Metro 27/10/2008: "The best sites for...your photos online"

Bad camera shot of the column in questionI was reading the Metro yesterday and I noticed this column on page 35 by a guy named Anthony Gibson. Now I'm not entirely sure what his background is and why he gets to define 'the best sites', but the suggestions he makes are almost laughable.

If you didn't read it, here are his recommendations in summary: - best because it aims  to "break the world record for the largest mosaic  of faces" - best because it can "manipulate a photograph to make it resemble a cartoon" - best because you can "share them with absolutely everyone"

Now, I hate to be pedantic but breaking a world record and turning my photo into a cartoon isn't a major user goal for me. I'll also stick my neck on the line and say it probably isn't a big deal for the majority of the Metro audience.

'Sharing' on the other hand is a major user goal; but why choose Photobucket as 'the best' option?

In this country, the major websites for storing and sharing photos are (according to ComScore) Facebook photos and Flickr. Both of which have huge existing user base. Surely, you need friends to share photos...and surely you are more likely to find them on Facebook or Flickr?

On a product level Photobucket, is weak. Just how someone can evaluate those three site and come away thinking Photobucket is 'the best' product is either naive or ignorant.