Image hosting with simple tagging options
-
@JaredBusch said:
I spun up Lychee real quick last night and found it hugely lacking. The developer is obviously a hobbyist and has little desire to grow the product.
It currently has no mult-user support and when someone forked the product to add it, the main dev seemed rather uninterested with incorporating the fork in.
From a basic features as designed point of view, it is a nice looking product that I could easily see myself using. But a lack of multi-user support makes it just blatantly horrible.
-
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
You want some almost never heard of solution that you think people will access to tag photos you post?
I suppose the idea is nice, but when things like Google Plus fails, I'm not sure how you get people to sign up and use yet another service and not have it just dry up and blow away in a few years.
I guess I'd go for Facebook or Google Photos.
Specific people will be driven to it. I could care less about the masses.
I hate FB.
Google Photos is limiting IMO.
Flikr is ok, but without tagging I am not sure I like it. It seems to revolve only aronud albums and not much arond metadata.Google Photos is more limiting than the others currently are?
I do not like it at all. But that could easily be my negative bias to the killing of Picasa which I have used for years and years.
I suppose I can see that. I used Picasa years ago, but not of the last 2 years. Google Photos on the other hand.. I really rather like it.
I like how Google automatically searches and indexes faces. I haven't bothered to see if I could tag people or name a face to do a search by names instead.But one we know that Google Photos can do is share easily with others that have google accounts.
Google Picasa was their competition to Flickr. From what I can tell, it failed. I'm loathe to depend on any Google systems as they don't tend to have any longevity. I've already been justified in avoiding Picasa and I wasn't even aware that they replaced it with something new. And that something new has a fraction of the press and attention that Picasa had... so the chances that it is going to stick around seems low.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Google Picasa was their competition to Flickr. From what I can tell, it failed. I'm loathe to depend on any Google systems as they don't tend to have any longevity. I've already been justified in avoiding Picasa and I wasn't even aware that they replaced it with something new. And that something new has a fraction of the press and attention that Picasa had... so the chances that it is going to stick around seems low.
I wouldn't say it failed. It was a desktop app and Google (and to a large degree, the world) has moved on from desktop apps to pure cloud based solutions. There was also Picassa Web Albums which has been superceded by Google Photos. The world moves on. That's a good thing, right?
I think Google Photos is much better than Flickr. Flickr's looking a bit dated now.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Google Picasa was their competition to Flickr. From what I can tell, it failed. I'm loathe to depend on any Google systems as they don't tend to have any longevity. I've already been justified in avoiding Picasa and I wasn't even aware that they replaced it with something new. And that something new has a fraction of the press and attention that Picasa had... so the chances that it is going to stick around seems low.
I wouldn't say it failed. It was a desktop app and Google (and to a large degree, the world) has moved on from desktop apps to pure cloud based solutions. There was also Picassa Web Albums which has been superceded by Google Photos. The world moves on. That's a good thing, right?
I think Google Photos is much better than Flickr. Flickr's looking a bit dated now.
The problem I have with Photos is that there are a lot of features missing compared to Picasa.
Picasa had a pretty decent run and that is why so many feel abandoned like this.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I wouldn't say it failed. It was a desktop app and Google (and to a large degree, the world) has moved on from desktop apps to pure cloud based solutions. There was also Picassa Web Albums which has been superceded by Google Photos. The world moves on. That's a good thing, right?
Picassa Web Albums is what I am discussing. And that's the issue... for long term photo storage if the world moves on, that's very bad.
Flickr is older than any of these other products and shows no signs of changes or going anywhere. It's not the cool kid on the block any more like it was when it heralded in the Web 2.0 revolution (everyone remembers that, right? Flickr was the one that make AJAX happen) but they have had a long term commitment to being the place to store your photos. Google, I don't think, has done something similar and has a track record that is very different from that.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Picasa had a pretty decent run and that is why so many feel abandoned like this.
When it was at its peak it was a very strong competitor for Flickr. I kept wondering why I didn't switch. So glad that I did not put my eggs in the Google basket. I'm sure that they gave lots of warning and let people migrate off easily and everything. But that's a pain when you are talking about the metadata for your lifetime of images.
For me the collection is small, but still over 15,000 images.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
Picasa had a pretty decent run and that is why so many feel abandoned like this.
When it was at its peak it was a very strong competitor for Flickr. I kept wondering why I didn't switch. So glad that I did not put my eggs in the Google basket. I'm sure that they gave lots of warning and let people migrate off easily and everything. But that's a pain when you are talking about the metadata for your lifetime of images.
For me the collection is small, but still over 15,000 images.
Actually, they just announced it in February.
http://googlephotos.blogspot.com/2016/02/moving-on-from-picasa.htmlLooking at their blog as a whole shows how little Google cared about the service though. Prior to the recent announcement, the last post was in 2011.
http://googlephotos.blogspot.com -
Rightly or wrongly, I feel slightly more comfortable with Flickr because I pay for it, whilst I don't think Google have ever offered a paid photo service (other than charging for Google Drive) have they? I guess it comes down to the old adage "if you're not paying for the product you are the product". But I don't really trust either company, or any other provider. I'm certainly glad I don't have a massive collection on Instragram now that their users are being dicked around.
At the moment I use both Google and Flickr. Essentially I have two for redundancy. But managing both is a ballache.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Google Picasa was their competition to Flickr. From what I can tell, it failed. I'm loathe to depend on any Google systems as they don't tend to have any longevity. I've already been justified in avoiding Picasa and I wasn't even aware that they replaced it with something new. And that something new has a fraction of the press and attention that Picasa had... so the chances that it is going to stick around seems low.
I wouldn't say it failed. It was a desktop app and Google (and to a large degree, the world) has moved on from desktop apps to pure cloud based solutions. There was also Picassa Web Albums which has been superceded by Google Photos. The world moves on. That's a good thing, right?
I think Google Photos is much better than Flickr. Flickr's looking a bit dated now.
The problem I have with Photos is that there are a lot of features missing compared to Picasa.
Picasa had a pretty decent run and that is why so many feel abandoned like this.
I didn't stretch out my use - what options are now missing?
-
Finally decided what to use. Going to have my dad setup Flickr albums for his project.
