Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2013 February 22

= February 22 =

Image storing website to assist Commons
I would take several photos of same subject, from different angles, distances, compositions, etc. Thus, there would be dozens of images of the same stuff. Since that would flood the Commons, I hesitate to upload them there.

Which is the right website for uploading all of them (including trivial images), so that other Wikimedians will be able to search and import useful ones among them to Commons. (Sorry if this is not the right place to ask questions like this). Thanks for your help. ···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 14:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Could use Flickr or the like, I s’pose. In the case of Flickr, mind which license the website is listing them as having, if you care about them being used on Commons. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and ✅. (But they put a limit of 300 MB for this month. I have got around 5 GB of photos varying slightly from each other!) ···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 02:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe the like, then. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. (I think I should go with Panoramio.) ···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 17:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Scroogled" commercial
Is there evidence that the new Outlook web mail does not at all use machines to read emails for what ads to show as Google does? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me try to rephrase your Q so it makes more sense. There's an ad on TV now which says "Don't get scroogled", showing people getting "personalized" ads from Google as a result of fishing through the content of their emails for keywords.  They want you to get their email system instead of Gmail.


 * Now, to answer, if they charge a monthly fee, then that should provide Outlook with an alternative revenue source, allowing them to skip selling ads like this. If they promise that they won't do data mining in your emails, but still do, that's illegal.  However, also note that Gmail provides an option to disable ad "personalization" as they call it, so you still get your emails for free, without having them snoop through all your emails (although technically they didn't promise not to look, just not to use what they find there). StuRat (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * According to this, "Outlook.com would rely on its newsletter filter, which grays out mailing-list messages you likely never read, to engage in some modest ad-targeting based on the newsletter’s sender" but I don't know what "newsletter" they're talking about, or mailing-list message. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Outlook doesn't charge a monthly fee. It's free.  RNealK (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In that case, if they intend to keep it free, they don't appear to have a sustainable business model. With the large expense of TV advertising, and little incoming revenue (from non-targeted ads), I don't see how they can make a profit. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They're owned by Microsoft, it might be a writeoff. RNealK (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)