Why are people attaching instead of linking images?
 

I've noticed that people are attaching pics instead of linking them to the original page? Isn't a link easier on the server/bandwith than an attachment? :confused:

Good question
 

When I've attached and posted the images that I find (or make) it's because I don't have my own FTP site ...

Also, I'm worried that the few images that I do find off a web site's page might get reorginized (sooner or later) and loose the posted link.

:confused:

But hey, I'm open to suggestions!

Would it be better to just attach an image - and NOT also include the same "visual" in the post?

Would that be better on the server?

:confused:

Sorry, to clarify I meant linking images from say a japanese car mag site or something like that. Not images that you have on your own hard drive.
Like in this thread. All the pics are linked from that site, not attached. http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1407

Maybe some people don't know how to do that? :confused:

well when i first started on this forum i didn't understand how to post the pics at all. the pics i found i saved to my hard drive and then try to post them later. i didn't understand then how to show the attached image in my post and at first just put the link in. then someone told me how to click the link , copy the url and edit the post, pasting the url in the img box. now its just habit that i keep doing it, i know how to link the img from the websites but most of the time i just keep doing it the old way. i'll try to keep the server in mind from now on. by the way on another forum when you attach a file from your hard drive it shows up in your post without having to do that edit thing. i have been wondering why it doesnt work that way on this forum, i figure its to keep people from posting alot of pics so this forum is easier to read.
btw how do you put a pic in your signature, i might want to put a pic of my car there sometime.

Zoom, you will have to have a place to host it so it can be linked to your posts. I can do it for you if you want if the image is small. Click on the "user cp" button above, select "edit profile" and scroll down to "signature". You will have to use vb tags to link to the image or body of text. I'll walk you through it if you want, but let's all remember to keep the image size down to a reasonable level. And it's very uncool to link an image directly from it's web page source without hosting it yourself. It will likely be deleted by a mod and the true owner of the image can trace the bandwidth leak on his ISP. You can still upload to the forum server if the image is less than 100kb of course.

OK ... but what happens when that site is reorganized, and old pages get updated and moved around through normal site maintenance and those pictures are not at the same place or even removed?

Wouldn't our RX-8 Forum's posted link be broken?

Did you just answer my question?

thanks Toady, once i get my rx8 i'll pm you about it.

:D

Yes, bwayout. that's why it's best to keep images hosted locally. Many hosts have renamed pr0n pics to the exact same file name to get the poster in trouble with their admins or ISP's.

Thanks, I guess I know someting after all ...

;)

But ok what about this?
 

Does it make any difference to the Forum's server?

Yes. It's far better to link to an image than to attach. If you attach, the server has to store the image (server space) and more importantly, the server has to push the image bits to everyone that clicks on the thread. If the image is linked, the server is only pushing text to indicate a link and the remote server is pushing the data.

And image data on a forum really adds up. I ended up buying a separate dedicated server for images because I was pushing over 1meg a minute.

The best solution is for you to host the pics yourself. I highly recommend getting a cheap domain. You can find quality domains for under $7 a month and it gives you a lot more options.

I think for 99% of the time, remote linking is not a problem. The chance of someone deleting the pic or moving it is not that common on larger sites like mazda for example. It's considered a little uncool (though very common) to "leach" someone else's pic by using their bandwidth.

Some sites will replace your pic with another one (goatse?) and some of those pics are pretty bad. I think a real odd example is SOmething Awful which is a very cool site. But if you hot link to a pic there, the result is very large and avery graphic.

Still, by the time a pic is moved or deleted on most sites, the thread is old news anyway.

I think it's very cool that the site admin allows attaching pics. But once this site gets 300-400 online at one time, the bandwidth will be so large, he may have to revisit that policy. Do the math, if an image is 100k, you transfer 1meg for each 10 people that open the thread. If 100 people open the thread, or hit refresh, you just transferred 10megs. In one hour, it would be easy to transfer 1 gig. Transferring over 100gigs a month can be expensive.

Thanks for the info, I'll keep this in mind :)


One of these days I should have my own site on-line with a place to host my images (I have two domain names) ... I've been meaning on doing it for the last four years ... yet I never seem to find the time to do what I want ;) I'm my own worst client :(

You can upload your images to www.imagestation.com or www.fotki.com Fotki charges about $50 Cnd per year, unlimited storage.