non-users can't view added images

[brotherS]

Carol posted a funny cartoon here:

https://www.donation...index.php?topic=1648

I was sending the URL to lots of friends to
a) make them laugh
b) spread the word about this site

...then I was told that the cartoon isn't loading, because they are not registered

That's why I added the cartoon again, using http://imageshack.us/

[Carol Haynes]

Thanks for doing that - I have removed the original image so it isn't there twice!

[brotherS]

Maybe mouser can tell us if this is what he wants? Limits site traffic, but prevents not-yet users from seeing everything

Maybe it's a better idea to restrict uploads to maybe 30 kb for each image and just host bigger images at http://imageshack.us/ ?

[mouser]

our new server is doing 4gb of bandwidth a day, i wouldnt worry about picture links taking up too much bandwidth

[Carol Haynes]

It's a pain to have to post images somewhere else - though obviously bandwidth & storage is a potential issue in the long term.

Maybe it would be better to have a default time limit on images posted generally, say 60 days, and then they are deleted. If some are essential for future coherence of the thread than perhaps that setting could be over ridden by Mouser (or anyone else he wants to give rights to).

[brotherS]

It's a pain to have to post images somewhere else - though obviously bandwidth & storage is a potential issue in the long term.

-CarolHaynes (November 29, 2005, 07:53 AM)

It's very fast and no pain at all with http://imageshack.us/ and the Windows shell extension!

Maybe it would be better to have a default time limit on images posted generally, say 60 days, and then they are deleted. If some are essential for future coherence of the thread than perhaps that setting could be over ridden by Mouser (or anyone else he wants to give rights to).

Hmm...

[brotherS]

our new server is doing 4gb of bandwidth a day, i wouldnt worry about picture links taking up too much bandwidth

-mouser (November 29, 2005, 07:52 AM)

So you are going to allow ALL users to see attachments?

[mouser]

that's the only thing im a bit reluctant to do.

[brotherS]

that's the only thing im a bit reluctant to do.

-mouser (November 29, 2005, 04:13 PM)

Then it would IMHO only be logical to disable internal forum uploads and just use http://imageshack.us/ instead. I hate to stumble over forums where I have to signup just to see what they are talking about.

And as I said in my first post above, it limits your ability to spread funny/great/helpful forum URLs a lot! But exactly *that* is *one* nice unobtrusive way to spread the word about DC...

[mouser]

can a guest reading a thread not see pics?

[mouser]

i've updated the permissions to allow guests (people not signed up at the forum) to view attachment images; if it's abused we'll worry about it then.

[brotherS]

i've updated the permissions to allow guests (people not signed up at the forum) to view attachment images; if it's abused we'll worry about it then.

-mouser (November 29, 2005, 04:29 PM)

Thanks How much % of the allowed traffic is the serving now using?

[mouser]

a small small portion; bandwidth amount is not really an issue for us in terms of some limit we are allowed,
the only issue would be much bandwidth could we sustain before it starting slowing the system down.

[brotherS]

Ah, cool!

[Carol Haynes]

i've updated the permissions to allow guests (people not signed up at the forum) to view attachment images; if it's abused we'll worry about it then.

-mouser (November 29, 2005, 04:29 PM)

Bit curious - how can this be abused ... surely the point of attaching images is so that people can see them ???

Can you monitor how long people look for ... how long is considered abuse ?

[mouser]

Can you monitor how long people look for ... how long is considered abuse ?

   

no, abuse would be:
someone wants to share a 2mb zip file with 500,000 people so they attach it to a post, and post the link to the forum attachment all over the internet.

[Carol Haynes]

True. But there is a limit of 500k per attachment anyway - and you could always reduce that as it is larger than required almost all the time.

[dingus]

i'm confused....the original issue was images....now it's zip files?.........as far as imageshack images ( I use photobucket ), the bandwidth is on the account of the image hoster......................did i miss something?

[mouser]

we are talking about when you attach images and files to a forum post using the forum feature, not hosting them externally on a site like imageshack.