Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

It seems different. The same people get published over and over, even if their pictures aren't so great. I used to submit before I renamed my blog, and now I can't seem to get them to take a thing I do.

I so looked forward to their return, but I guess you can't go back home! I'm happy that other photo posting sites have appeared.

The site also mentions a new site they're working on: Liquorious in alpha, devoted to, you guessed it - drinks! This may tide some of you over for a bit.

Thanks for taking into account my concerns, both FP daily and gawker are looking good and even though I have asked my hubby if we could take up the void left behind when TS left ('would love to, but seriously, we don't have the time'), I am glad someone is. Just hoping it/they will be close to as good as TS was. :)

@ Blue Iris, your ip address would be a set of 4 numbers, separated by periods. It's a number that your ISP assigns to your computer. Gmail.com may be who you use for email, but it has nothing to do with your IP address.

If you're really curious about what your ip address is, go to the website whatismyip.com and it will tell you.

However, unless you've paid extra for a permanent IP address, or unless your ISP happens to assign them permanently, that IP address will probably change periodically.

If you're on a network at home or at work you may also have an IP address for the internal network, generally using something like 10.0.X.X or 192.168.X.X where the Xs would be different numbers depending on how the network is set up. Those numbers could be anything up to 254. Those numbers don't matter, as they are just internal network addresses. The ones that count are the ones you get from your ISP, because that's how your computer is recognized on the Internet.

2 things about these tastespotting copies:

okey, I love that all these tastespotting copies are coming up but,

1. i liked that they rejected stuff, and i know it ticked people off, and would leave me scratching my head as to why some stuff was up and some wouldn't (they rejected two of mine that kinda made me rethink some stuff) but i LIKED that. and i think that is what needed in a replacement.

2. Tastespotting either requested a 250x250 pixel photo or they would cut 250x250 out of your picture, they didn't resize.
these posted links above seem to be resizing or shrinking to fit in an area that they don't fit, therefor the pictures are pixalated (spell?) and look bad.

I spent the weekend making my own tastespotting replacement since my wife and I pretty much can't live without it. I'm trying to expand upon the idea and have already added a few new features that tastespotting never had, like voting, comments and the ability to save your favorite posts. Hopefully it will get us through this dark time without tastespotting.

http://www.newtastings.com

If anyone has any ideas or features that they would have liked to have seen on tastespotting, please drop me a line and let me know.

We created a site similar to Tastespotting: www.recipemuncher.com

We did not want to create a copycat, so it's a bit different: instead of submiting pictures one by one you submit your blog and we automatically pull the pictures every time there is a new post.

The site is only 2 days old, but we'll work hard to make it a nice place to hang out ;)

I have no problem at all - every link I clicked worked. I hadn't tried them earlier, so perhaps all is NOW well?

Again, I'm truly in awe at what an awesome job you've done, and in such a short time.

@Jerzee - You splain, I listen. Huh? I am a complete idiot when it comes to all of this. Please tell me what I am missing here. What is an IP?

Oops, I failed to include the phrase "to moderate" in my last reply about foodgawker. As in "it's going to be a pain to moderate" since it seems that every entry needs to be approved.

@carosone: IP banning has a lot of problems. It often results in unintentional blocking. Depends on how liberally it is done. If multiple IPs were harassing their site, they may have blocked not just those IPs but IPs that are similar to those (ie. a whole range of IPs) to try and completely block off any possible attack (ie. if the attackers tried to switch IPs). Thus, IPs that have never visited before can be blocked (in fact, that is the intention...to block before they visit and attack). Clearly, this can result in a lot of unintentional blocks of non-malicious users/visitors.

In addition, if the user is using an internet service provider that has a pool of IPs that they assign to a user each time they sign onto the internet, then blocking one of those IPs will prevent non-malicious users that get assigned that IP from the pool to be blocked.

Because of these problems with IP blocking and because there are ways to get around it (ie. using proxies, etc.), not a lot of sites even bother to use IP blocking as a primary solution. Therefore, it's unlikely that having a problem on one website would mean that you would have experienced it on other websites before or that it's a sign you'll experience it with other websites.

I'm not sure why such a website would have attracted such attacks that they would prompt the need for such measures, but hopefully as mentioned, they'll look into it and loosen their IP blocking so that less people are unintentionally blocked.

In the meantime, you could try this:
http://foodgawker.com/

It was posted in the other thread about Tastespotting. And no offense to recipies2share, it looks a bit more polished.

Why would I have a blocked IP address if I've never accessed your website before? I don't really understand this b/c I've never encountered this problem with any other website I have ever visited.

I was really looking forward to using your new site, too....oh well.

@Jerzee: I'm pretty sure he means that certain IP addresses or ranges are blocked from accessing the site/server for security reasons on their end. Like possibly they were receiving attacks from computers at certain IPs and it is essential that they continue "this protection" (ie. blocking access to certain IPs).

I'm pretty sure there isn't a requirement on the user/viewer to fiddle with their own security settings (ie. firewall, antivirus, cookies, etc.) to get the site to allow access. I'm pretty sure the danger is not that someone has a computer without their own security. It's pretty doubtful that a compromised machine (from not having their own security) would somehow infect a website (or its server) just by viewing it or even filling out a form on it.

I looked at the site when he first posted this thread yesterday. I could view everything just fine. So I'm pretty sure he did make sure people can access it before making this thread. I can't imagine that he could expect people to end up being on IPs that were considered suspicious/malicious on his server to be attempting to view it and have a problem.