support, i just dont want to have to make a new account on another site an then have the risk of a data breach happening

Support, really great image host. CubeUpload is unreliable and it looks like all the other whitelisted sites aside from Wikipedia and Scratch itself are paid

gdfsgdfsgdfg wrote:

bump again

support

postimages is also blocked on my school chromebook and apparently every single image hosting site i know but this can be helpful for some people who don't want to make an account

Support for all the reasons above and I don't want to have to make an account

My school categorizes the site as mature…

Rosics wrote:

My school categorizes the site as mature…

Ha ha ha ha! Looks like the evil classwize tool from that random internet store has taken over the internet!

I just realized that postimages went from legit ads to “mildly-suspicious” ads (as in “antivirus” warnings)

edit: theres no hidden ads or forced redirect ads
however the ads are still mildly sus

gdfsgdfsgdfg wrote:

I just realized that postimages went from legit ads to “mildly-suspicious” ads (as in “antivirus” warnings)

edit: theres no hidden ads or forced redirect ads
however the ads are still mildly sus

this somewhat makes me reconsider my suggestion

Is this not rejected for adding your own website??????

TLORS wrote:

11.3 Remove restricted image hosts or add your own websites
By requiring an image host website (such as cubeupload) to be used when posting images on the forums, this decreases the chances of inappropriate images being posted on the forums, as inappropriate images are not allowed on these image host websites. The Scratch Team does not have the time to whitelist everybody's websites, especially when acceptable websites already exist.

Years ago, the Scratch forums suffered from trolls who continually spammed the forums with highly inappropriate images. It got so bad that the [img] tag had to be temporarily disabled so it could be improved. Certainly Scratchers would prefer to have to use an image hosting website rather than not being able to post images at all.

dinoparty0 wrote:

Is this not rejected for adding your own website??????

TLORS wrote:

11.3 Remove restricted image hosts or add your own websites
By requiring an image host website (such as cubeupload) to be used when posting images on the forums, this decreases the chances of inappropriate images being posted on the forums, as inappropriate images are not allowed on these image host websites. The Scratch Team does not have the time to whitelist everybody's websites, especially when acceptable websites already exist.

Years ago, the Scratch forums suffered from trolls who continually spammed the forums with highly inappropriate images. It got so bad that the [img] tag had to be temporarily disabled so it could be improved. Certainly Scratchers would prefer to have to use an image hosting website rather than not being able to post images at all.

read the OP

THIS IS A SUGGESTION TO ADD POSTIMAGES TO THE IMAGE HOST WHITELIST
AND I DONT OWN THIS WEBSITE

edit:
also if it was rejected, then this topic would be closed already
and it wouldn’t be in the Suggestions Directory

gdfsgdfsgdfg wrote:

dinoparty0 wrote:

Is this not rejected for adding your own website??????

TLORS wrote:

11.3 Remove restricted image hosts or add your own websites
By requiring an image host website (such as cubeupload) to be used when posting images on the forums, this decreases the chances of inappropriate images being posted on the forums, as inappropriate images are not allowed on these image host websites. The Scratch Team does not have the time to whitelist everybody's websites, especially when acceptable websites already exist.

Years ago, the Scratch forums suffered from trolls who continually spammed the forums with highly inappropriate images. It got so bad that the [img] tag had to be temporarily disabled so it could be improved. Certainly Scratchers would prefer to have to use an image hosting website rather than not being able to post images at all.

read the OP

THIS IS A SUGGESTION TO ADD POSTIMAGES TO THE IMAGE HOST WHITELIST
AND I DONT OWN THIS WEBSITE

edit:
also if it was rejected, then this topic would be closed already
and it wouldn’t be in the Suggestions Directory

You mentioned Wikipedia is whitelisted despite having bad content. The ST can tell between educational resources (where the risk is weighed against the massive benefit) and image hosts (where the only benefit is convenience). They are much more lenient with educational domains than they are with general-purpose hosting sites because Wikipedia has many images of educational resources, while PostImages has little/none. Use CubeUpload. They align with many of Scratch's own guidelines. CubeUpload doesn't allow explicit content while PostImages does so that is a big factor.

dinoparty0 wrote:

You mentioned Wikipedia is whitelisted despite having bad content. The ST can tell between educational resources (where the risk is weighed against the massive benefit) and image hosts (where the only benefit is convenience). They are much more lenient with educational domains than they are with general-purpose hosting sites because Wikipedia has many images of educational resources, while PostImages has little/none. Use CubeUpload. They align with many of Scratch's own guidelines. CubeUpload doesn't allow explicit content while PostImages does so that is a big factor.
-img-

yeah, well scratchers want img with the bb and the tou/tos doesn’t state “no inappropriate content” either
also CubeUpload has a link to the blue server application

so what is even your point exactly

edit:
also using wikipedia as an image host isn’t really convenient at all
especially if you are uploading a custom image

gdfsgdfsgdfg wrote:

dinoparty0 wrote:

You mentioned Wikipedia is whitelisted despite having bad content. The ST can tell between educational resources (where the risk is weighed against the massive benefit) and image hosts (where the only benefit is convenience). They are much more lenient with educational domains than they are with general-purpose hosting sites because Wikipedia has many images of educational resources, while PostImages has little/none. Use CubeUpload. They align with many of Scratch's own guidelines. CubeUpload doesn't allow explicit content while PostImages does so that is a big factor.
-img-

yeah, well scratchers want img with the bb and the tou/tos doesn’t state “no inappropriate content” either
also CubeUpload has a link to the blue server application

so what is even your point exactly

edit:
also using wikipedia as an image host isn’t really convenient at all
especially if you are uploading a custom image

CubeUploads TOS aligns with Scratch's goals while PostImages does not. How about you take a look at CubeUpload's TOS?

dinoparty0 wrote:

CubeUploads TOS aligns with Scratch's goals while PostImages does not. How about you take a look at CubeUpload's TOS?

did you even read my post properly?

gdfsgdfsgdfg wrote:

dinoparty0 wrote:

You mentioned Wikipedia is whitelisted despite having bad content. The ST can tell between educational resources (where the risk is weighed against the massive benefit) and image hosts (where the only benefit is convenience). They are much more lenient with educational domains than they are with general-purpose hosting sites because Wikipedia has many images of educational resources, while PostImages has little/none. Use CubeUpload. They align with many of Scratch's own guidelines. CubeUpload doesn't allow explicit content while PostImages does so that is a big factor.
-img-

yeah, well scratchers want img with the bb and the tou/tos doesn’t state “no inappropriate content” either
also CubeUpload has a link to the blue server application

so what is even your point exactly

edit:
also using wikipedia as an image host isn’t really convenient at all
especially if you are uploading a custom image

CubeUpload's TOS does say no inappropriate content to a degree, while PostImages does not. I have no idea what you mean by “did you even read my post properly” Also the blue chatting app is hard to see due to contrast on the dark background. I'm confused, sorry if I make no sense, could you clarify.

dinoparty0 wrote:

CubeUpload's TOS does say no inappropriate content to a degree, while PostImages does not. I have no idea what you mean by “did you even read my post properly” Also the blue chatting app is hard to see due to contrast on the dark background. I'm confused, sorry if I make no sense, could you clarify.

you are trying to put down this suggestion because you assumed it’s a rejected suggestion
IT IS NOT A REJECTED SUGGESTION, READ THE REJECTION QUOTE AGAIN

gdfsgdfsgdfg wrote:

dinoparty0 wrote:

CubeUpload's TOS does say no inappropriate content to a degree, while PostImages does not. I have no idea what you mean by “did you even read my post properly” Also the blue chatting app is hard to see due to contrast on the dark background. I'm confused, sorry if I make no sense, could you clarify.

you are trying to put down this suggestion because you assumed it’s a rejected suggestion
IT IS NOT A REJECTED SUGGESTION, READ THE REJECTION QUOTE AGAIN

Okay, its not rejected, but I'm saying I don't support it then.

dinoparty0 wrote:

Okay, its not rejected, but I'm saying I don't support it then.

also one more thing
I did mention imgbb too
which is the most suggested image host, and imgbb also doesn’t state it bans inappropriate images
which invalidates the “postimages doesn’t ban inappropriate images” argument
also report button exists