12-04-2002, 02:10 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
If You're a Webmaster, Read This
Since we've been going through server hell lately, I started looking into the details of how the server is being used, where the traffic is coming from, etc. One of the things I noticed is that there are certain Web sites out there who have been linking directly to images off our server - and not linking to our stories either. I want to give them a chance to remove the links before I do anything further (like name them publicly - or worse :twisted , but on Sunday alone this site accessed two JPEG photos we have on our server 10,000+ times in total. That's just one day, and it went even higher on Monday. :?
There are a few dozen smaller sites that also link to our images, but the accesses are all under 100 hits per day so it's not a large burden on our server, and most link back to us in some way (though not all). Most of the larger sites that do this link to our images or photos, and write their own text.
I admit it - when I first started Pocket PC Thoughts, I did the same thing fairly often with software & hardware. It was easier and faster for me to link to someone else's image, and I figured "Hey, I'm a small site, they won't notice right?". As the site grew in popularity, and I was faced with increasingly high bandwidth and hosting bills, I quickly realized that it was irresponsible for me to link directly to images on smaller sites. By linking to their images, even if we were linking to their stories or articles, we were potentially putting them in a bad position due to bandwidth draws.
Today we copy images over to our server 99% of the time - the exception would be screen shots from Handango Pocket PC applications or the occasional photo from a CNET article. We're not perfect, but we try to avoid linking whenever possible.
If you're a Webmaster, take a hard look at your linking policy - even if you think you're causing no harm, you just might be.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-04-2002, 02:39 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 139
|
|
A quick work around for this type of stuff is to use apache mod rewrite to serve "not allowed" images to anyone viewing your images from a page that isn�t offering a valid referrer (i.e. pocketpcthoughts.com)
I only used this method when hosting "exclusive" or otherwise high quality photos that not everyone had access to from the source, and would be target of bandwidth leeches. I'd put these photos in an "exclusive" directory so I didn't have to re-write my .htaccess rules each time got new photos that I didn't want to have leeched.
The only problem I found with this method was that those paranoid people who block referrers (I admit, I was one once myself) will get the "not allowed" image instead of the real image since they are not providing a valid referring URL for it.
__________________
Wes SalmonSoftware Test EngineerMicrosoft Mobile and Embedded Devices
|
| |
|
|
|
12-04-2002, 03:05 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,043
|
|
Aside from the obvious rudeness of image linking without even credit posted, there's also the reliability issue. For example, if anyone accessed one of these 'pirate' pages while your server was down any number of times in the past couple of days, their viewers wouldn't be seeing anything but perhaps placeholders. That's bad business. I think it's just wise as a general practice to host 100% of your images and files. That way, no one will be disappointed, unless your whole site crashes... in which case they won't notice just one or two images missing anyway. And it pleases the controlling aspect of my personality.
__________________
Gerard Ivan Samija
|
| |
|
|
|
12-04-2002, 03:34 AM
|
|
|
12-04-2002, 04:16 AM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 416
|
|
I have more than once linked images from other web sites, I do tend to give credit as to where I got them from. I had not thought of this as a problem for the website from which I filched the image from. I'd say some of the image links may not be the fault of the sysop, but may be as the result of some of the user posts.
Is it possible to dump article(user or sysop loaded) images after a certain period of time? Maybe replace with a 5k placeholder(or even a reduced detailed version of the same image).
Image size: 75k last week, 50k this week, 25k the week after, 13k later on.
Edward
|
| |
|
|
|
12-04-2002, 04:29 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wes Salmon
A quick work around for this type of stuff is to use apache mod rewrite to serve "not allowed" images to anyone viewing your images from a page that isn�t offering a valid referrer (i.e. pocketpcthoughts.com)
|
We've considered that, only problem is that it uses CPU resources, and we're stretched a little thin at the moment...we might try it in the future if the other sites don't relent.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-04-2002, 04:31 AM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 381
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul P
|
hmm, off topic, but what is that iPaq shown? It seems like it was modified to had a cellular technology, is that right? I've never seen it before...
|
| |
|
|
|
12-04-2002, 04:36 AM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5
|
|
Images can eat up a great amount of bandwidth. When I did the Veggietales review, each image was only 20k, but so many people looked at the review that the server was processing 6 Gigs of data per day. 8O
So now we have to limit the number of images per review.
-Geoffrey
Pocket PC Life Review
|
| |
|
|
|
12-04-2002, 05:33 AM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 300
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by heov
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paul P
|
hmm, off topic, but what is that iPaq shown? It seems like it was modified to had a cellular technology, is that right? I've never seen it before... |
Not exactly sure what modifications were made to that iPaq, but I am sure that the person who did it knows his stuff.
(Sorry, I didn't mean to derail the thread with my post...I was hoping someone could shed light on how address locations of those images on the server were hidden)
|
| |
|
|
|
12-04-2002, 06:45 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 53
|
|
linking ain't us....
I believe that image linking is pretty low, if done as a normal course of business. I'm a pretty small site so far, so not a big problem, but I am trying to link nothing...even Handango screen shots. The best thing I saw someone do for this was on eBay where image linking is rampant. The guy that was having his images linked found out and changed the image to something incredibly embarrassing. When you went to the eBay auction site, all the guys images said something like "Don't buy from this guy, he's a thief and is stealing my images!!!". That was superimposed on all the images... pretty funny. Basically, if you are linked, then someone could embarrass you pretty badly. Just a thought... if you wanted an easy way to properly teach a lesson.
The other thing to keep in mind, and I'm sure it's happening on my site, is that when people post messages, if html is enabled, then they can link like crazy, and probably will. I don't know how you control that, except to hope that those threads don't get hit too badly. What I'm doing is having the moderators grab the images and edit the post to correct it... but we are small. You'd have a hard time doing that....
:roll:
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
