Do more on the web, with a fast and secure browser!

Download Opera browser with:

  • built-in ad blocker
  • battery saver
  • free VPN
Download Opera
  • What's wrong between Opera and Photobucket .. why do I experience problems .. browsing Photbucket everything is wrong , the site looks crappy and always got the message "Hm something didn't click .. bla bla bla"?! Please help!

  • Which version of Opera?
    Sounds as if you're being served the mobile version of the site, or something like that.

  • Version: 25.0.1614.68 (but all started since previous version),
    Update stream: Stable,
    System: Windows 7 32-bit (Desktop PC)

  • Opera 12.17
    I can't see any pictures from Photobucket. Any help for my old browser.


  • Considering Opera 12 is 2 years out of date and has known issues with newer types of security it may very well be that the browser is just too out of date to work with that site.

  • I've noticed this recently too.
    Embedded images from Photobucket no longer display on web pages in Opera 12.17.
    Going to them directly on Photobucket just results in a permanent spinning progress indicator where the image should be.
    I guess it's another security protocol issue, although I've had no success with disabling the Opera blocker, AdBlock, or changing the browser security settings.
    If anyone finds a fix, I'd love to know!

  • Regarding 12.17, if you set site specific preferences to "Mask as Internet Explorer", the images will display and Photobucket will mostly work.

    Unfortunately, there are a large number of Photobucket sites, including the following:

    I can't remember, but I think the one's starting with "i" fixed the embedded images not displaying issue.

  • Thanks, I've been experimenting with that!
    Unfortunately it doesn't seem to fix the embedded images on other sites.
    If I go to the image on the Photobucket site directly, the picture doesn't immediately appear, there's just the spinning wheel icon as before.
    The image doesn't actually appear until I reload the page, which is why the remote embedding isn't working.

  • You need to add the site specific preferences for a few of those Photobucket sites I listed because even though you can't always access them directly, the code PB uses to display images runs indirectly off of some of those sites.

    If you go to Tools>Preferences>Advanced>Content>Manage Site Preferences and then add those sites listed above and set "Mask as Internet Explorer" for each one (and make sure Javascript is enabled if you don't enable it globally), I think it should work. I got most everything working here the other day by doing so, though I lost interest before I got image editing and the previous/current/next image thumbnails working.

    Unfortunately there's a lot of PB sites, and I can't remember exactly which ones fixed this particular problem. I thought it was the one's starting with "i" but it might have been the ones. It took me awhile so I finally ended up just changing every PB-related site I could find, but embedded images definitely went from not working to working here by changing that setting.

  • Upon further review, it's not consistently working 😞

    Looking like it may require some userscript...

    I don't understand web developers always making things needlessly complicated. You don't need pages of scripting to load a stupid image.

  • I agree, it's not working as it should do.
    Going to the image on Photobucket itself it still doesn't actually load until you refresh the page, even when masked as IE.
    That's why the embeds are not working I suspect, because it needs to send the request twice, which it doesn't do.

  • Considering Opera 12 is 2 years out of date and has known issues with newer types of security it may very well be that the browser is just too out of date to work with that site.

    That's all very well, but it looks like Opera has sold its soul to Google!
    I use Opera for its accessibility, but it looks like that has forcibly come to
    an abrupt end. In the latest versions there is a huge great search box with
    a massive Google logo, as if that is the most important aspect of being on
    the web. It isn't and my machine does not belong to or get sponsored by this
    tax evading company!

    It's far bigger than it ever needs to be and it also forces me to scroll
    down my speed dial page, forcing me into an extra use of the mouse! Why can
    I not either remove it or reposition it so that it's off to the side rather
    than directly in the very last place I need it? At one time, the Speed Dial
    was very easy to customise, now it's just hopeless 😞

    I too have the Photobucket problem, so after many, many years of simple
    and friendly use, it looks I have to search for an alternative to Opera 😞

    If anyone knows of a proper way to see others' posts that include pictures
    posted on PB, then I'll be very grateful.


  • I wish it could be fixed too.
    It looks as if the links to the pictures are now given as, which then redirects to
    It's the redirection that doesn't seem to be working from Opera 12.
    You can remove the Google search field on the Speed Dial BTW, you need to activate power user settings to do it.
    Enter the Konami Code on the settings page, and the option will appear.

  • I've now taken this up with PB directly. The Opera browser was, (not sure
    about the present) the most accessible browser out there. I was very happy
    to recommend it based upon how easy it was to use and most importantly, adapt
    to most peoples' needs. For any browser to meet accessibility law today seems
    to be a pipedream, but in the past Opera was probably the closest, without
    having to spend mega-bucks on dedicated software.

    Google on the other hand has been as lax on accessibility issues as it is on
    paying its due taxes. Just look at the way they took over the link rel aspect
    of building web pages and totally distorted the intended focus of these building
    blocks. If you need evidence, where in the new versions of Opera is the fully
    functional navigation bar that was properly supported by software that worked?
    That is one that is properly built on how these HTML properties were meant to
    be employed and offered the intended functionality of an accessible Web site.

    I have written to PB to ask them about why their accessibility policy is
    entirely missing from their Web site and to explain why their Javascript is
    denying me from seeing pictures that I'm fully entitled to view as a disabled
    person. I await their reply with interest...


  • I'm also unhappy about this Forum distorting my texts. The comfortable line
    length for reading text is around 80 characters maximum and I have correctly
    placed carriage returns in all the relevant places. Why are these being
    removed? I really don't like being treated like I'm a moron by software
    that pretends it knows better than me!!


  • This forum uses Markdown, for better or worse.
    Personally I wish it didn't, but I'm sure the authors had their reasons.
    You can force a carriage return just by typing a double space after the full stop before the carriage return when you want the next text to be on a new line.
    If you don't do that, carriage returns are indeed ignored.

    Good luck with Photobucket.
    I suspect that you'll just get the stock reply that they don't support Opera and you should use another browser!
    It is of course working fine in the "new" Opera.

  • I think PB is a little different from most "we don't support your browser" sites because we are talking about embedded pictures that can affect any site on the web. If I post a picture and the "geniuses" at PB can break it for some browsers used by other people that I want to see my picture, both now or at any point in the future (!), why in the world should I use PB?

    One of these days I'm going to look back into fixing this, but if I contacted PB I would let them know that if their site is not universally compatible for embedded pics, I will not only not use it myself but recommend that no one else use it either every chance I get.

    Technically all they need to do is serve the picture directly for certain browsers. I found that the changing the "accept" tag in the request header can cause them to serve up the picture directly rather than redirect, but then I (temporarily) lost interest in pursuing it.

  • Please do take it up again!
    If there is any chance of a fix I'm sure quite a few people would be very grateful indeed.
    I just wish I had the knowledge to do it myself!

  • Hello Folks,

    Well, in common with most other "we'll dictate what browser you use" sites, it is clear
    that PB have no interest in providing a customer focussed service. Indeed, there is no
    "organ grinder" that you can correspond with, and worse, the monkeys are extremely rude,
    with them having little or no concept of the dificulties of disability! The company
    motivation is simple: Profit before people, regardless of the law.

    Having received a lecture on using outdated browsers and claims that changes needed to
    be made for HTML 5 conformance and "functionality", it's interesting to note that their
    home page has 22 validation errors and no less than 3 warnings! Among them that they are
    using "obsolete code". Just how weak is their argument and can you believe the arrogance?

    You can rest assured that this problem is entirely at the door of PB. The whole point of
    having a web standards compliant browser is that as long as the HTML code it encounters
    is also standards compliant, there should not be any problems! Standards compliance is
    key here, because it is "industry standards" which drive the argument. The idea that today
    any company can dictate which browser anyone uses takes us back to the bad old days of the
    1990s when there was war twixt IE and Netscape.

    This needs to be resisted at all costs. There has been tremendous advancement of both the
    technology and attitudes, clearly with notable exceptions. As for functionality, building
    sites to be WCAG 2.0 compliant makes good commercial sense because it not only enhances
    functionality, but usability too, for everyone, regardless of their (dis)ability. I've
    been told, in no uncertain terms, that they have no legal requirement to comply!

    What this really needs is someone in the USA with some clout! Sadly, I'm in the UK where
    we already know about foreign companies who believe themselves to be above the law 😞

    As for customer reaction, I fully agree that PB are not doing their best by their customers!
    Regardless of whether or not they pay for the "service", there is a clear expectation that
    their images will appear without obstruction. I would imagine this to especially apply
    to pictures of goods sold on auction sites! That the expectation is not being met is clear
    but quite how we can make people aware, I don't know. Not many people are interested in
    "how" sites work.


    A Warning Note About Markdown
    If you are tempted by the little red text link, copy whatever
    you have written before clicking it. Otherwise, without any
    warning, you will lose all your current text! Appalling!!

  • I don't think there is any mandate in the law the forces a company to support old versions of web browsers in perpetuity. Especially browsers with so little market share. I think that would never fly in court. It could easily be argued to be an unreasonable burden on a business, especially considering it works fine in newer versions of that browser.

    In the latest versions there is a huge great search box with a massive Google logo, as if that is the most important aspect of being on the web. It isn't and my machine does not belong to or get sponsored by this tax evading company!

    Your computer may not be sponsored by that company but your web browser is. Last I checked every major browser but IE gets a substantial amount of income from Google. In newer versions of Opera it is generically labeled though, if that helps.