Does this forum use BBC code or HTML for hot links to post images

[AceMcHammer]

... or do you just have to attach a file?

UPDATE: Disregard. I figured it out. It's BBC code ([img]photo link here[/img])

[Ofnuts]

Actually better if you use attachments, because the forum makes (large) thumbnails and this somewhat reduces the bandwidth necessary to the users. They can still click on the thumbnail to get the full image if/when needed.

[AceMcHammer]

(02-26-2019, 07:16 AM)Ofnuts Wrote: Actually better if you use attachments, because the forum makes (large) thumbnails and this somewhat reduces the bandwidth necessary to the users. They can still click on the thumbnail to get the full image if/when needed.

Ok thanks.

One point about hot links though. Hot links avoids the forum having to use up storage on their servers as the hot links download the image straight from where the image is stored directly to the user bypassing the forum servers. It sure does make the thread look awesome to have the images pop up on the page for the user instead of having a link displayed in the page whereby the user must click on that link and then the image downloads to them.

By the way, isn't the the user still incurring the same bandwidth usage downloading the image from the 3rd party server (i.e. Photobucket) that they would downloading the exact same image from the forum servers? I get it that the pages load faster for the user because only links are being displayed and the images aren't automatically being downloaded. Me personally, I like seeing the images being displayed in the threads along with the thread replies. But, I guess since GIMP is open source and FREE which means that it's being used all over the world by people with very "limited resources" (i.e. dial-up, DSL) instead us filthy decadent Americans using fiber optic cable then top consideration must be given to page load times?

(all this to say, do you mind if I keep using hot links . A always scale my images down to user friendly sizes  )

[Ofnuts]

We use rather large thumbnails (up to 600W*800H), and one third of the images don't get thumbnailed because they are smaller that this.

The problem with external image servers is that they can:

• go bankrupt/disappear
  
• change their policy (photobucket, anyone?)
  
• delete your account or your content
  
• recompress/alter your images
  
• censor your images
  

Of course we could do many of these things, too, but at least that would be coherent with the rest of the forum

[trandoductin]

(02-26-2019, 05:36 PM)Ofnuts Wrote: We use rather large thumbnails (up to 600W*800H), and one third of the images don't get thumbnailed because they are smaller that this.

The problem with external image servers is that they can:

• go bankrupt/disappear
  
• change their policy (photobucket, anyone?)
  
• delete your account or your content
  
• recompress/alter your images
  
• censor your images
  

Of course we could do many of these things, too, but at least that would be coherent with the rest of the forum

external images disappearing is the biggest problem for me

[AceMcHammer]

(03-01-2019, 06:37 PM)trandoductin Wrote:

(02-26-2019, 05:36 PM)Ofnuts Wrote: We use rather large thumbnails (up to 600W*800H), and one third of the images don't get thumbnailed because they are smaller that this.

The problem with external image servers is that they can:

• go bankrupt/disappear
  
• change their policy (photobucket, anyone?)
  
• delete your account or your content
  
• recompress/alter your images
  
• censor your images
  

Of course we could do many of these things, too, but at least that would be coherent with the rest of the forum

external images disappearing is the biggest problem for me

I've been using Photobucket for over a decade. I have photos posted on the PhotoForum going back to the year 2004 that are still there and still up. 15 years ago.

[trandoductin]

(03-04-2019, 05:45 AM)AceMcHammer Wrote: I've been using Photobucket for over a decade. I have photos posted on the PhotoForum going back to the year 2004 that are still there and still up. 15 years ago.

I didn't know Photobucket were there that long.  But sadly some people just use whatever that is out there and usually only around for a couple of years and then poof one day it's all gone.

[AceMcHammer]

(03-04-2019, 04:54 PM)trandoductin Wrote:

(03-04-2019, 05:45 AM)AceMcHammer Wrote: I've been using Photobucket for over a decade. I have photos posted on the PhotoForum going back to the year 2004 that are still there and still up. 15 years ago.

I didn't know Photobucket were there that long.  But sadly some people just use whatever that is out there and usually only around for a couple of years and then poof one day it's all gone.

Yeah I got ya