This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Avoid hotlinking with imgur

edited March 2010 in Forum Stuff
I know I'm way late to the party on this one, but I just discovered a very useful site called imgur.

Most people, when they want to post an image in the forum, just hot-link. That means you put a direct link to the image on whatever site you found it form. For example, to post a Penny Arcade comic, they will do <img src="http://www.penny-arcade.com...

This is a bad idea for many reasons. The biggest reason is that there is no guarantee the image will still be there forever. Eventually your post will have a broken image in it, or the hoster of the image will block you. One solution is to post the image in Flickr, Photobucket, etc. and link to that. This sometimes works, but depending on the site, they might cut you off. Also, who wants random silly images clogging up your Flickr which is supposed to be your personal photographs?

I would often just upload images to the server which runs these forums by hand. However, this is a pain in the ass.

Thus, we come to imgur. They gladly host and serve any image that you either upload or link to. Then link to the imgur version of the image from the forum, and it will work forever. It's probably a bad idea to put all the eggs in one basket, but users at big sites like reddit are using imgur. If they go down, other sites will have the same big problem that we do.

I encourage you all to use imgur when posting images in this forum. If you have a site that provides the same service, please suggest that also. I'm considering maybe doing something to the forum to automatically imgur any images that are linked and are not already imgur'd. What do you think?

Also, if you go to the tools section of the imgur site, they have browser extensions and such and such.
«1

Comments

  • Or you could allow us to upload images to the FRC server...
  • Or you could allow us to upload images to the FRC server...
    Rule 1 of Internet Security: Once you allow people to put stuff on your server, its all over. Imgur is a much better idea.
  • Rule 1 of Internet Security: Once you allow people to put stuff on your server, its all over.
    I believe Scott and I could properly sandbox images. The only real danger would be horrible child pornography being uploaded by enterprising young criminals.
  • Or you could allow us to upload images to the FRC server...
    Yeah, no.
  • I believe Scott and I could properly sandbox images.
    I'm sure, but listening to "Security Now!" every week has made me that much more security aware (Read: Paranoid).

    Oh, here's an idea: Make a button that allows us to upload images, but instead of storing them local, it taps into the API of some image hosting site, puts them there, and creates the proper IMG SRC tag in the post.
  • Oh, here's an idea: Make a button that allows us to upload images, but instead of storing them local, it taps into the API of some image hosting site, puts them there, and creates the proper IMG SRC tag in the post.
    Well, my idea was to just have the server scan incoming posts for img tags that aren't using imgur, then use the imgur api to re-do them.
  • Oh, Bravo, that's a damn good idea.
  • I just saw that through Google Reader Play. I'm having fun looking at all the images/links on tehre.
  • I really like hotlinking, as where the url often tells me a lot about it, where it comes from, who made it, where I can find more like it, etc. If you use imgur, it would be great to have a text link show up below with the original url, or have it added to the alt text.

    That said, back in 2003 I my server was crashed by an image I made going viral, and I never did recover everything.
  • Vulomedia used to offer the same thing, and then it went down.
  • I really like hotlinking, as where the url often tells me a lot about it, where it comes from, who made it, where I can find more like it, etc. If you use imgur, it would be great to have a text link show up below with the original url, or have it added to the alt text.
    Hotlinking is 100% in the spirit of the World Wide Web as it was originally imagined. It only becomes problematic due to the realities of stupid, evil, and incompetent people coupled with an open architecture employing implicit trust.
  • edited March 2010
    Hasn't TinyPic done this for a while? You don't have to sign up with them - just upload or input the URL of the image you want, and boom, there you go. I've never really seen images from them go down unless they were specifically taken down by the people who put them up, either. Even on popular LJ comms that rely heavily on the service, things seem to stay up.

    That said, though, after trying it out, I definitely like imgur's interface better. The layout is more appealing, and there are one or two more options for grabbing the image code after you upload. I'll probably start using this instead of TinyPic or Photobucket from this point on. Thanks for pointing it out!

    Just for fun, here's the test upload I did:
    Hosted by imgur.com
    Post edited by Eryn on
  • Hotlinking is 100% in the spirit of the World Wide Web as it was originally imagined. It only becomes problematic due to the realities of stupid, evil, and incompetent people coupled with an open architecture employing implicit trust.
    True, but it is also coupled with economics. Someone happens to put a popular image on their server, now they are poor.
  • How about taking it a step further and letting us upload pictures from local storage to imgur. It's a bitch to have to go upload a picture I have to somewhere and then come back and plug in the link. Might as well remove a step.

    Also, the popup for inserting images says "where your image ist hosted."
  • edited March 2010
    How about taking it a step further and letting us upload pictures from local storage to imgur. It's a bitch to have to go upload a picture I have to somewhere and then come back and plug in the link. Might as well remove a step.
    Use the browser extensions and shit.

    Also, maybe. Not the worst idea.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited March 2010
    I've talked to the guy from imgur also. You guy's should interview him about the technology side of hosting the images and He has a lot to say on the subject.

    You can find Alan Schaaf at reddit under the name MrGrim.
    Post edited by Alan on
  • I'm sure, but listening to "Security Now!" every week has made me that much more security Spinrite aware (Read: Paranoid).
  • Churba that's one of the main reasons I can't stand most of the podcasts from twit anymore. Security Now either is talking up spinwrite for half an episode or talking about some miracle supplement he found. The tech guy show just isn't targeted toward people how know how to operate PCs.

    Their shows without Leo seem to be my favorites. The law, biomedical, and science hour seems to be the best shows they have.

    How about taking it a step further and letting us upload pictures from local storage to imgur. It's a bitch to have to go upload a picture I have to somewhere and then come back and plug in the link. Might as well remove a step.
    Also, the popup for inserting images says "where your image ist hosted."
    That's just laziness if you ask me. It just takes a few seconds to do so. Plus if imgur is down the plugin won't work.
  • edited March 2010
    Churba that's one of the main reasons I can't stand most of the podcasts from twit anymore. Security Now either is talking up spinwrite for half an episode or talking about some miracle supplement he found. The tech guy show just isn't targeted toward people how know how to operate PCs.

    Their shows without Leo seem to be my favorites. The law, biomedical, and science hour seems to be the best shows they have.
    I don't know, I can listen to TWIT without a problem, and the shows without Leo are all pretty good, except NSFW, which is still finding it's feet, and is a tad hit and miss - also, unfortunately, Leo has restricted them to keep it, well, SFW, which is stupid, but hey, I suppose it's his network. But seriously, are they plugging supplements now? I stopped listening well before then, I might spool one on and give it a listen, just to see how far it's gone downhill.
    Though, I should be fair, Isn't the Tech guy show explicitly aimed at people who are only basic to middling users? I'm pretty sure it goes out on terrestrial and satellite radio, aimed more at the general public than the tech crowd.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • edited March 2010
    Yeah the tech guy show really is just for people that just started using computers. From time to time when I listened there would be something more complicated but it was rare. Also some funny calls like this one:


    Gibson has been pushing some Vitamin D supplement though he doesn't mention the name. They even had a whole show about it without any mention of security at all.
    Post edited by Alan on
  • That lady was just another paranoid person, poor thing, though Leo is right, essentially, people do exaggerate the dangers, without really saying much about mitigating the risks, and not needing to be too terribly worried.
    As for the second, that's far from the first one he's popped, I've been listening to the shows, and heard at least three other critical ball failures, the best of which he was talking to the british bloke he gets sometimes, and you just hear this "BLOOMPFthump" and he comes back saying his ball just exploded. But when you hear the massive noise which tells you something really wierd has just happened on leo's end, and leo vanishes off cam for the live stream, the british bloke just keeps talking like none of it has happened.
  • Besides reading the screen, the other most important factor in people learning computers is whether or not they have fear. I said I learned by trial and error on the old Apple 2 back in Kindergarten. Why did other kids not also learn as well as I did? How come teachers didn't even learn? Because they were afraid to break the computer. They would avoid the trial and error process out of fear.

    The thing is, I have this fear as well. If I still owned a car, you wouldn't see me start removing parts or messing around with fuses and such. Why? I'm afraid I'll break it. The same goes for my recent exploits in soldering various electronics. I had a hard time getting started because I was afraid I would just ruin a moderately expensive electronics kit, and have to rebuy it.

    The worst part is that even if you overcome fear, and go for it anyway, you are actually probably putting yourself in a worse position. Let's say I read about how to replace the battery in a car. I had all the necessary parts on the list. I overcame fear, and decided to do it on my own. That's good, but it's actually still bad. Even though I'm doing it, I'm nervous about it, and not confident. I don't know about you, but when I'm nervous about something, the chances of me fucking up increase greatly. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Fear causes failure.

    People need to be taught to read the screen. But besides that, people need an environment in which to learn computers where they will not be afraid of breaking anything. They need to be able to try, and error with complete confidence they will be able to undo. This is why if I were to create any computing curriculum, everything would start with hardware and go from the bottom up. By demystifying the inside of the box, fear can be eliminated.
  • I'm sure, but listening to "Security Now!" every week has made me that much moresecuritySpinriteaware (Read: Paranoid).
    Obviously you don't listen to Security Now regularly. And Yes, It made me spinrite aware also, but Spinrite has saved my bacon many, many times.
  • edited March 2010
    The thing is, I have this fear as well. If I still owned a car, you wouldn't see me start removing parts or messing around with fuses and such. Why? I'm afraid I'll break it.
    See, this is where it becomes different, and where the problem arises. These people - to whom, let's be honest, computers are magic internet thingers, that give you e-mail and cute animal videos/hardcore pornography, and as long as it works, that's all they need to know - think of computers the same as a car. They don't get in there and mess around, because they think of it like a car, and think that they can break it in such a way that it will be completely ruined, and the repair is going to be expensive, if they mess around - where, in reality, 99.999% of problems that your average user can cause, software wise, can be fixed cheaply, and easily. Even if they bone their entire Windows install, screw it, just re-install, if they were using a legit copy, then that costs nothing in parts, and at worst, a small amount in labor (of course, not factoring in ripoff artists who charge you stupid amounts for simple services - we're looking at you, Geek Squad).

    I taught my sister and my mother both to be mostly competent computer users just this way - by pretty much MAKING them break something, while I was there. When they figured out that "Breaking" something was nothing to fear, and instead, something to learn from, they were fine, drop the basic rules of computer security on them and make sure they follow them ALL the time, and I rarely have to deal with family tech support now. The first family tech support I've done since I came over here? My sister rang me up and asked me for some good apps to get on her iPhone, because she knew I had one for a while, and she had just gotten one for Christmas.
    People need to be taught to read the screen. But besides that, people need an environment in which to learn computers where they will not be afraid of breaking anything. They need to be able to try, and error with complete confidence they will be able to undo. This is why if I were to create any computing curriculum, everything would start with hardware and go from the bottom up. By demystifying the inside of the box, fear can be eliminated.
    Absolutely yes. It's the magical thinking that keeps people from learning, because if they don't understand, then they still fear on some level. It's like the old "Burning your hand on a hot stove" saying - How do you learn not to put your hand on a hot stove? By burning your hand a little on a hot stove.
    It's enough to make you go "Shit, won't do that again" but not enough to kill you, or seriously harm you.

    It's sort of like your analogy with the car battery. Yes, doing it all by yourself could make things worse. But, say, if I walked you through it, and repeated it a few times, made sure you didn't catch a boot off the battery or break anything too seriously, I'd say within a day, I could make you confident enough to be able to change your own battery when you needed to, ditto that for changing your oil, for another example. They're simple, low-risk tasks, but (if you'll pardon me for assuming) you're afraid of breaking your car by doing it wrong, as you've not had someone properly teach you the simple steps to doing it right. And from there, you can expand your knowledge, if you wish.
    Obviously you don't listen to Security Now regularly. And Yes, It made me spinrite aware also, but Spinrite has saved my bacon many, many times.
    An Astute observation. However, It's a joke, rather than a serious comment, though I do think that it's a little odd to have things like, as Alan mentioned, a show about security where they, at least once, have done an episode without any security content - however, when they DO have security content - VAST majority of the shows - it's generally good and accurate information.
    But you can't deny, they plug Spinrite a LOT on that show - Even more than Leo plugs Audible, squarespace, or go2Meeting on TWIT, and Leo gets paid in filthy lucre for those, whereas Gibson, to the best of my knowledge, is just providing himself as a presenter in exchange for plugging Spinrite more often than a newly married couple plug each other, so to speak.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • edited March 2010
    It's sort of like your analogy with the car battery. Yes, doing it all by yourself could make things worse. But, say, if I walked you through it, and repeated it a few times, made sure you didn't catch a boot off the battery or break anything too seriously, I'd say within a day, I could make you confident enough to be able to change your own battery when you needed to, ditto that for changing your oil, for another example. They're simple, low-risk tasks, but (if you'll pardon me for assuming) you're afraid of breaking your car by doing it wrong, as you've not had someone properly teach you the simple steps to doing it right. And from there, you can expand your knowledge, if you wish.
    There is one thing I think I disagree with here. If someone walked me through replacing a battery, or changing oil, just one time, then I believe I would be able to repeat it infinity times thereafter. The safety net of having a confident person guide me on the first go would be sufficient, and the confidence would be transferred.

    However, I have tried this with many people on computers, and it doesn't work. I try to guide people, and the confidence and knowledge do not get transferred. They quit. They ignore. They adamantly refuse, and demand that I do it for them. The desire to learn and the will to expend effort are both entirely absent. Obviously, you can't teach anyone computers, or anything else, if they have no desire to learn. However, I have noticed this refusal to learn is far more prevalent when it comes to technology.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited March 2010
    There is one thing I think I disagree with here. If someone walked me through replacing a battery, or changing oil, just one time, then I believe I would be able to repeat it infinity times thereafter. The safety net of having a confident person guide me on the first go would be sufficient, and the confidence would be transferred.
    This is true, however, when I say these are simple tasks, I really mean incredibly simple - You already understand how current works, why it's a bad thing to bridge the positive and negative terminals, not to ground yourself out when you're holding something live, etc, etc - that's all stuff I had to teach my sister when she got her first car (an old Datsun 120Y) which made it somewhat harder. I also assume you know how to not cross-thread a bolt, how to not lose bolts in random places, stuff like that - You have the basic skills, and an understanding of why the steps are performed in the order they are, all you need to learn is the actual steps in order.
    However, pardon me for underestimating you some, I didn't know really either way, so I figured I'd hedge my bets upward slightly.
    However, I have tried this with many people on computers, and it doesn't work. I try to guide people, and the confidence and knowledge do not get transferred. They quit. They ignore. They adamantly refuse, and demand that I do it for them. The desire to learn and the will to expend effort are both entirely absent. Obviously, you can teach anyone anything, computers or otherwise, if they have no desire to learn. However, I have noticed this refusal to learn is far more prevalent when it comes to technology.
    Well, Yes and no. This simple method does work, however, the procedure is different, it takes longer, and you have to be somewhat more aware of how you explain things and relate them to what the student already knows - For example, I'd say it's easier to teach a person to change a battery than to, say, use Firefox to a competent level, because everything in changing a battery is very obvious, when you break it down to their level. It's easy to understand that the bolts on the terminal connections are tightening a loop of metal, holding it on, and that the bolts holding the battery restraining bar in place have to be removed before you can lift off the bar, because you can see they are physically blocking the path of the bar. The obvious visual cues and physical nature of these things make them easy to grok, because they are concepts that hold to everyday life, for example, one solid object cannot pass through another.

    Computers are somewhat more abstract, and before it becomes easy to teach these things, you need to build a foundation of knowledge to build on. To liken a computer to a car, obviously, your mouse and keyboard are the steering wheel and such. Imagine your problem with the battery, but then imagine that you didn't know how to use a shifting spanner, and didn't understand the concept of how a bolt directly holds things down, or that the battery isn't an intrinsic, built-in part of the car, and then add in that people who do know these things are essentially wizards, and you're afraid that as a non-wizard, you might break it if you try to do anything with it directly yourself - I know that's all a bit of a stretch, but that's what we're working with. Before they can understand to remove the battery, they need to understand that it can be removed, and before they can loosen off a bolt, they need to understand how the bolt works in a simple fashion, and what loosening it off will do.

    To bring it home from my bizarre, rambling, analogy-ridden explanation of my thinking on the issue, that's why your idea that teaching computing from the ground up is a very good idea, because it's laying a foundation for you to build the knowledge on. However, the problem is, as you said, that with tech, there is a severe case of "I don' wanna!" when it comes to laying this foundation and learning these basics, because these people see tech as essentially high-magic, and they fear breaking it because they imagine dire consequences, when really, the consequences are far less dire than they think in their state of knowlegelessness. Which isn't a word, but goddamnit, I'm making it one.
    They fear this on more than one level, also, because to keep using the Car battery analogy, Imagine if someone thought that if they tried to remove the battery themselves, they might not only break the battery, but also completely and irrevocably break their car, meaning they would have to buy a new one, because they don't understand that the battery is only a small, interchangeable part of the entire thing.

    Pardon me if I'm not really communicating this terribly well, by the way, because I'll admit, as willing as I am to learn, I do hold a bit of the Magic-and-wizards thinking myself about computers - even though it's far less than your average person, it's still there in small doses. Well, that, and most of the people here are a hell of a lot smarter than me, and I'm doing my best to keep up, here. If I'm not being terribly clear, just say so.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • Obviously you don't listen to Security Now regularly. And Yes, It made me spinrite aware also, but Spinrite has saved my bacon many, many times.
    An Astute observation. However, It's a joke, rather than a serious comment, though I do think that it's a little odd to have things like, as Alan mentioned, a show about security where they, at least once, have done an episode without any security content - however, when they DO have security content - VAST majority of the shows - it's generally good and accurate information.
    But you can't deny, they plug Spinrite a LOT on that show - Even more than Leo plugs Audible, squarespace, or go2Meeting on TWIT, and Leo gets paid in filthy lucre for those, whereas Gibson, to the best of my knowledge, is just providing himself as a presenter in exchange for plugging Spinrite more often than a newly married couple plug each other, so to speak.
    Actually, Leo only gets money from donations. All advertising revenue goes to the costs of running TWiT and paying the other hosts. As for Steve Gibson's involvement, the idea for Security Now originated back when Leo was still working for Tech TV. Several years later, after the Screensavers was canceled, Leo approached Steve about actually doing the show. And so what if they plug Spinrite? Sure it's Steve's bread and butter, but it's a fantastic product. Not only do I use it personally but I recommend it to all of my computer repair clients because it is such a good drive maintenance and recovery tool.
  • edited March 2010
    All advertising revenue goes to the costs of running TWiT and paying the other hosts.
    I know. But he is still taking money from them for these costs, and I didn't say the money goes in his pocket, just that he's getting paid by them - he's the owner/operator of the TWIT network, so even if it is paying the other hosts and the bills, it's going through him first. He's getting paid by the advertisers. What he uses that money for is up to him, and if he wants to be paid by donation rather than taking money from his business, more power to him. It's an honest model, and if people like him, then he gets paid - it provides an incentive to keep going with high-quality shows, rather than just making a paycheck, or pumping out content so that the advertisers have something to advertise on - and to be honest, I think he does a very good job of that, even if the larger portion of the content isn't to my taste.
    As for Steve Gibson's involvement, the idea for Security Now originated back when Leo was still working for Tech TV. Several years later, after the Screensavers was canceled, Leo approached Steve about actually doing the show.
    I know. But like you said, he pays the other hosts, and with spinrite being Steve's business, and the fact that to the best of my knowledge, he doesn't draw a wage from TWIT, essentially having a platform to plug Spinrite is his payment for services on the show. If he was stopped from plugging Spinrite on the show, and still not paid for his services, you think Security now would last more than ten episodes after that? I'd be surprised if it did.
    And so what if they plug Spinrite? Sure it's Steve's bread and butter, but it's a fantastic product. Not only do I use it personally but I recommend it to all of my computer repair clients because it is such a good drive maintenance and recovery tool.
    For a start, it's fucking annoying. There is a difference between just plugging something, and having it take up a large percentage of the show - not a majority, most of the time, but when I was a regular listener, the reason I stopped listening was because it was more often than not that Steve spent more time plugging spinrite than actually talking about anything security related. That's not a security-tech show - that's an advertisement, with some security tech content.

    It probably is a fantastic product, even if I can't say so personally. I've thankfully not had to use it at this point, but everyone I know who has gives it rave reviews - but the quality of the program doesn't mean that I want to listen to someone essentially reading a bunch of ad-copies, so that I can extract the security content that is sandwiched between the masses of spinrite stories that get read out at length.

    I mean, sure, sometimes that is interesting, very occasionally - like the bloke who found out that it works on PS3 hard-drives, and managed to save himself a trip through that special hell that is game console warranty repairs.
    But I don't need to listen to a podcast that's anywhere from 20% to 100% made of stories that amount to this formula/madlib -

    My (Object with a HDD) was (Not working, brief description of how), and I couldn't get to my (description of data, and how important it is to you) which was a problem because (situation impending where data was required or desired), so I used spinrite on it, and it (Describe what the device is meant to do when working correctly) right away and (the/my) (day/meeting/marriage/truck full of dingos/family photo albums/save games) was (phrase describing how miraculous the event was and how you couldn't believe it) Saved, thanks to Spinrite. Thanks Steve!

    Great, Steve. We get it. Spinrite is better than Kobe Beef and Blowjobs, and your customers are over the moon, with good reason. Now, please either ensure that your content outweighs your advertisement for your business by at least 10%, or go and find us a Security expert who knows the difference between "Plugging your business, but not being annoying about it" and "Slipping security content in between advertisements".

    I mean, seriously, I'm a pretty dedicated ARG player, and most of those ARE straight up advertisements, and when someone who uses a form of advertising as an entertainment is saying you're advertising too much without enough content, you gotta wonder if you should ease up a little. I understand that security content isn't always the great news-stream that, say, general tech, or politics, or photography, or any of the other TWIT shows have, but christ, there is a point where even I draw the line.

    Edit - As a public forum, I wouldn't be suprised if this thread shows up if you do a search for Spinrite now(as in, right now, not making fun of the show name this time) and I suspect that Steve (and probably Leo also) have a chance of reading this, so, Hey guys. Enjoy the security content, but not the ads so much. I speak simply and directly, but I'm sure you rather an honest opinion put bluntly with a "Just in case you read" personal message, than properly addressed ass-kissing.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • This Week in Google is awesome, as Google is always doing loads and there's always loads to talk about. I don't listen to TWiT on mp3, but when I'm at home on Sunday nights I watch live. This Week in Photography is good fun, great for amateur photographers who like gear. I sometimes listen to Macbreak Weekly, and always enjoy it, but compared to Google, Apple doesn't actually release new products or do anything newsworthy very often, so they have to keep trying to find things to talk about.
Sign In or Register to comment.