And I was just thinking how uch I now like photo-net :) but then I forked over the $25 a year. for 100 megs of space.
The way they put it to new members was 3 megs free. I'm really watching pennies, too but the pics are easy to load, they look pretty presentable in thumbnail form and there don't seem to be a lot of ads flashing. However, I thought Amita's diplay (and LArry's) looked nice on smugmug. but they are paying. The only thing that pissed me off at photo.net is the way they said they probably wouldn't answer your mail if you asked for help! ann frank theriault wrote: > Again, Photo.net pisses me off. > > Under the "old" rules, a non-member (in other words, someone who > doesn't want to pay an annual fee, like me), one could post up to 99 > photos in their gallery. If one went over that amount, the post would > still go through, but any of your photos could be arbitrarily deleted > without notice, to get your number down to 99. > > Fair enough. > > Yesterday, when I posted my most recent PAW (which only Cotty liked > <g>), a big red notice is on my screen that I'm over my limit of ~47~ > photos. > > Huh? > > Well, it seems that "guests" (which is what they now call me, since I > won't pay) now have a limit of 5 photos, plus "extras". The number of > extras one is allowed is determined by some arcane and undisclosed > formula that has to do with how many viewings one's photos have had, > along with how many photos one has posted. The number of extras can > fluctuate without notice. > > Okay, I know, I know, I'm a cheapskate looking for freebies, and I > have no right to complain, right? > > Wrong! > > Seems to me that changing the rules mid-stream, without notice, is > entirely unfair. At least they could have a Sunset or Grandfather > Clause (or whatever they call them) wherein the new rules only apply > to new members (sorry, "guests"), and anyone who's been around for a > while still has the same old guidelines applied to them. > > So, again, I'm looking for a new place to put photos. My searches in > the past didn't prove fruitful, because anyone who wanted to view at > those places had to sign in (don't like that). I see Boris is using > Web Aperture, but folks don't like the resized window. > > Who's Amita with? Mug-something-or-other? Anyone have any thoughts > on that place? Is it free? I really don't want to have to pay for > this - having to put up with ads, and having my name and info go into > a databank to be used for who knows what is about all I'm the payment > I'm willing to make. > > Thanks in advance for your thoughts. > > cheers, > frank > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
