If I may offer a suggestion, now might be a good time to start a naming convention for our pics. Phones and digital cameras usually just use a number sequence to differentiate between pictures. While it works, it's doesn't tell you what the picture is if you searching your hard drive for it.
Mark, I'll use you for an example, but let's say you want to find a picture of your fire pit at your place. The camera may save the pic as IMG_3798.JPG, but a far better name would be ZepRanch_fire pit_10/10/2015.jpg. Where this helps is on searches. I'm not sure how Windows works anymore, but a search for ZepRanch would pull up all the pics that originated there, and make it much easier to find when needed. On fish pics I use "species_location_date.jpg".
RC, while I agree with your posts about hard drive costs, I'd be willing to bet the PB host is on a Unix/Linux system with raided drives of some kind. They're redundantly redundant, and failure is vary rare these days. Those drive arrays and controllers aren't cheap, and I wouldn't be surprised if some hosts still use scsi hard drives. In my previous life, we had 2 dedicated Stratus database servers that dimmed the lights when we fired them up. These were $15,000 a piece in 1990's dollars, but damn they were fast.
I absolutely agree with the backing up of data in a consistent manor. I'm on Macs now, so I use Time Machine for hourly backups, and then a disconnected usb eternal hard drive on Sunday mornings after all the security scans are done. No reason to pass any potential malware to the backup also.
I also wanted to applaud you guys efforts to find a suitable replacement for photobucket, but nothing in life is free, and anything we find is still potentially temporary. This whole debacle should open up an opportunity for other services to thrive, but they too have to make a profit of some kind. The hard part is for them to figure out how to do that in a market that was historically free.
Last edited by FireIsHot; 07/21/17 08:48 AM. Reason: clarity
