 | | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
Ok, crystal clear now. Thanks, Julie (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Absolutely, yes, 100% OK. But better yet, give them a link to the page showing the set, for example: (URL) or (URL) please don't link directly to the underlying JPEG image files, i.e.: (URL) or (URL) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Wow... head spinning here, thinking about this. Isn't this just about the same bandwidth load? Only lightening is that some people won't click on the link, so the image won't be served up. Any thoughts on what % "some" is in the above (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) It may be that there is little bandwidth change in the long run (I have _no_ idea about the numbers here), but the point is that people can't link directly to the file. This way, someone looking at Joe Blow's Lego Auction does not (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Yup -- that's the idea. There is also another reason: Linking to the HTML page currently just happens to plop up whatever size JPEG image happens to reside in the DB. But it doesn't have to be that way -- many of the images are 100+ KB, which (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) As you stated, the number of people actually clicking on the link would be fewer than the number of people merely looking at the image as it is automatically loaded, but that's not the issue. If I understand correctly, Todd's not saying we (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Neither, just a question. (25 years ago, 4-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
