Attatchment rules

[Matra et Alpine]

As has been said often before, spi, there is a technical problem with large images. it looks liek the conversion utility for thumbnail creation bombs - IMHO ( hmm, actually ou guys have mayeb pointed out ta problem we've been having on the servire - well done )

[drakkie]

i find it also very annoying, that when you attach a picture that is a bit too big for the system, that it takes AGES !!to upload them, after which you get a message, file size= too large.it would be nice if somehow it could be fixed.best solution would be to display it right away.i don't always notice the files are too big.And i certainly don't fancy a 10 min + wait.

cheers,
der drakmeister

[Blue Supra]

i dont have an opinion on the issue.

so i wont give one.

/END most useless post ever.

[Niko_Fx]

i dont have an opinion on the issue.

so i wont give one.

/END most useless post ever.

SPAM !!!

[spi-ti-tout]

SPAM !!!

Are you mocking the angry aussie?

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

The problem with linked images and third-party sites is their is no control over what kind of site it might be getting referred to !

So it could equally be dodgy porn or scam sites - remember the buy a ticket and win a ferrari and some money goes to charity ????

Not unreasonable for ANY web site owner to "encourage" things to be on the site they know is then "safe".

I've never seen ANY link where someone has explained what's there and used image hosting to be a problem.

MORE AND MORE of those image host sites are stopping server-referrals, so embedding links and pics dont' work. As things move on then MORE sites will do this as they realise that folks aren't looking at their advertising. That this means folks have to then give links is an issue, but remember that if it's not described it will likely get kicked IF it looks an attempt to garner traffic to another site/forum it will likely get kicked. If it links to a new forum with no posts it will be RIDICULED and THEN kicked

UCP has advertisements, does it not? Most of us are smart enough to realise what may be a scam/bollocks site.

ImageHigh sucks monkey balls, but ImageShack is my main image hoster- I use it for 4 forums, but for some bizarre reason, UCP is meant to have special treatment... so maybe you could allow certain image hosters. I know of a lot of other people who rely on image hosters to send out their pictures (spi-ti-tout being one, and a couple of the high-end folks on my site) and they are convenient.

[spi-ti-tout]

ImageHigh sucks monkey balls.

I still have only 20 image credits on ImageShack, so IH it is for me

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

Meh, follow their DODGY LINKS! And you get free ones

[spi-ti-tout]

Meh, follow their DODGY LINKS! And you get free ones

Don't promote spam *ducks*

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

I'm messing about there. but you can follow them if you're dumb enough.

[spi-ti-tout]

I'm messing about there. but you can follow them if you're dumb enough.

Just had to make it so obvious

[IWantAnAudiRS6]

[owned] Well, for the more "special" among us then yeah! [/owned]

[Matra et Alpine]

UCP has advertisements, does it not?

Yep and the FREE UCP SERVICE is PAID FOR by those advertisements.
Only seems fair if someone wants to take the benefit fo the FREE SERVICE that they shoudl use the attachments to avoid OTHER advertising to entice them to click !!

Most of us are smart enough to realise what may be a scam/bollocks site.

It' snot just the sam/spam/bollocks, it's the basic advertising !
Also, Wouter ensures that acverts on UCP are "appropriate" - so he doenst' let the high-paying porn guys come on-stream. The same cannot be said of all other hosting sites.

ImageHigh sucks monkey balls, but ImageShack is my main image hoster- I use it for 4 forums, but for some bizarre reason, UCP is meant to have special treatment... so maybe you could allow certain image hosters. I know of a lot of other people who rely on image hosters to send out their pictures (spi-ti-tout being one, and a couple of the high-end folks on my site) and they are convenient.

LOTS of hosting sites have "special" arrangements and the 'smarter' ones spot the machine link rather than the person link and block them - hence why you often see placeholders or red crdosses on inline images.
AND as has already been said, the other sites may lose their images ( or block them ) and then the value of the posts in UCP becomes zero as the images arent' present.

[spi-ti-tout]

the other sites may lose their images ( or block them ) and then the value of the posts in UCP becomes zero as the images arent' present.

That's why we have links Matra. Worst comes to worst you won't be able to directly view the images (which isn't happening btw - we're not talking about OTHER sites, just the two image uploaders WHO HAVEN'T "blocked" their images on other sites) but you'll still be able to give others higher image res for the sake of a seconds worth of link-clicking.

[Matra et Alpine]

That's why we have links Matra. Worst comes to worst you won't be able to directly view the images (which isn't happening btw - we're not talking about OTHER sites, just the two image uploaders WHO HAVEN'T "blocked" their images on other sites) but you'll still be able to give others higher image res for the sake of a seconds worth of link-clicking.

Key words were links and haven't.
links - If you put a link instead of an inline image then at least in the post you will write why someone should bother to go there and ahve a description which is appealling. The ones which only inline put the image using img tags are the big issue for me as then a post becomes devoid of content and meaning when the target site blocks or empties. There has always been REASONABLE use of in-line images - or Wouter woudl have removed the feature.

havent' - They may in the future - especially when revenue gets tight. Almost all the ones now blocking I've come across at some time were 'free' !!

Please rethink NOT jsut technical and your persepctive. I've already pointed out we're getting a FREE SERVICE here. Not too much to ask to confiorm to guidelines the provider of the service asks for to protect HIS revenue stream, is it ? Linking to 'free' sites for images is protectign THERE revenue stream. As a lot of ads appear on both sites then for every link you reduce the chances of an ad-generated revenue stream for UCP and THAT may lead to the closure of the forums or the site or to subscription-only. Do you really want that risk or make everyeon else carry that risk because you want to only use links ?

REASONABLE usage is best isn't it ? and all that is asked