Imgur Comments

Post a Comment

* no signup required* signup optional, freevs ImageShack- n ...

Comment by Life_begins_at_conception about Imgur Mar 2011

* no signup required
* signup optional, free

vs ImageShack

- no transloading
- not as response
- does NOT retain filename
- almost zero api based applications
- vague (scant) information on file hosting lifespan (per se or vs usage)
- more likely to rape quality
- flash gui has no non-flash alternative


- Anonymous API users limited to 50 images upload per hour
- Authenticated API users limited to 100 images upload per hour

vs google

+ not interested in data mining your life
+ no relationship with NSA unlike google


I would like to outline few facts.

1 - Imgur is not responsive either, responsive is refereed to sites which can scale or dynamically change there site layout/structure based on active Window view. A responsive example is Twitter Bootsrap CSS Framework. Imgur however is NOT RESPONSIVE.

2 - Imgur does not retain FILENAME either

3 - There aren't many Imgur API based applications, there is at-least few for every-device for ImageShack.

4 - There is no life-spam on files there removed in term to TOS violation

5 - Rape quality? Really. Imgur does not allow GIF > 2MB, ImageShack has no problem with GIF > 2MB and it has yet to "RAPE" image quality. I am sure you never been "RAPED". And using the word that has nothing to do with "image quality" is out of place.

6 - WTF? Where have you been living? ImageShack had Flash and HTML support for years. So I am not sure what you been using but its been there always.

[Edited by shinjiku, March 25]


No crap

Positive Comment by OmgItsTheSmartGuy about Imgur and Photobucket, ImageShack, Sep 2011

I never use Photobucket or Imageshack anymore. Too much crap on their website. I don't care about managing albums, I don't care about today's popular images, I don't care about your stupid bulk uploader. Just give me a page that I can drop screenshots onto. Imgur is great in that regard.