explanation to what hotlinking is - and why it's bad.

Dark_Angel

Dark_Angel

Dark_Angel

Soldato
Joined
12 May 2005
Posts
12,631
This isn't a rant, this isn't getting annoyed at people - but I really do believe some people just don't know what it is.

Lets say you have an image on a website - say for example Microsofts website.

If I like an image on that website, lets say I'm in a windows 7 thread and want to show someone a features list. If I right click that image, grab the images URL:

e.g: www.microsoft.com/coolimage.jpg

I then link it so that it displays on this forum from *THEIR* site, I'm hot linking. This is important! Because *IF* you do this, some webmasters replace the image / add hot link protection. That means that your image of a W7 feature list could suddenly turn in to something extremely nasty. If anyone of you have seen some images certain sites use to protect them, you'll know what I mean. (disgusting stuff at times).



The solution is http://imageshack.us/

Just right click the image from the website you found it from, and then go to Imageshack and upload it and post it. It's completely free. If you're in doubt, upload it. If its your *OWN* website, then that of course is fine to link from. Just mention it on occasion in your posts so moderators know.

*EDIT*

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10035

That's the addon for Photobucket FF addon.

If you have firefox, a good solution is Jansey B's!

Janesy B said:
Open Photobucket Account
Download Photobucket Uploader Add On for Firefox

Job Done.

upload.png
Click to expand...

Imagecave is also another alternative option, but I have heard they have been experiencing a few issues recently.

There is also: http://tinypic.com/
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;15184945 said:
I think the whole thing is blown way out of proportion and it would be far simpler to just say you hotlink at your own risk - hotlink and it turns out nasty and its goodbye account.

Because seriously, hotlinking from Microsoft or another large company just isn't a big deal. If the webhosts were that against it they would and could take simple stops to stop it.
Click to expand...

I used MS for an example. Was the first thing that sprang to mind. :p

Sawell said:
The main reason it's bad is because it steals bandwidth from sites that don't want bandwidth stolen. You seemed to miss that part out!
Click to expand...

True, that's bad for them. :)
 
The argument isn't that webmasters should secure it better - true there is hotlink protection. I'm not even trying to create a debate, simply attempting to tell people what it is and a solution.
 
That's a very good point confused.

If it's cached, to you the image you posted might look like a box of chocolates, to the rest of us it looks like a coat that got run over.

If people hot link it's either because:

A: They are lazy - in which case please don't contribute.
B: They don't know what it is. Which my post (might) help a few people understand.
 
Since I'm getting a reasonably positive reaction, if Moderators / Admins don't mind I will keep this bumped for a few days.

Even if it helps reduce the problem by 10 percent it will be something I guess.
 
blix said:
What I lol at is the number of people who apparently go round the forum right-clicking on every image and checking the URL for thrills. Not talking about mods.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because we know moderators can't do everything and therefore we need to help them out?

I admit I probably check more than what's "normal" but if I am bored and waiting for something to download / load / whatever else gives me something to do.
 
kaiowas said:
My only issue with this thread is that it's encouraging the use of imageshack. It's crap and it's slow. Pages with several images hosted there take an absolute age to download. If you're not interested in the images and are just trying to read the text you also get the annoyance of your browser shifting everything every now and again as another image finally downloads.
Click to expand...

If you have a few other suggestions please feel free, I will be more than happy to add them to my original post! :)
 
Janesy B said:
I use FF on Windows 7 x64. It's fine :)
Click to expand...

I know it's fine - but i'm stil using the RC. I can't be bothered to install FF yet as I will switch to Home Premium soon.

Basher said:
You should probably get out more.

Agree only reason is the potential for nasty images. Bandwidth utilisation through this medium can easily be controlled if the host is that fussed.
Click to expand...

What you're saying doesn't make sense.

First up, if I am waiting for something to load or a clip to buffer then I can't do anything else with 5 seconds. I may as well check a few images. I don't view it as "HAHAHA I am going to get someone suspended, or image deleted." I look at it as this is a community I feel apart of and as such I will do what I can to help out. This is especially true of me, as I do video editing and web design for a living. In other words while I am transfering files, I have nothing else to do other than twiddle my thumbs and wait for them to be uploaded.

As for your second point, THAT is the point. People add hot link protection with nasty images at times, the image is cached so the person who posts it doesn't know. Others will. THAT is how some webmasters decide to protect their hotlinks. Others simply don't know how, or their site is so small with so few visitors they just don't see a need. Then it gets planted on OCUK and their bandwidth melts down.
 
Last edited:
Basher said:
No, it isn't. Using bandwidth in a way which doesn't suit the model you've chosen to operate your site, is not stealing.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that it could be considered stealing.

Though I agree it's over the top, you could liken it to leaving your house with the door open and then going out. IF someone steals you didn't protect your stuff, but it's still taking it without permission.

Either way that isn't the point. OCUK do *NOT* allow it for good reason. Because of past incidents.

*EDIT*

Jansey, I hope you don't mind - I added your solution to my OP.
 
Freefaller said:
The alternative is, we allow people to hotlink, but if anyone posts a dodgy hotlinked pic they get permabanned... Do you feel lucky? Do you? :D
Click to expand...

I personally don't think it's a good idea. I wouldn't have a problem with it if webmasters just replaced the image with something like "sod you". in large flashing words, but some of the images have made been feel :( If a young person saw it, they would have nightmares for a week. :p
 
^^^ True enough. But the issues become if you allow one site, where do you draw the line on what is acceptable? BBC, MS and the like are probably okay - but I just get the feeling people won't use common sense.
 
LordSplodge said:
The problem being that this forums are linked to the OCUK Shop and damage to the shops reputation is not easily undone and a Permaban is not going to help get it back.

Just upload to some webhost or photosite - it isn't hard (I use Flickr by the way)
Click to expand...

Exactly. While it is probably doubtful and would never happen imagine the venting rage daily mail would go through if a hotlinked image on the forum happened to be altered in to two men having sex and then a 10 year old viewed it on the OCUK forum.

I admit, very very dramatic and unlikely to happen... but it's not worth the risk to the shops business or to the forums. If people can't spend 10 seconds to upload an image, then they obviously don't want to show it off enough.
 
If people want to offer alternative's to imageshack, please feel free to list them. I will be only to happy to add them to my OP. This also includes scripts / programs that auto upload it for you.
 
I've updated the post with the link to the FF photobucket addon.

If anyone has any other useful tips please post them so I can insert them in to the OP.

(tips are addons, free image hosts).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom