PDA

View Full Version : Can somebody with A+ computer skills help me?



Grendl
2005-Mar-29, 09:06 AM
I am so frustrated with Bravenet (which is in British Columbia :wink: ). I have emailed them over and over and they are giving me replies that indicate they are not "getting" the problem.

I want to post images from our Photo Center. I couldn't in the past, because some web hosting sites don't allow that. But then they added this new feature that you can pay for:


Remote Loading
Remote loading will allow you to post your images in forums and on remote websites not hosted by Bravenet.
I thought that meant that I could post my images here no problem by doing what I do with every other image on the net--right clicking and pasting the URL on my post here. It's just causing the red X boxes.

So, they told me to go in my Managing Images section where I'll find the URL that looks like this:

URL For Bravenet Services: http://photos.bravenet.com/180/553/738/4/713EA3B1F0.jpg
Remote Loading Code:
<img src="http://pub22.bravenet.com/photocenter/remote.php?usernum=1805537384&img=713EA3B1F0&ext=j pg">
I found that no problem. But whatever I use it's not working and they don't seem to get what I'm asking them.

I would really appreciate anyone's help with this. I've paid for it to 2007 and because I don't want to paste large pictures on forums, I download them to my PC, resize them or alter them, and then upload them to my Photo Center. This also avoids using other people's bandwidth and one person once (from London :D ) got mad at me for using his alien even after sending him an email complimenting him on his excellent clip art. He threatened to report me to Bravenet. (I didn't know what I was doing at the time and that I needed to save it to my PC). So, now I only link images from big sites that can afford a lot of bandwidth.

What am I doing wrong here?

http://pub22.bravenet.com/photocenter/remote.php?usernum=1805537384&img=713EA3B1F0&ext=j pg

http://photos.bravenet.com/180/553/738/4/713EA3B1F0.jpg

kucharek
2005-Mar-29, 09:27 AM
http://photos.bravenet.com/180/553/738/4/713EA3B1F0.jpg gives an access denied error.

http://pub22.bravenet.com/photocenter/remote.php?usernum=1805537384&img=713EA3B1F0&ext=j pg when clicked shows you a files contents. When you save this stuff and change the files extension to .jpg, it's an image of a fly.

Looking at the returned HTTP-header:



HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:21:33 GMT
Server: Apache
Set-Cookie: HASCOOKIES=1; expires=Fri, 27-Mar-2015 09:21:33 GMT; path=/; domain=.bravenet.com
P3P: policyref="/w3c/p3p.xml", CP="NOI DSP LAW NID PSA ADM OUR IND NAV"
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html

you see that their webserver says, the retuned content is text/html. That's why your browser tries to view it as text. The correct content-type would be
Content-Type: image/jpg
Then your browser would know that the data returned is image data and would handle it correctly.
Usually, a server knows which Content-type he has to return just from the file extension. But as your link isn't some dynamic stuff, the script that returns the file would have to set this correctly.

In short: If the second link is the one they say you must use to link to your images, then they have some problem. It is not your fault.

Harald

PS: First I didn't see your inline image above at the link http://photos.bravenet.com/180/553/738/4/713EA3B1F0.jpg Then I made a "show only this image" of it and saw it. Now I see it permanently in your posting. Hmmm.

PPS: Looks like the usual stuff that they don't allow inlining on other websites. When the browser requests a file, he also delivers a referer info. When the server sees, that the referer is from some outside website, he denies access.

Johnno
2005-Mar-29, 09:28 AM
*chuckles*

Seems to work fine, I can see the picture. ;)

They probably have some issues, flaky servers or whatnot, so that your picture isn't accessible all the time.

AstroSmurf
2005-Mar-29, 09:42 AM
It depends on what browser you have. According to the standard, a web server has to specify what type of content it's delivering. Since IIS (Microsoft web server) is rather slack in that department, MSIE has to pick up the slack, which it does by analysing the delivered content and pick a method to show it. Most other web browsers look at the content type, and if it says text/html (the default), they will show the image as text.

To summarise, MSIE doesn't trust a web server to know what it's sending, so it does its own thinking. Other browsers assume that if a web server tells them something is HTML, that's how they should show it. Makes for a nice mess when you're developing things.

Grendl
2005-Mar-29, 10:44 AM
They had said in an email to me that the reason it wasn't working the first time was that the correct "Remote Loading URL codes" weren't showing. But they said today that, that has been corrected.

Other posters on our board are having the same problem. The point of paying is to be able to do this no problem.

I use Internet Explorer, I have Windows XP. I'm not totally clueless--I know how to HTML and set up a board and the Photo Center header and wrapper pictures.

If the remote loading code is this below, what am I supposed to do with that? That's how we paste pictures in our posts on our forum using HTML like <font size=5> or <a href="yadayadayada.com/yada.html">Yada People</a>

<img src="http://pub22.bravenet.com/photocenter/remote.php?usernum=1805537384&img=713EA3B1F0&ext=j pg">

I can't do anything with that url here.


chuckles*

Seems to work fine, I can see the picture.

They probably have some issues, flaky servers or whatnot, so that your picture isn't accessible all the time.
Huh? Once I get out of BABBling and go back to look at the posts I get the X

If Bravent is WRONG, how can they be so clueless? Then again, they couldn't explain why our posts just got wiped out one day. [-(

typo edit

Johnno
2005-Mar-29, 12:33 PM
Testing

http://photos.bravenet.com/180/553/738/4/713EA3B1F0.jpg

There's something fishy going on. If I copy the image link and paste it into a new window, and go for it, it gives me access denied. I hit refresh, and the picture shows. Same thing with the main thread. I look at the thread, get the red x, go to reply after looking at the picture in my browser, put in the image link and check preview, and then both my post and the first post shows the picture.

I've tried that twice now, on two different computers. First time I posted the reply because I thought their server was down at first, so I hit refresh. But now it seems to be another issue. Hitting refresh when looking at the actual image in a new window works though.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Mar-29, 12:57 PM
In the post above, where the URL was right in the text as a link, if I click on the link I get "access denied". But if I paste the link into the field at the top of my browser window and hit go, I can see the image.

Lance
2005-Mar-29, 01:52 PM
Another option for you might be to use Image Shack (http://www.imageshack.us/) which will host your images for free.

Evan
2005-Mar-29, 04:19 PM
So, now I only link images from big sites that can afford a lot of bandwidth.



What you are describing is known as "deep linking". It isn't a good idea and is even considered illegal in most jurisdictions. You also have no control over what will show up when you deep link. I had a case where a very prolific poster on an unrelated forum decided to link to a picture on one of my web pages to use as his avatar. I changed the picture to a warning notice advising him to cease and desist. He ignored me so after a few days I changed the picture to a very nice looking set of buns in a T back. That got his attention.

It isn't considered polite at the least to leech someones bandwidth.

JohnOwens
2005-Mar-30, 12:19 AM
So, now I only link images from big sites that can afford a lot of bandwidth.What you are describing is known as "deep linking". It isn't a good idea and is even considered illegal in most jurisdictions....
Actually, deep linking is something rather different. That's when you post a link but not the image (or text, whatever) itself, but you're linking directly to the image/article/whatever, bypassing their front page (which is usually the grounds for complaint, because they miss out on the ad revenue they could get if you had to go through a few links from their front page). For instance, if I link to http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/29/cochran.obit/index.html (by the way, Johnny Cochran just died, though that's hardly my point), that's deep linking, but if I tell you to go to http://www.cnn.com/ and click on the Johny Cochran lead story (at the moment, obviously this won't work within a few hours, maybe a day), that's not deep linking.
Deep linking certainly is not illegal, but may be actionable; fortunately, most organizations don't have a problem with deep linking, but there's a few out there that might make a fuss.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Mar-30, 12:32 AM
Actually, deep linking is something rather different. That's when you post a link but not the image (or text, whatever) itself, but you're linking directly to the image/article/whatever, bypassing their front page (which is usually the grounds for complaint, because they miss out on the ad revenue they could get if you had to go through a few links from their front page). For instance, if I link to http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/29/cochran.obit/index.html (by the way, Johnny Cochran just died, though that's hardly my point), that's deep linking, but if I tell you to go to http://www.cnn.com/ and click on the Johny Cochran lead story (at the moment, obviously this won't work within a few hours, maybe a day), that's not deep linking.
Deep linking certainly is not illegal, but may be actionable; fortunately, most organizations don't have a problem with deep linking, but there's a few out there that might make a fuss.
I can see why some people might not like deep linking, but I've always found the case for its being actionable highly dubious. I believe there are software means for preventing deep linking to a website, so if you choose to make all your Web pages freely and directly available, can you really claim that someone is violating your rights by referring to them directly? It seems almost like a magazine publisher trying to prevent people from reading the articles out of order. (You are, after all, perfectly free to publish your magazine as a scroll if you don't want people skipping around.)

Evan
2005-Mar-30, 06:37 AM
Sorry, I beg to differ. There is a lot of confusion as to what constitutes "deep linking". There have been a number of court cases around the world with no real consistency as to outcome. However, the example I gave where content such as an image is directly displayed on another site is a simple and direct violation of copyright unless the image is expressly placed in the public domain. There is no debate over that and it has been found illegal in any jurisdiction where it has been tried in court.


Current Law of Linking
To summarize the law of linking as it now exists, one can link to the front page of a Web site, with several caveats. Commercial outfits need a cross link license. 4 If one is framing another site, and has advertising in the navigation frame, a license from the framed site is needed. Deep linking, which is linking to a page deep within another Web site, can cause copyright concerns. An example of an acceptable link to the Disney front page is 'www.disney.com' while a deep link at the same site is 'www.disney.com/movies/bambi/scene2/'." The criticism of deep linking is that it diverts visitors from a site's front page, and thus diminishes the site's ability to expose visitors to advertising, disclaimers or navigation appearing on the gateway page. Inline image linking, the act of placing an image at your site that resides on another host: don't even think about it.

[my emphasis]

http://www.llrx.com/features/weblink1.htm

W.F. Tomba
2005-Mar-30, 06:44 AM
Sorry, I beg to differ. There is a lot of confusion as to what constitutes "deep linking". There have been a number of court cases around the world with no real consistency as to outcome. However, the example I gave where content such as an image is directly displayed on another site is a simple and direct violation of copyright unless the image is expressly placed in the public domain. There is no debate over that and it has been fouind illegal in any jurisdiction where it has been tried in court.
I'm not sure who or what you mean to differ with. I agree with everything you have said except your earlier use of the term "deep linking" to refer to directly displaying someone else's image without permission.

Evan
2005-Mar-30, 06:58 AM
but I've always found the case for its being actionable highly dubious...

That was what I was differing with. Deep linking does also refer to displaying images inline from another site. But even when not considering that there have been a few cases including this one (http://slashdot.org/articles/02/07/05/1431249.shtml?tid=95).

It is still very much up in the air and there isn't a lot of case law as most actions have been settled out of court.

Grendl
2005-Mar-30, 12:04 PM
Back to my problem for a sec, I think they got it soved. I finally had it and told them I was going to blow my top, because they couldn't get it right. I even ended up showing them this thread hoping that maybe it would help the Director of Software Development figure out what I am trying to do. Maybe Lance scared them with the idea of FREE Image Shack.

This is what he told me:

I did some testing with phpbb, and their tags don't work with urls unless they have specific file extensions. This is a flaw in phpBB. Instead of showing the image, it's just displaying ..the image url.. in your post.

I can make some changes on our end to modify the remote loading image url, which will enable it to work with the phpBB [img] tags.

I will let you know when these changes have been made.
I have modified the url that is used for remote loading images, so that it will work with the phpBB [img] tags.

The new url's will appear in your Image Management pages, and will look something like this:

http://pub22.bravenet.com/photocenter/remote/1805537384/15E8303039.jpg
I tried fixing the images I had pasted in the "Crabs" thread Maksutov started. Last time I looked they were still showing as they should be. The thing is, I have to go into my Admin's area to get that remote code, which means the other posters on our board can't get the code. One poster keeps bugging me about this, so it means I'll have to sign in with my password and take several steps to get the code. I thought paying $20 for the remote loading capability would enable posters to right click on the image and paste.

In a way that might be a good thing, so he can't go pasting our personal pictures on other forums, but I can see him bugging me about this. I will suggest Image Shack to him, Lance, and thanks.

Thanks for your replies!

Tell me if this works below. These are sandhills cranes in our back yard in Florida, btw. The man sold the cows, I just heard, and I am terribly saddened by that news:
http://pub22.bravenet.com/photocenter/remote/1805537384/E7E3A96D85.jpg
Here's another one. The Southern bald eagles at NASA pre-hurricanes. This is NASA's picture from the eagle-cam in the tree. The nest is close to the side of the main road.
http://pub22.bravenet.com/photocenter/remote/1805537384/950A05F34B.jpg

Edited size of picture

kucharek
2005-Mar-30, 12:28 PM
Looks good to me.

Grendl
2005-Mar-30, 12:34 PM
On the issues of bandwidth and linking:

In the case of directly linking to the Brit's FREE clip art image, that was just because I didn't understand (that was over a year ago). I saved it to my computer then uploaded it to my Photo Center and he was happy, but boy he was rude. When I figured out that what I did was wrong, I emailed him and admitted it and he still chewed me out. It isn't nice to steal people's bandwidth, but the computer illiterate don't understand that until told what that means exactly. Lesson learned.

Posters on our forum direct link to photos from sites often...news sites, humor sites, etc. They shouldn't do that, but it's hard to control and for popular sites, like the ones in the Top Ten, such as CNN, I'm sure CNN doesn't care nor has the time to go chasing everyone on the web who links and pastes their photos in their forums. However, on our forum, posts are deleted once we hit a certain number. I lowered it to 1,000 just for this reason. In forums like this where the posts stay for a long time, it's not a good idea, I'm getting, to post images directly from small sites who can't afford bandwidth.

NASA and government sites, I figure, you and me pay for with our tax dollars-I don't feel guilty. However, I still save them to my PC and upload them into my Photo Center.

I don't think most sites, like CNN et al mind pictures being used in dinky little forums or photo centers--it's quite another thing, if say, the BA posted someone's picture on his web site front page. In that case, I would be angry if someone was using my photo without permission and especially no credit or link. In some cases, if you credit the photo and provide a link and use the photo tastefully, the originator is happy to oblige and get all the hits on his site.

Now, you can tell me where my thinking is all wrong. #-o

Evan
2005-Mar-30, 04:41 PM
I think you have a good handle on it now. NASA by the way places nearly all of their images in the public domain so the only consideration to using them is tying up their bandwidth if you deep link them. Even with very "fat pipes" to NASA there are a LOT of people surfing their pages, both directly and through deep links. It is best to place the image on some other server to spread the load, as you are doing.