Wetlook World Forum

Message # 23498.1.1.1.1

Subject: OK, it's amended. [nt]

Date: Mon 10/07/06 14:39:25 GMT

Name: Telcontar

Email: mrnemesis@ntlworld.com

Website:

By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net Sun 09/07/06 15:33:07 GMT

Website:

Yes, there's more bandwidth associated with a page hit which could be bringing in god-knows-what-else. However, an image other than a banner ad really only should be viewed from the page where it was originally constructed. That's based on the principal that the creator will get appropiate credit and that any supporting advertising gets delivered. Yeah, I hate advertising, but it drives the money side of the equation and it's that money which allows the page to exist. Hitting the page in it's entirety is what it's creator intended; extracting an image onto some other page is not. If we do as intended, any server-side bandwith issues belong with the webmaster and noone else. Link to images only and the server runs up bandwidth with no opportunity to generate revenue from either sales or advertising, hence it becomes bandwidth theft.

By Telcontar - mrnemesis@ntlworld.com Sun 09/07/06 12:26:13 GMT

Website:

The issue about posting links to the pages to me is much more of an issue of credit than bandwidth -- making sure that you are recognising the source of the images and allowing people to see the relevant page and explore further. Often, removing the filename from the path yields only a 403 error and not the relevant page, and removing successive items from the end of the path only yields more 403 errors, preventing anyone from reading or seeing more from the creator of the work. (I've tried the front pages of sites but you can never find your way over to where you wanted to be).

Technically, linking to containing pages, dealing with hotlinking and crediting work is not part of the question and I failed to find a relevant and concise way to explain it, so I didn't enter into it in detail. The question is really only about attaching your own images (from your camera or hard drive) but I decided to add a little bit of a disclaimer against people going mad with inline images. Ideally, your issues belong in forum rules and guidelines unless it's actually a question to be answered.

*scratches head* hmm. Anyone else have a clearer idea on this one?

By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net Sun 09/07/06 10:59:51 GMT

Website:

It's not only inline images which are a bandwidth theft issue. Posting direct links to images can be just as bad, and any countermeasure against inlining will have a similar effect for a direct link (typically a redirection). The only correct way to post a link for an image is to post a link to the URL (page) on which the image appears i.e. where you found it. A great example is webshots. Sure, you can TRY posting direct links to the .jpg files, but they don't work when you click on them. You have to use a URL which displays the image along with all sorts of other stuff including advertising. This is webshots forcing you to do the right thing. Mind you, you can always cut-and-paste the direct URLs but its rather tedious. Now if the image is hosted on your own site, what you choose to do about direct linking is up to you.

By Telcontar - mrnemesis@ntlworld.com Sun 09/07/06 10:25:18 GMT

Website:

Saves me or anyone else explaining image hosting and saving videos again

Wetinred joked that entry #3 should be how to tell normal clothing from swimwear ;-)