[geeks] Photo "sharing" site recemondations please.

[Phil Stracchino]

Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2008, at 21:03 , James Fogg wrote:
> 
>>>> My wife would like to be able to post photographs to a web site and
>>>> have her friends and family be able to download or view them. It's
>> not
>>>> for the general public, but I doubt there would be anything that
>>>> she would want to hide.
>>>
>>> Is there any reason not to go straight to flickr?
>>
>>
>> There is now. I'm a Flickr fan, but it's a Yahoo property, which means
>> it'll be a Microsoft property in about a year.
> 
> They also started putting in video services, which I think sucks.
> 
> flickr has always been great precisely because it didn't do anything 
> else, and try to be an idiotic everything site like the rest.
> 
> The video stuff can't be easily disabled, and site performance has been 
> down ever since they turned it on.

Performance is one of the things I dislike about Smugmug.  I know quite 
a few people who host photos on there, and the vast topload of 
Javascript slows my browser to a crawl and bogs down the entire system. 
  Come on, people, all you're supposed to be doing is displaying photos 
-- *I* can do that without using Javascript at all.... what's your excuse?


-- 
   Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
   alaric at caerllewys.net   alaric at metrocast.net   phil at co.ordinate.org
          Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
                  It's not the years, it's the mileage.