Subject:
|
Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:10:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
698 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:30:56 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
> > http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=6990-1
> > or
> > http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=7128-1
> >
> > Just please don't link directly to the underlying JPEG image files, i.e.:
> >
> > http://www.lugnet.com/pause/pix/space/lego6990.jpg
> > or
> > http://www.lugnet.com/pause/pix/new/upload/7128-1-912938621.jpg
> Isn't this just about the same bandwidth load?
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 want fewer people to come
to lugnet.com, it's just that when that chunk of 750+ MB gets served
now, 99% of the time the person never knows where it's coming from.
That's different than getting someone to come into the site and then
hopefully saying, "Oh, all of these images are coming from Lugnet.
This is the third time I've seen this site today. Maybe I'll look
around". It's not the amount of bandwidth that's at issue here, it's
the amount of "uncredited" bandwidth.
Ben Roller
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
