble. So I'm not sure whether the notability criterion is even applied evenly across the board for articles. For the purpose of this section, I think it is far more important to have a comprehensive list.

Btw, I'm not affiliated with Photoshelter. I have my own account there, but have no relationship to the company. The next item on my to-do list is actually Zenfolio, one of their main competitors, which also does not have an entry yet.

Klausson (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It does now. In my opinion, zenfolio is a major player and needs to be listed. I may need to tweak some of the entries, but it's good enough for a first run anyway. Zenfolio recently added a blogging feature. The feature request forum seemed to indicate that other sites had blogging in place already. If so, I would suggest this as another column to add.Victor Engel (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Write the article first, please. Zenfolio was deleted at AfD, which implies that it is not a notable website. The AfD was back in 2006 so this might be a good candidate for reconsideration, but that should happen on the article's page, not here. VQuakr (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you have against zenfolio? Why single them out? I note that there are other sites in the listing that don't have an article. Why did you leave them? Zenfolio, by the way, is one of the major sites used by professional photographers. It's always listed in the top 3 or 4 sites on photography-related forums used by professional photographers. Thus it deserves to be mentioned. If it needs to be excluded for lack of an article, please at least be consistent and expunge the others, too. Victor Engel (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. What is AfD Victor Engel (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What qualifies a photo sharing site as being notable? How about a mention at a site such as this: http://www.pcworld.com/article/246129/best_bets_for_photo_sharing_sites.html Victor Engel (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, Zenfolio comes in first at this site: http://www.photosharingreviews.com/reviews/top-10-photo-share-services-ranked/ Victor Engel (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I replied further down the page in the new section you created. Zenfolio is not being "singled out"; it just does not appear to meet the requirements to be included here, that have been determined by consensus. Consensus can of course change with time, but I think it is reasonable to ask that the reasons the article was deleted in the first place be addressed before listing it here. VQuakr (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is impractical to develop and manage a list of all sites that share photos; the scope is too large for a useful list. Some sort of quantitative filter needs to be applied to reduce the opportunity for advertising. One possibility is to only include sites that have their own articles (which I just modified the list to do); this is certainly a bright line but as you say might be a little too strict. If anyone has another suggestion I would like to hear it, but in my opinion the criterion needs to be clearly objective. VQuakr (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would definitely think that the article criterion is a bit of a skewed filter, especially since articles appear to be not uniformly enforced either. But I do understand the spam concern. How about introducing a truly objective bar in the form of an Alexa ranking? I would say an Alexa-ranking of 100,000 or better would seem reasonable considering that this market has a lot of niche aspects that are nonetheless important. And it would clearly include some of the major players that do not have an article as well as eliminate some that are currently in the list but IMHO shouldn't be. Klausson (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexa ratings for the metric on whether to list would be good, but may not accurately capture the popularity or usage of a photo sharing service, especially for mobile device related services. Now, this begs the question of whether the page title should say 'websites' or 'services'. Note that there is enough crossover for the delineation to be a bit muddy, but mobile is a big thing, and having one comprehensive page, as suggested above, is better than trying to create multiple pages. So how about changing the name to 'List of photo sharing services' ? Bwdesign (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If an article shouldn't exist but does, that is a problem for that specific article's page, not here. I suggest applying an OR function here - a site can be included in the list if its current global Alexa rank is in the top 100k, or it has its own Wiki article. If no one has any objections in the next week or so, I can update the article to match said inclusion criteria. VQuakr (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution. Klausson (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You shoud write the inclusion criteria on the top of the page with the info that it is tightly observed. (Pissed contributor who got reverted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.166.2.177 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry you are pissed. The inclusion criteria are already there, at the top of the article, in hidden text. VQuakr (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Zenfolio Article

I've started an article on Zenfolio. If you wish to contribute, feel free to do so. Currently, it's located here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victor_Engel/Zenfolio At some point if someone wants to move it to a permanent location, feel free to do so. I've not done that before, so I don't know how. Victor Engel (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

For reference, the article is now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zenfolio. Per your question in an earlier section, AFD stands for Articles for Deletion. An article on this subject once existed, and was determined not be be notable at a discussion here. It is of course plausible that the website has become more notable in the last 5 years, but I notice that the draft at Articles for Creation does not have any secondary sources, which means that it still appears to fail the general notability guideline. Let's resolve the notability concerns regarding the article before re-adding a listing here, please. VQuakr (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you dispute the references I gave citing it as a notable site? What does it take to be notable? Zenfolio is one in a short list of sites used by professional photographers. I can try to find data to back up this claim if I know what is needed. As to the comment about being singled out, that was made because there are several other sites that are NOT being removed yet don't have their own article. If those are not removed and Zenfolio is, that implies Zenfolio is being singled out. Why? I can see no valid reason. Regarding secondary sources, please help me out there. This is my first article to create from scratch. It is taking me a significant effort to go through this process, because I believe it needs to be done. A little assistance would be greatly appreciated. I'm doing all this with the default free text editor. If there are any tools I can use to help manage source citations, for example, that would be great. Victor Engel (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a further question. I have modifications I'd like to make to the article, but I don't know if it can be made while it's in its current status. For example, you say secondary sources should be added. Can I do that in its current status? Victor Engel (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This particular site gets more attention, because it was already deleted as not notable after a community discussion. The article at Articles for Creation (AfC) does not appear to have any sources that meet the criteria outlined at the general notability guideline. I will reply regarding ways to generally improve your editing experience and in more detail about notability on your talk page. VQuakr (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I note that the article was deleted in 2006, the year after Zenfolio went beta. It is now 6 years later. The circumstances at the time of the article deletion do not apply today.Victor Engel (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noted this earlier. Concerns about whether the subject should have an article should be decided on the page for the article, not here. And yes, to my knowledge you can modify an article while it is pending review at AfC. VQuakr (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, this particular conversation is about why you seem to have it out for Zenfolio, irrationally, from my perspective. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. It's an issue between you and me, not with the article, since I felt confident I had addressed the concerns about the article. Once I figure out what your hang-up is, perhaps I can address that better in the article.Victor Engel (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect, in my opinion, in your characterization of this discussion. This is a policy-based discussion about the suitability of inclusion of an item on a list, not "an issue between you and me." If you feel the discussion is at an impasse, I suggest that one of us request an uninvolved third opinion at WP:3O. VQuakr (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I never thought to check the Alexa rank of Zenfolio, which would have been helpful since it meets the criteria for inclusion on this list with a ranking of ~6k (established consensus is an existing article on Wikipedia or a page ranking of less than 100k). Sorry for the frustration! VQuakr (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That may have been partly my fault, since I put N/A for that field, since many of the Zenfolio accounts have their own domain names and thus wouldn't be included in the stats. I wonder how many of the sites listed here have this feature.Victor Engel (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Picasa is one, though the relatively high Alexa rank for Zenfolio makes me suspect that Alexa might include the traffic to subdomain names. VQuakr (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Picasa, an Alexa rank of 1 for Picasa must mean that it's actually a google rank. That number 1 is absurd for Picasa. If I enter Picasa.com into Alexa, though, I get an absurdly high number. Where does this number 1 come from?Victor Engel (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 1 is the Alexa rank for the entire google.com domain. I changed it to 256 per the footnote already included in the article. The od template is just to keep the reply indent from getting too absurd. VQuakr (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Pinterest and the definition of "sharing"

This post is only half-way serious. In contemplating Pinterest being on a list of photo sharing sites, I think of children discussing sharing: "Mom, he's not sharing with me!" The child complaining here, is trying to share someone else's stuff the way Pinterest users share stuff. They are the takers. All the other photo sharing sites involve users providing something to share with others. They are the givers. I've not actually used Pinterist, so take this with a grain of salt, but that's the impression I have, anyway, of the "service". Victor Engel (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have minimal interest in Pinterest, but the Wikipedia page calls it a photo sharing site in the first sentence so I figured I had no reason to argue. People can't snap a photo and post it on Pinterest without "taking?" VQuakr (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't use Pinterist, but my understanding is that its basic concept is to allow people to organize things they've found on the web. It's like a scrapbook. Reading the wikipedia article, I gather you can also upload material to it, but that seems like a minor function of the site. Perhaps someone who actually uses it could weigh in.Victor Engel (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Facebook

Doesn't Facebook features#Photos make that one of the biggest share sites? Jim.henderson (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Definition of photo sharing sites

Should all of these sites be on the list? Deviant Art is for sharing your artwork, not hosting images. Skydrive is apprantly for files in gemral, not just photos. and reading the comments above, it seems people want to add anything you can upload images too... Perphaps this article needs it's scope to be better defined? Decat2 (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Column for photo ownership

Some sites will use the uploaded photos for advertising etc. I suggest a new column that tells about this. Nopedia (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

is tumblr a candidate?

it's hard to tell photo sharing from other sharing... but there are a lot of photos shared on tumblr... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.236.127 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sharing website's terms and conditions

No serious comparison of photo sharing is possible without some mention of terms & conditions. Very topical in past year are the assertions made by websites on their rights to reuse photos, declared irrevocable and perpetual usage rights, various implied usage licenses, copyright issues, facilities to opt-out of re-use, their claims to be protected by DCMA safe harbour status, etc. Some bright spark should be able to boil the types of T&C into 2 or 3 categories. For example here is a quote from a (unnamed) photo sharing site terms & conditions, as of Apr 2013 - "..you grant us the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display Member Content.. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.198.23 (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Amendment of inclusion requirements

This list has become a spam magnet, so a few weeks ago I removed all the redlinks from both sections. Further, I've now also amended the comment in the intro section regarding requirements for inclusion. As with most other lists, we should be following the spirit of WP:WTAF. It doesn't make sense to include sites based on their Alexa rank, when we don't accept that as the sole notability criteria under WP:WEB. In fact, I'd recommend removing the Alexa rank altogether. If a website is notable then it should have an article on Wikipedia, and if it doesn't then we shouldn't be helping promote it with an entry here. Thoughts? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I support the idea. VQuakr (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

DPHOTO

DPHOTO should be included on this list. It is an alternative to flickr and smugmug. It has appeared in TNW (http://thenextweb.com/au/2010/04/30/powerfully-simple-online-photo-sharing-dphoto/), a notable tech review and news site. other sources: http://photo-sharing-websites.no1reviews.com/dphoto.html http://www.apertureexpert.com/tips/2012/4/22/dphoto-a-viable-alternative-to-mobileme.html http://dphoto.appappeal.com/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-9718679-2.html

Most of these reviews are a little outdated but that shows that it has been around for a long time. DPHOTO doesn't market itself much which might explain its lack of presence online. I would love it if someone could add this to the list and even write it's own article. Tomdawson91 (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The site does not appear to meet the inclusion criteria - no stand-alone article and a global Alexa rank >100k. Please see WP:WTAF. VQuakr (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks VQuakr, in that case that the Alexa rank is not relevant any more (as you say in the above comment "Ammendment of inclusion requirements" , I am wondering if you would be willing to check this out for me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tomdawson91/sandbox Tomdawson91 (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• I understand that the global Alexa rank number should be less than 100,000, with mathematical notation shown as <100k ... -Mardus (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Chart Needs Revising

Description, registration requirements, and focus are all different and need their own categories on the chart. Someone must do this.-Zyrath (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Two items. Sky Drive needs to be updated to One Drive. The citation for Flickr download policy, (79), is out of date, as they now allow photo downloads based on photo owners account settings see: https://help.yahoo.com/kb/flickr/download-photos-flickr-sln7291.html?impressions=true Mgwullaert (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Share Photos to Other Sites?

There should be a column added that distinguishes which websites are able to share to other websites, such as Flickr can share photos with Facebook. This is pretty simple, cut and dry, nothing hard or exhausting about it. But it would be good to show that some of these companies have been taken seriously enough to allow the photo hosting site to share photos with another website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.17.2 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'n new to the page/article and will be 'watching' -- has this been answered? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Photo sharing vs. image hosting

It seems to me that it would be useful to distinguish between "photo sharing" and "image hosting" services. My sense of these terms is that the former is primarily for users to store, display, and socially share photographs that they themselves have created, with most of the viewing taking place on the website of the service provider; whereas the latter is primarily for storage of all kinds of image files—original photos, but also diagrams, screenshots, "memes", etc.—so that they can be transcluded elsewhere on the Web, such as in forum posts, email messages, and Twitter tweets. For example, according to these descriptions, 500px, Flickr, and SmugMug are photo-sharing sites; ImageShack, imm.io, and Imgur are image-hosting sites. (Pinterest, DeviantART, and Lockerz all arguably fit neither description, and rather are something else entirely.) I'd like to solicit opinions on whether such a distinction would be (1) useful, and (2) feasible to make and maintain. — Jaydiem (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2014

Could you please include ePHOTOzine into the list. This list seems to be filled primarily with US sites. ePHOTOzine is the largest UK photographic site.

Name: ePHOTOzine Location: United Kingdom Owner: Magezine Publishing Ltd Hoster: KDA Web Services

Description: Free registration. Large UK photographic community with gallery, discussion forums, portfolios. Paid Membership for added features. Registred Users: Unknown Storage Space Allowed per Users: Free - 50mb/month, Paid - 500mb/month. 1 upload per day to the public galleries. Global Alexa Page Rank: 15,916 2.120.80.66 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The inclusion criteria for this list is an article on English Wikipedia. ePHOTOzine does not have such an article, no article = no inclusion. - Arjayay (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Meaningless info in table of defunct sites

It doesn't really make any sense for the table of defunct sites to include such details as number of registered users, amount of storage space allowed, and Alexa global ranking, does it? If a site is defunct, all that information is meaningless. I propose removing those columns from the table of defunct sites. I imagine that someone might object that the information should be kept for historical purposes, but I disagree for three reasons: (1) this article is about current information, not historical recap; (2) if the historical data were kept anyway, one would have to come up with criteria for choosing the point in time for each site where its historical snapshot would be taken, and document that choice, which would be excessively time-consuming; and (3) if a reader is really interested in knowing the historical details, she should be able to find that info in the main article about the defunct site. — Jaydiem (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2014

Photoshop.com, as a web sharing site, is retired. Replaced with Adoberevel.com . Different pricing scheme and different software levels that sync with Adobe Revel. Tns2020 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - it appears from this that Adobe Revel was only a renaming of Carousel - which is not on the list. If Photoshop has been superseded, please provide a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Google Photos / PicasaWeb Albums no longer support RSS

I don't think Google+ Photos/PicasaWeb supports RSS feed anymore. If so, should delete that feature from the comparison chart. Blane9393 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2014

Pixorial should probably be moved into defunct photo sharing websites as it is no longer accepting new users and appears to be in the process of closing down. If you check their homepage at www.pixorial.com you will see this to be the case.

Bradfordgeek (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014

Please add newzcard.com to your list of photo sharing sites. Alexa rank is 312,018 72.37.138.194 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: that site doesn't have a wikipedia page at this time, and so is not eligible for inclusion to this list Cannolis (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2015

Please add CamJamm.com to the list of services. I would recommend CamJamm.com. I've used many services over the years... now I'm with Phanfare and I can't find anywhere to move to because they are just too compicated. CamJamm.com is fast, easy, and impressive. Puts the joy back into organizing your life's moments again. Check it out. CamJamm links to your google account and stores your content on Google Drive and YouTube... so you can be sure your stuff won't disappear. So space is only limited by your Google account space... videos do not take up space because they are uploaded to YouTube. Because content is hosted in your Google account, everything is very fast. Viewers viewing your photos/videos see them fast. Uploads are fast. It's currently in beta and may have some bugs. Thanks Kim Luesakkim (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The inclusion criteria for this list is an article on English Wikipedia. CamJamm does not have such an article, no article = no inclusion. - Arjayay (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2015

I believe the Alexa rankings of the photo sharing sites listed in this article have changed in the past month, and the article should be edited accordingly. For example, as of today, 12 March 2015, at 11am CST, Flickr ranks 124th globally, Pinterest is 34th, Imgur is 31st, and Instagram is 30th.

I found these numbers on http://www.alexa.com/topsites/global;0

Thank you. Eggwig (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2015

Can you update the SmugMug section? Please change Pricing basic $40 power $60 Pro $150 to Updated pricing. http://www.smugmug.com/features Basic $40 Power $60 Portfolio $150 Business $300 Also the largest file size from 100 megapixel 50 megabyets to 150 megabytes 210 megapixels. http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93278 Akimmell (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I removed that information from the article, since it's subject to change and better suited for the company's website. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2015

Please add another row to the table. Table should read like the following:

Name: Zenfolio Location / Owner / Hoster: United States Description/Focus/Registration requirements: #1 All-in-one photography website hosting solution for pro photographers. Free trial, paid subscriptions. Passworded galleries, full screen homepage, allow and protect photo downloads, integrated blog, shopping cart with credit card and PayPal service. Custom logo and watermarks. iOS: YES Android: YES Windows Phone: YES Other: all platforms and mobile media Registered users 100,000+ Storage Space Allowed Per User (standard): Unlimited Global Alexa[1] page ranking: 5,841 173.164.141.249 (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Inclusion in the list requires that an article about the service exist. The addition of non-notable services and spamming is why this article is protected in the first place. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

bayimg

No longer active — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.195.25 (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

vho.to

No longer active — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.131.9.158 (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 Spetember 2015

Fotki.com is no longer free after this month. I received an e-mail from them to let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rprastein (talk • contribs) 05:49, 19 September 2015

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bazj (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2015

Hi I was thinking that the website 9gag.com should be listed in this page under "Active photo-sharing websites" It's a well known and popular image sharing site with many users and is similar in nature to the other sites mentioned such as imgur.

Thankyou

Anotherhorcrux (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anotherhorcrux: with an Alexa rank of 201, [1], I concur it should be included. Can you draft the sourced entry for a copy/paste into the article (or just edit the article yourself after three more edits)? VQuakr (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: I do not consider 9gag a "photo-sharing" site. It is a meme sharing site. Those are two completely different things and to take a quote from 9GAG, 9GAG, Inc. operates an online platform and social media website. Users upload and share content either user-generated or found on other social media websites, it is a social media website. To include it in this list would also make Facebook a photo-sharing website, which it isn't. In any case, the OP has not responded to the request for more info so I am changing the answered parameter of this request to yes. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2015

Photo Sharing Platform AWOL Adventure (www.awolaventure.com) Ribbonsofknowledge (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done the inclusion criteria is an article on the English Wikipedia
AWOL Adventure is not even mentioned in a Wikipedia article, let alone have its own article - Arjayay (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2015

Hello:

I'd like to add a new picture sharing website called hometownvista.com to the table "Active photo-sharing websites" under the page "List_of_photo-sharing_websites". The website has recently been launched. If this request is acceptable, here's the one row of data that I request to be added to the table.

Name	Location/Owner	Description/Focus/Registration Requirement	iOS	Android	Windows Phone	Other	Registered Users	Storage Space Allowed Per User	Global Alexa page ranking
Hometown Vista	United States / AN Media Inc.	Website for sharing pictures related to a particular city, town, village or locality/Free to register, post and browse. Registration required to post pictures					Unknown	Currently Unlimited (may change in the future)	Unknown

Thank you.

Hometownvista (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done A newly launched website is unlikely to meet our requirements for inclusion. VQuakr (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2015

Add one more image sharing site that is www.itspic.com , it's totally very easy to use image sharing site. Location: United states. Description: Free image hosting and also registered user can have more features like Follow and like systems. Storage space: Unlimited storage and bandwidth. Tobin mathew (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done the proposed addition appears to lack an article on Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2015

Addition of onealbum.com photo sharing service Dobuss (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done the inclusion criteria is an article on the English Wikipedia
onealbum is not even mentioned in a Wikipedia article, let alone have its own article - Arjayay (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of photo-sharing websites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060727063119/http://www.apple.com/ca/press/2002/10/dotmac.html to http://www.apple.com/ca/press/2002/10/dotmac.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016

Add an entry into the Active photo-sharing websites table, with fields "Photoshare linked to www.photoshares.xyz", "Canada / OpenShift", "Free, registration required", no, no, no, no, "Unknown", "5 uploads/week free plan, unlimited for paid accounts", ~22,000,000

EDIT: fixed, please see the new page: Photoshare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forbattleon (talk • contribs) 00:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Forbattleon (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Photoshare is a redlink, need an article first Cannolis (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm still going to hold off, the page you've created doesn't really show evidence of notability in my opinion, all sources you've used are WP:PRIMARY sources either directly from their website, from their facebook page, or an Alexa ranking (which frankly is not very supportive at 22 million). Cannolis (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2016

Photobucket has 87,000,000 users and supports iOS, Android. (I am the CTO - Chris Peacock) ChrisPeacock69 (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Zipalong

Zipalong is a photo sharing and trip planning website with friends. It provides unlimited storage, full privacy controls, is free and has no ads.Paulinusia25 (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

IOS, Android, Windows Phone, Other

Probably should explain somewhere what these columns actually mean. - dcljr (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2016

I don't see a file sharing site called Beanga listed on the photo sharing sites page. How can we add this to the list? Its www.Beanga.com, unsure of the amount of users. I do know the site does NOT require an account to upload files. Users can upload GIF's, MEME's, Video and Photos. No upload limits. No file size limits.

Johnbslc (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

First step would be to create an article about it that doesn't get speedily deleted. - dcljr (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: as all additions to this list need to have their own Wikipedia article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2016

Please include imgur in the section Comparison of photo-sharing websites at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photo-sharing_websites#Comparison_of_photo-sharing_websites

Theszak (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

- Imgur has been there for a long time - between Instagram and Ipernity - Arjayay (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Imgur is not in the table in the specific section the OP linked to. - dcljr (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)