Photo hosting sites compared

Since I went through this debate recently, and since one of my friends is going through it now, I decided to take a crack at comparing some of the internet's photo hosting/sharing sites. I'll begin by saying that when I went through this a few months ago, I decided on Picasa (Google), mostly because I'm already a Google freak and therefore I can seamlessly intergrate my photos into my blog, email, etc. without using multiple logins. Also, Picasa lets me save/share full resolution images (which is something Kodak Gallery wasn't allowing me to do). I ended up paying Google $20 for a year and 10 gigs of storage. Since I shoot RAW images that are about 8mb each, I'm going to run over the 10 gb soon, and will probably have to upgrade my storage package. The ONLY downside that I've encountered with Picasa is that it won't store RAW images - it converts them to jpeg.

So with that being said, I came up with a comparison spreadsheet containing all the features I think are important. Feel free to comment with anything I should add, correct, or consider.