and Cons of each Photo Sharing Site

Flickr (owned by Yahoo!)
innovative, tons of cool features, drag and drop, sharing, RSS, badges, clustering
difficult to use for non tech savvy
Photobucket
simple, limited functionality, badges
perhaps too simple, annoying ads, no sharing and social web features
Kodakgallery
professional interface, targeting main stream
no sharing and social web features
MyPhotoAlbum
simple, has all the basic functions, each album has unique URL
no sharing and social web features
Pbase (not in the same space)
stunning professional photography, gallery-based implementation, simple
no sharing and social web features
Picasa (not in the same space yet - owned by Google)
hard to say because it is not apples to apples, but editing photos is nice
basically not (yet) in the same space, not really web-based
Picturetrail
music associated with albums, lots of badge options
unbearably annoying ads during sign up, clubs instead of groups, does not seem intuitive
Shutterfly
professional interface, targeting mainstream
no sharing and social web features
Slide (not in the same space)
runs on top of Flickr, Photobucket, etc. plugs into MySpace, blogs, etc. Fills nice niche within the space.
focused on making slideshows (it's a limitation, if you want to consider this service as a contender).
Smugmug
professional interface, a lot of album options, well thought through
not free
Snapfish
professional interface, targeting mainstream
no sharing and social web features
Webshots
has lots of social web photo features
ads, somewhat clunky, no tags (at least we could not find them)
Zoomr
conceptually interesting, some innovative UI, uses OpenID for login.
confirmation image gives you instant headache; no geography-only tag cloud; the maps are cool, but not useful
Zoto
very well designed, has the most social web features
somewhat slow, lacks printing ability