topic icons
-
This post is deleted! -
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller And I bet it works better globally as well.
That's the idea, Akamai has the best global CDN in the business. RS and MS both use them, for example. They've been the CDN leader since the idea first started, I believe. I'm excited to be on them, just hope we can get code working to make it all easy and transparent. But being on CF has always been the long term goal, just pushing it faster now.
In theory, faster image resolution means better SEO rankings as well, we hope.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I'm excited to be on them, just hope we can get code working to make it all easy and transparent.
The best thing to do would be to grab the imgur plugin and fork it for another service.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I'm excited to be on them, just hope we can get code working to make it all easy and transparent.
The best thing to do would be to grab the imgur plugin and fork it for another service.
Already doing that
I've got the code from the old CF project too. Hoping that as I got through it that it is pretty obvious what needs to be done. I'll get it up on Github, too. I'm sure lots of people would like to see this working. -
@scottalanmiller said:
@anonymous said:
All I am requesting it that we don't use images from other sites, as we are using there bandwidth, and that's not fair or the right thing to do.
I don't agree that it isn't fair or right, however I agree and have relayed to Danielle that there is an important perception there regardless and that for that reason, and for control of content and performance, working hard to get everything that we use reasonably over to Cloud Files where we get the best performance, insight and control for the long term. So we are working towards what I believe to be what you want.
Interesting that you don't see the use of someone else's resources as inherently (bad seems like to strong a word here). Costing someone else money while they gain nothing from that expense just seems wrong.
At least with Youtube embedded links, Youtube still shows ads and therefore they get revenue from the view.
-
@Dashrender said:
Interesting that you don't see the use of someone else's resources as inherently (bad seems like to strong a word here). Costing someone else money while they gain nothing from that expense just seems wrong.
At least with Youtube embedded links, Youtube still shows ads and therefore they get revenue from the view.
Youtube was designed for embededing as well. Those images were meant to be viewed as their whole creation (the website design) the way the content creator intended. Just using one part of it rips it out of the context it was meant to be viewed in.
-
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
Interesting that you don't see the use of someone else's resources as inherently (bad seems like to strong a word here). Costing someone else money while they gain nothing from that expense just seems wrong.
At least with Youtube embedded links, Youtube still shows ads and therefore they get revenue from the view.
Youtube was designed for embededing as well. Those images were meant to be viewed as their whole creation (the website design) the way the content creator intended. Just using one part of it rips it out of the context it was meant to be viewed in.
You lost me there. In the first sentence I completely agree - Youtube designed the videos to play embedded through nearly any website - their whole message would remain intact.
Clearly that is not the case with most static images. The images usually enhance something else that is on that page.
-
What is hotlinking?
Since ML hosts nothing, there isn't really a thing to pull from the ML site. Sure anyone can link to a thread, maybe even a single post (can they?), but most web browsers won't download that text (it probably wouldn't display as desired inside someone else's site anyway.
Instead, those links would lead the clicker to the linked website, giving said website a full opportunity to give the viewer the whole picture.
-
@Dashrender said:
Interesting that you don't see the use of someone else's resources as inherently (bad seems like to strong a word here). Costing someone else money while they gain nothing from that expense just seems wrong.
Stating it that way makes it sound bad, the implication being that it is "against their will or knowledge", which is not true. If you share something publicly, do you feel that is "bad" that someone takes you up on it?
Think of all of the websites that you visit without advertising (ML for almost two years, most blogs, Snapchap, all kinds of things)... do you feel it is wrong to use them even though someone put in the effort to set them up for the express purpose of being used?
-
@Jason said:
Youtube was designed for embededing as well. Those images were meant to be viewed as their whole creation (the website design) the way the content creator intended. Just using one part of it rips it out of the context it was meant to be viewed in.
That can be true, but many sites don't even have that context. Some are nothing but images. That there is a context, that they are meant to be viewed that way or whatever is not universal. If they want to limit them to a specific context, they are able to do so.
-
@Dashrender said:
Clearly that is not the case with most static images. The images usually enhance something else that is on that page.
Usually, yes, that's true. What's important is... not always.
-
@Dashrender said:
Since ML hosts nothing, there isn't really a thing to pull from the ML site. Sure anyone can link to a thread, maybe even a single post (can they?), but most web browsers won't download that text (it probably wouldn't display as desired inside someone else's site anyway.
But they CAN. We have an RSS feed, for example, specifically for the ability of people to "hotlink" to the text if they want to consume it that way. Even though we offer an RSS feed do you feel it would be wrong for someone to use it?
-
@Dashrender said:
Instead, those links would lead the clicker to the linked website, giving said website a full opportunity to give the viewer the whole picture.
Well, the whole picture is the image. It would be to give them much more than the image.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Interesting that you don't see the use of someone else's resources as inherently (bad seems like to strong a word here). Costing someone else money while they gain nothing from that expense just seems wrong.
Stating it that way makes it sound bad, the implication being that it is "against their will or knowledge", which is not true. If you share something publicly, do you feel that is "bad" that someone takes you up on it?
Think of all of the websites that you visit without advertising (ML for almost two years, most blogs, Snapchap, all kinds of things)... do you feel it is wrong to use them even though someone put in the effort to set them up for the express purpose of being used?
It's one thing to use it as intended, on their site, it's completely another to create a link on another source that will cause the object to be downloaded so many times as to cause stress/damage on the originating site.
A great example is Slashdot. It was (is?) common for small community/product sites to be crashed when a highly popular website makes reference to the small site. I heard that it was such a problem that small sites would hope they wouldn't be discovered by slashdot. Heck they might have even asked to not be featured because of the potential to crash the site.
I think on demand resources and things like Cloudflare make this less of an issue today at a much more affordable point, so it might not be as large an issue anymore.
Now should it be illegal for Slashdot to run these stories - No I don't believe that it should be, but the problem still exists.
I'm trying to think of a single other technology that would allow a person/company to become financially or otherwise damaged like a webhost can be by something like this.
Text messaging is the only example I can come up with. In the beginning, Texting wasn't free, the end device owners paid for both incoming and outgoing messages (generally). So someone could send me 100 text messages and suddenly my phone bill was $25 higher (plus taxes) because of someone else's behavior, a behavior I couldn't stop.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Instead, those links would lead the clicker to the linked website, giving said website a full opportunity to give the viewer the whole picture.
Well, the whole picture is the image. It would be to give them much more than the image.
not the image as the whole picture (unless you are saying the post was nothing more than the image itself) but the purpose of the website/forum/community/whatever.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Since ML hosts nothing, there isn't really a thing to pull from the ML site. Sure anyone can link to a thread, maybe even a single post (can they?), but most web browsers won't download that text (it probably wouldn't display as desired inside someone else's site anyway.
But they CAN. We have an RSS feed, for example, specifically for the ability of people to "hotlink" to the text if they want to consume it that way. Even though we offer an RSS feed do you feel it would be wrong for someone to use it?
You're creation of an RSS feed on your site is your permission to at least pull data from your feed to any other website that wants to. Simply hosting an image, you don't expect anyone and everyone on the planet to pull your hosted images.
-
@Dashrender said:
You're creation of an RSS feed on your site is your permission to at least pull data from your feed to any other website that wants to. Simply hosting an image, you don't expect anyone and everyone on the planet to pull your hosted images.
First part I agree with completely. Second part seems to refute the first part and is what I disagree with. Both cases content is put up and published. The difference between the two is totally in the eye of the beholder. You say that when I put up content, the fact that I put it up is tacit permission. I agree and simply say that this logic holds true and does not stop randomly due to content type.
-
@Dashrender said:
not the image as the whole picture (unless you are saying the post was nothing more than the image itself) but the purpose of the website/forum/community/whatever.
Who is to determine that purpose? You are putting a purpose on a file type that is not inherent to it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
You're creation of an RSS feed on your site is your permission to at least pull data from your feed to any other website that wants to. Simply hosting an image, you don't expect anyone and everyone on the planet to pull your hosted images.
First part I agree with completely. Second part seems to refute the first part and is what I disagree with. Both cases content is put up and published. The difference between the two is totally in the eye of the beholder. You say that when I put up content, the fact that I put it up is tacit permission. I agree and simply say that this logic holds true and does not stop randomly due to content type.
NO, that's not what I'm saying.
When you publish an RSS feed - you are saying - hey world, pull stuff off my site and use it anywhere you like.
When you publish that same connect, but do NOT have an RSS feed, you're saying saying, please come visit MY site, see what I'm selling, when you want to see what content I have.
-
@Dashrender said:
A great example is Slashdot. It was (is?) common for small community/product sites to be crashed when a highly popular website makes reference to the small site. I heard that it was such a problem that small sites would hope they wouldn't be discovered by slashdot. Heck they might have even asked to not be featured because of the potential to crash the site.
Okay, so you agree with my assertion that all linking is hot linking and the logic that says you should not reference a resource directly would logically be forced to be applied to a website.
And so, if I read your statements correctly, you feel that the concept of hyperlinking between sites is inherently bad regardless of the type.
I don't agree, but this is the only way that I see the logic of "references in websites are wrong" coming to a conclusion.
