Seriously, it's used as an example for image uploading everywhere. Why can't we advertise cubeupload or tinypic instead? ImageShack requires you to pay to keep your image up and such, while cubeupload and tinypic are completely free.

EDIT (2/16/2021):

DEAR PEOPLE FROM THE FUTURE, HERE IS WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED SO FAR:

I give up.

Tinypic is dead at this point. Cubeupload is still among us but it seems to always be struggling and could go down at any moment. Besides photobucket and the previous mentioned imageshack, it is all we have.

The Scratch Team has shown that they do not care for the forums in the last 5 or 6 years. We have been asking for new image hosts for half a decade. Some good ones have been offered and even passed along to the team that fit their strict criteria for a new image host, but despite all of this, it has all been completely ignored.

Trying to prop up this topic is a fool's errand, as far as I am concerned. If you're reading this in the future and cubeupload is dead and you don't want to/can't fork money to imageshack, there is a weird exploit you can use to upload images via the assets.scratch subforum.

NanoRook wrote:

Seriously, it's used as an example for image uploading everywhere. Why can't we advertise cubeupload or tinypic instead? ImageShack requires you to pay to keep your image up and such, while cubeupload and tinypic are completely free.

Tinypic is discouraged, and Cubeupload is sometimes down.
EDIT: It seems that is also discouraged. Where did you find it advertised?
Anyways, support for advertising cubeupload.

There is a lot of debate over the image hosters.

I did find one that was relatively easy and non-malicious. It also works pretty well. I say the ST starts promoting this:

postimage.org

helloandgoodbye9 wrote:

NanoRook wrote:

Seriously, it's used as an example for image uploading everywhere. Why can't we advertise cubeupload or tinypic instead? ImageShack requires you to pay to keep your image up and such, while cubeupload and tinypic are completely free.

Tinypic is discouraged, and Cubeupload is sometimes down.
EDIT: It seems that is also discouraged. Where did you find it advertised?
Anyways, support for advertising cubeupload.

It's used as an example to upload images when you try to upload an image under an image host that isn't allowed.

I'd say photobucket and cubeupload are our best bets, cubeupload isn't down that often, anyways.

NanoRook wrote:

helloandgoodbye9 wrote:

NanoRook wrote:

Seriously, it's used as an example for image uploading everywhere. Why can't we advertise cubeupload or tinypic instead? ImageShack requires you to pay to keep your image up and such, while cubeupload and tinypic are completely free.

Tinypic is discouraged, and Cubeupload is sometimes down.
EDIT: It seems that is also discouraged. Where did you find it advertised?
Anyways, support for advertising cubeupload.

It's used as an example to upload images when you try to upload an image under an image host that isn't allowed.

I'd say photobucket and cubeupload are our best bets, cubeupload isn't down that often, anyways.

Cube upload doesn't require an account, so that should be advertised.

Cubeupload still has ads.

Lythium wrote:

Cubeupload still has ads.

It has 1 ad per page, and those ads are on the very bottom of the page.

I support this. The Scratch Team should be endorsing any single image service provider.

Support, Scratch is supposed to be free.

I agree.

I'd say cubeupload is my favorite.

MathlyCat wrote:

There is a lot of debate over the image hosters.

I did find one that was relatively easy and non-malicious. It also works pretty well. I say the ST starts promoting this:

postimage.org

Yeah, that seems nice too, especially since you can say whether or not it is appropriate.

I was about to sugest this but I found this topic, so here's a massive bump.

Full support for CubeUpload as the “promoted” image host. It's relatively simple to use, and while it is sometimes down, is still the best option out of the (currently) allowed image hosts.

I use cubeupload now, and to add a bit:

You can post inappropriate content on all the image hosts, so there's not much leeway there.

NanoRook wrote:

Seriously, it's used as an example for image uploading everywhere. Why can't we advertise cubeupload or tinypic instead? ImageShack requires you to pay to keep your image up and such, while cubeupload and tinypic are completely free.

What about imgur? You don't have to sign in, it's free, less confusing

CCPlymJoe wrote:

NanoRook wrote:

Seriously, it's used as an example for image uploading everywhere. Why can't we advertise cubeupload or tinypic instead? ImageShack requires you to pay to keep your image up and such, while cubeupload and tinypic are completely free.

What about imgur? You don't have to sign in, it's free, less confusing

It's not supported.

At the moment, users looking to put images on the Forums who don't use a compatible image server receive the message please host your images with an image-hosting service like imageshack.com

I think this should be changed to Cubeupload, and here's why:

1. ImageShack needs an account. If you want to use ImageShack, you have to register with your name and email. While this wouldn't be a problem for many users, young children are often not permitted by their parents to register for accounts, especially if they could see a load of other people's uncensored images. On the contrary, Cubeupload does not require this, and i s therefore much simpler and easier to access for new users.
   
   
2. Cubeupload is most popular on Scratch. My shop provides advertising services and for the advert uploads, I specify ‘on a compatible image server’ but pretty much all are uploaded via Cubeupload. Many art shops ask their potential workers to become familiar with Cubeupload before applying to be hired.
   
   
3. ImageShack isn't actually free. This may have been different when the recommendation was put in place, but free accounts don't get access to direct links; for this functionality you have to pay $3.99 per month. Not quite the ‘easy and free’ experience that Scratch aims for. But wait… they still can't guarantee that your content will remain intact!
   
   
4. Cubeupload is more open to a range of users. In ImageShack's FAQ they reserve the right to impose bandwidth limits on image sharing. They also claim that the browsers are compatibility-tested and that any ones that are too old to run the ImageShack site are blocked. What about users on older devices that don't support the latest version of their browser?
   
   
   

Please let me know what you think below.

I used Cubeupload every time+ I never got the message

python_megapixel wrote:

At the moment, users looking to put images on the Forums receive this message Please host your images with an image-hosting service like imageshack.com
-snip-

So I don't really know what you mean but
____
Support! Young children are often not permitted to use there parents Email, and that's wasting money for them, where as Cubeupload IS free, Doesn't need an account,Is easy to use, and Its secure!

How would you recommend it though. Because you can recommend it to people now if you want?