From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

page reads like an ad[edit]

This page reads like was written by someone at photobucket. It is more like an advert than an article. Does anyone else agree?

Agreed. Seems like it's a page advertising photobucket. NPOV tag added. Wizrdwarts
Yes, this page needs to be re-written so it doesn't read like an advert. It's almost like it was written by photobucket themselves.
I erased the part about the accounts to make it more NPOV. Does it help? Barrylocke
I actually don't think it really read like an ad to begin with. It *does* offer both premium and free accounts, and it *is* one of the better-known photo services. Maybe we should change "premium" to "paid," since "premium" is pretty much an advertising term? Sophy's Duckling 01:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I found this article quite a useful summary. It accurately states all the facts, it's using paid now instead of the advertising term, it's great. Thanks Nastajus 04:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

a This page reads like an ad to me. How is it even close to being encyclopedic? Peter Tangney 01:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the idea that it's an advertisement, even now as we approach 2008. Has anyone noticed the "History" section isn't its history, but rather a summary of its media accolades ("Fortune Magazine rating it, etc.)? There's more history in the header than anywhere else I'm afraid. And beyond that, the stats are out of date. That much I can fix. As far as article neutrality goes, the article needs to be completely rewritten, otherwise we'll just end up cutting it down until it's a stub. Alan (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Still reads like an ad in March. I move to delete the article. sohmc (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Soh,c. If it can't be unbiased then it should not exist. I actually came to the talk page planing to start this discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There should not be talk of account levels, prices, and usage instructions on the page. I third the move to delete the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


Perhaps this might interest you

According to that Photobucket is way popular than any other sites in Photo Sharing. Maybe we should update this article

Well then, Be Bold. Also, remember to sign your posts with ~~~~

Peter Tangney 16:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm new to Wikipedia 22:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
But also according to that article Photobucket is not really Photo Sharing, only Image Hosting. There is no social dimension such there is in flickr. Shinhan 05:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Allright then, after using this for a while, I noticed you guys were right. Thanks -- 19:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Neopets is supposed to be mentioned in there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism[edit], if you can find citations for criticism, please cite them, but Wikipedia does not allow Original Research. That is, you are not allowed to post what you found out, only to cite what other, respectable sources have found out. Shinhan 06:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Hate to nitpick here, but the word 'respectable' is an expired term. Consider using the term 'citable' in future. Black-Velvet 07:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Why does PhotoBucket advertise unlimited bandwidth to paying customers? Unlimited bandwidth doesn't exist. And when a paying customer soaks up a lot of PhotoBucket's bandwidth, PhotoBucket starts looking for ways to get rid of this person, because they're costing PhotoBucket money. Or, PhotoBucket looks for ways to make money off of this person (getting them to promote PhotoBucket with ads or something). An example of PhotoBucket screwing paying customers for using their 'unlimited' bandwidth: I'd appreciate it if someone added this to the article, if there's enough evidence out there of this occuring. Show PhotoBucket that reputation is congruent to money. --Pulseczar 21:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Please check out WP:RS regarding what is a Reliable Source. Livejournal entries are self-published and are not usually Reliable Sources. I tried to find a Reliable Source reporting that photobucket is "screwing paying customers" and could not.MikeURL 16:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
How about this. Photobucket's security is a joke. You used to be able to view private buckets by typing "" before the name of the bucket. Then there were exploits using photobucket mobile. Now there are sites like "photobucketwhores" (now "realwebwhores") who make a living exploiting photobucket weaknesses and reposting pictures of nude or scantly clad women found in their supposedly secure bucket. Now there are programs used to fusker the buckets and steal the pictures inside because photobucket stopped randomising the names of the pictures on upload. When sites like realwebwhores, navnet, ixtractor, fuskerfind and anonib exist because of photobucket's crap security and millions of unwitting girls are having their images stolen and hidden in rars files on sites like rapidshare I'd call that a "slight" security problem and certainly worthy of criticism. Especially when photobucket does nothing about it.
  • I guess I'll have to wait for a citable source to mention that Photobucket now resizes images over 1280x1024, regardless of file size or if resizing the format will result in a larger file size. xnamkcor (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How do they make money?[edit]

How do they make money?

Find out Azzstar (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

They sell your email address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

They get money buy the number of clicks they get. For example if they had a video up that got 398 clicks then they would get more money than the video that had 3 clicks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why even bother making such a reply? Centrepull (talk)

Photobucket generates revenue through premium accounts, and advertising on the Centrepull (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

January 05, 2008 crash[edit]

I feel there should be some notation on the frequency of their website being completely inaccessible. For example, right now. Anyone who night want to contest the assertion, try accessing your photobucket account right now. Their Main/Start page works fine but beyond that, nothing. (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No. You can't go through every page, for every site, and start adding uptime/downtime statistics. First, You have no accurate statistics. Second, you would need to do this for every site referenced on Wikipedia. Third, this could be considered 'un-advertising' and you could be liable for inaccurate information that results in a loss of income.


Isn’t photobcuket’s name spelled with a lower case ‘p’?

RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no access right now as it has been hacked by some turkish group of hackers.I copied this from what was photobucket website.


6/17/08 hacking of Photobucket[edit]

can someone please make a mention of today's hacking of Photobucket by an Turkish Hacker Group named "NeTDevilz" --Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

it dont have the notabiliy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

well it does now, there's an news story about it, i post the link in here since it's about what happened. 69 9 (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about this paragraph...[edit]

"One of Photobucket's most interesting features is it's apathy toward exploitation of any individual. An account called 'girls_of_yahoo' was set up as a collection bin of pictures stolen from several women and displayed on Photobucket without the consent of the women. One of the women contacted Photobucket about this, but Photobucket did nothing."

That sounds a little not NPOV to me... plus, it sounds like anecdotal evidence and probably isn't what they usually do. And it was added in the most recent edit. (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

hola soy el kechi

No, actually that's what they do to everybody. See "realwebwhores" (a site created originally as "photobucketwhores") and "obsessedwithmyself". They steal girls' pictures and repost them to generate hits and ad revenue. All photobucket did was get them to change their name but the women's pics are still there. Photobucket does nothing about content stolen from it's site and doesn't help users in any way who have had their pictures stolen due to their heavily flawed security. Photobucket is as concerned with their users as yahoo or goggle. Not in the least.

I shall put my criticism of Photobucket back up when I have proper evidence. -Photobucket artical vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Media:

Example.oggInsert non-formatted text here]] == —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


I just resized an image on the page but was wondering what that image actually has to do with photobucket? There doesn't seem to be an explanation. londonsista Prod 12:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

really!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


It seems impossible, or almost impossible, to upload pictures to Photobucket from Linux. And it seems to be official PB policy not to support Linux in any way.

What about other photo sites? Is there a comparison table somewhere? - (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs update[edit]

1. Registration is required. 2. The limits for non-paid accounts are now quite low. The article indicates they are "unlimited" as of February 2011, but as of September 2011, that appears to no longer be the case. I put in a note and a "cite needed". --John Nagle (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC) ---

1. I couldn't find any redaction on Photobucket to the "unlimited access" referred to above - removed & inserted link to latest information about unlimited storage on photobucket blog.

2. The logo for Photobucket is out of date. See Photobucket blog header for logo.

3. "Unlimited space and bandwidth is valid only for non-commercial use." - the current TOU do not specify non-commercial use (see Photobucket TOU Cost and Pricing > Pro account). Suggest removing this line.

4. I believe the Palo Alto image is out-of-date as well. Photobucket is based in Denver, CO & San Francisco, CA (About Photobucket, 2nd paragraph). bripi —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

As all of the above are subject to change at any time, at the whim of photobucket, the correct thing to do would be to delete this info and the reader could go to photobucket for accurate account info, prices, storage limits, usage limits, restrictions, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Privacy issues section[edit]

I added a section on a recently noted privacy hole in Photobucket, allowing 'private' photos to be accessed without the uploader's knowledge. I think the sources are good enough and the information is worth noting, but if anyone disagrees, please comment here. Robofish (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Based in Denver or in Seattle?[edit]


The picture is of their HQ in Denver -- but at the end it is noted as a company based in Seattle. Which is it?

If they moved, isn't it worth noting as part of the article? I know people in Denver who work for them (that's my home area).

In any case it's either a factual error or an inconsistency -- or both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanR (talkcontribs) 13:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


Photobucket site is getting to be useless now and I'm sure it will lose a lot of users when charging a lot of money. There's Flickr! The Channel of Random (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^
    1. NeTDevilz #
    ... ve NeTDevilz yeniden sahnede Bizi hatırlayan var mı ? Unutulduğumuzu düşündük ve tekrar hatırlatmaya karar verdik  ! ( Turkish hackers group ZeberuS - GeCeCi - MiLaNo - The_BeKiR - h4ckinger - SerSaK - KinSize we are came back ! ©2008 NetDevilz Co. We're not first,But We're the Best