Explain?
It's where you right click > copy image location and paste that into a post.
It does drive up the google page rank of the hosting site. I don't think it's such a bad trade-off.
As long as we don't get inadvertently goatse'd or something, who cares? Are you also lobbying google to take down Image Search? Because that's basically a massive internet-wide image hotlinking machine.
technically, we should not do it... but for an image that we will never see again and will quickly get buried after being viewed 40 times?
Well if they allowed us to just post the picture to the forum that would stop all of that and be easier besides.
I've never exactly figured out how to post pics on GRM anyway, it seems like sometimes it works & sometimes not. Other times I have to screw around with the HTML and then sometimes it shows up in the preview pane but not after I post???
petegossett wrote: I've never exactly figured out how to post pics on GRM anyway, it seems like sometimes it works & sometimes not. Other times I have to screw around with the HTML and then sometimes it shows up in the preview pane but not after I post???
hit return after you generate the link. That seems to work for me.
So, save a pic to your HD that isn't yours, then post it to a pic site WHERE THEY WILL ASK YOU IF THE PIC YOU'RE UPLOADING IS YOURS, then use that link? Gotcha.
I'm there with "petegossett" 'cept in my case I've never gotten a pic to come up on this forum
not the forums fault ... it/they can't help that I'm a luddite.. not really... just this puter stuff sometimes doesn't make as much sense as other times...
Tommy Suddard wrote: Sorry Joshua, found a better one to steal bandwidth from.
I won't complain about that one.
I can rebuild a 4-barrel Holley but I kinda understand what this guy is talking about. Kinda.
Really I have no clue what stealing bandwidth is.......
Your typical picture posted on a forum is like what, 300kbs?
A multiple page thread that has been going on for a few days on sites way bigger then this generate about 150 views of that thread. Of which many are repeated, so the image is viewed off the persons cache with out downloading it again. So say an 125 as being a VERY ambitious number for the times that image is downloaded by viewers of the thread... After all threads seem to be the same handful of people going back and forth with another small pile of loos. I would guess it to be more realistically 50 or so unique connections.
Still, assuming that it IS 125 different people that is a total of 37.5 mb of bandwidth. What host of multimedia content honestly finds 37.5mbs of bandwidth over multiple days to be excessive? Especially when it advertises their site, and drives their URL up the list of search results?
RedS13Coupe wrote: Your typical picture posted on a forum is like what, 300kbs? A multiple page thread that has been going on for a few days on sites way bigger then this generate about 150 views of that thread. Of which many are repeated, so the image is viewed off the persons cache with out downloading it again. So say an 125 as being a VERY ambitious number for the times that image is downloaded by viewers of the thread... After all threads seem to be the same handful of people going back and forth with another small pile of loos. I would guess it to be more realistically 50 or so unique connections. Still, assuming that it IS 125 different people that is a total of 37.5 mb of bandwidth. What host of multimedia content honestly finds 37.5mbs of bandwidth over multiple days to be excessive? Especially when it advertises their site, and drives their URL up the list of search results?
So, basically, you're suggesting that the OP get a grip?
You'll need to log in to post.