Thanks, Yardvaark. That is a good system for when you're home, and is merited if you have a big plant investment (whether in big plants or lots of small ones). And what a coincidence - I've actually been looking for something just like that to help catch someone stealing my newspaper quite regularly, but had only seen the more expensive version I've linked below. Maybe this one has a longer range, but with a 20' front yard, I don't need it :-) Currently I have a webcam set up which works for images but not for intercepting, should I wish to do so. Anyway, I have no quibble with the merit of the plant information in what you propose. But tied to addresses... shouldn't happen. It may, but it shouldn't. There are so many downsides. Imagine you buy a house with a huge whatever that is revered all over the world, and you want to remove it to do something else. The Occupy movement might come to your front yard! Drtygrl... there's an idea for my new screen name... "silver_lining" I've hated the one I have ever since Garden Web eliminated capital letters and it looks like I've put a #1 after my name, necessitating the correction of a signature :-) Someday I'll change it but the longer I stick with this one, the harder it gets! Karin L Here is a link that might be useful: a more expensive version

Another web place to host pictures is with your ISP. My ISP gives me free webspace as part of my account. Its not a ton of space and its not easy to see how much space is left with my ISP. Yours may vary. Uploading can be super easy. I had an FTP client built into my desktop (cuteFtp) that was integrated with Windows explorer such that I could right-click on the file and have an option to Upload to My webspace. (I had to pre-size by hand though.) Then when I upgraded my desktop, cuteFTP was no longer working and I never got around to figuring it out. I have other FTP clients I can use to move files there. Nearly as easy, but no right-click. Probably ISP webspace is not for the average user, but a potentially easy option for some.

I didn't mention this on the last thread because I thought it would have been too technical. When talking about 'size' of a digital photo, it can refer to two separate, though often related things. The physical size of the picture on the screen, and the file size of the information necessary to show the photo. Physically large pictures mess up the thread formatting. Large file sizes are the ones that take forever to download. So these two photos have the same file size, just the html commands determing photo size are different. The first is 240 px, the second is 1000. You can start to see some fuzziness in the second picture where there really isn't enough information.

I've been running a thread on the Building a Home forum that substantially repeats this thread and refers to our FAQ. The issue of private versus public albums on Photobucket came up (I thought the whole album had to be public to allow you to link to it without a password). aa62579 says that you can link to a specific photo in a private album and that link will be visible. You just can't link to the whole private album and see it without a password. I've never used Photobucket so I'm asking the question of those of you who are familiar with sites such as Photobucket, Picasa, PictureTrail, etc.. Is this a general characteristic of all web-hosting sites? I'd like to add this information to the FAQ. Thanks, Claire