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

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.
 
Dark_Angel said:
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.
Click to expand...

But it's not like that at all, is it? It's not like when someone hot links an image it somehow isn't available anywhere else. It's more like someone stealing your gas or electric. If that was as easy to do as hotlinking is, then everyone would understand the need to protect themselves (and how).
 
Photo-bucket is terrible, it usually ends in this being displayed for all the viewers.

bandwidtht.jpg


To avoid it, you have to pay. So although places like imageshack maybe slower for some. They work.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
It is stealing. I've been 'victim' to having some of my homepage images hotlinked onto sites that are very busy, to the realm of 160GB+ a month of traffic from two of the images alone. I had to pay for that bandwidth, and my site was shutdown until I had done so. I didn't post them on the site generating that traffic, someone else did.

It can easily be likened to someone taking your car for a ride, without your permission, and now you have an extra 100,000 miles on the clock that you didn't want on there, and you must stump up the service bills. :)
Click to expand...
lol @ you, how is it stealing? You put files on your site for people to look at and people looked at them...

Let me join in with all the metaphors, it's like opening an all you can eat restaurant and then complaining that people are eating too much.
 
[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...

You do have a point - I'll raise it with the other grumpy old men.

However, I'd rather not take the risk of any bad images being displayed. Furthermore owing to the sheer volume of traffic OCUK forums get, even smaller sites who are hotlinked from may hit their bandwidth limits quicker owing to the downloads - especially as pictures are getting bigger as internet gets faster etc...
 
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
 
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.
 
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...

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)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom