|
Kageneko posted:I will hold you too this in 2050 when we're using 32,000 x 28,000 or some poo poo. By then we'll hopefully be able to plug into the matrix and not need low-tech poo poo like visual devices any more 
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Wiseblood posted:Is there a header or something that tells you where an image is linked to? The only way I can see this so called "automatic" banning system working is if it retrieves the HTML of every page referrer and checks that. That's not something I see someone who is no doubt paying a lot of money for bandwith doing. Yeah, he would have to download and go through each page manually. It wouldn't be impossible to do, and the only practical way would be to check only the top sites, every few hundred hits or so.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:08
|
|
|
Mayor Wilkins posted:Me. I don't mind, really. But I get to lash back. That's the deal. I'll lash you good then run away and you will have no lashing back 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:08
|
|
£
|
Macbeth posted:The reason ImageShack banned somethingawful.com and its associated IP address is because Radium started rewriting ImageShack backlinks to a different site other than ImageShack. He could have actually solved the user problem, but he decided to redirect to a different site instead of actually stripping out the URL. You might have a problem with Radium/lowtax/whatever, and thats your perogative. But remember your also loving over the general userbase of SA with this, who AREN'T radium/lowtax/whatever. I dunno man. Maybe you need to PM radium and try and work out something that works for everyone. Regardless;- http://www.stardrifter.org/refcontrol/
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:08
|
|
|
adwkiwi posted:None of it. Its repeating what Macbeth said and then saying "you're only pissed off because of that". Its a tautology at the very least. I would be pissed because pepsi is awesome and sweet, whereas coke tastes like bitter crap. oh and imageshack sucks because pics posted with imageshack dont do that nifty automatically resize thing when quoted. I'm not sure if thats part of the SALR extension, but I like it and imageshack links ruin it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:09
|
|
|
tres dessert posted:Jesus christ people does an image hosting service going down merit a 32 page forum-wide hissy fit It does when it breaks a lot of the forum.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:09
|
|
|
Mayor Wilkins posted:Me. I don't mind, really. But I get to lash back. That's the deal. Aww. That's not really fair. There's not much one can do after being hit with the banning whip. Anyways, I think someone should make another goon-run host, and actually run it professionally. None of that kth.cx bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:09
|
|
|
Mayor Wilkins posted:Me. I don't mind, really. But I get to lash back. That's the deal. You're like so fat, and you probably would taste of beetroot if simmered for 45 minutes if I was that way inclined culinary speaking.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:09
|
|
|
Macbeth posted:The reason ImageShack banned somethingawful.com and its associated IP address is because Radium started rewriting ImageShack backlinks to a different site other than ImageShack. He could have actually solved the user problem, but he decided to redirect to a different site instead of actually stripping out the URL. i dont know about anyone else but i always deleted the link to imageshack on the picture before i posted it because it was annoying as hell
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:09
|
|
|
tres dessert posted:Jesus christ people does an image hosting service going down merit a 32 page forum-wide hissy fit I think you mean a 33 page forum-wide hissy fit.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:10
|
|
|
E_Motion posted:True, but wouldn't just sending radium/Lowtax a PM or mail or whatever be the way more wise and faster thing to do at this point? Sending a private message to Radium about the URL rewriting proved to be ineffective in solving this issue before it affected such a large amount of users. quote:May 20, 2006 01:25
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:10
|
|
|
IRBMe posted:Also, will you at least admit that it wasn't a script? We've all already called you on that one... What I find so funny about all this is that he actually seems to think anyone fell for his magical script bullshit enough to actually start making demands on how things are done on this forum. Especially when you consider how much he owes his success to it. He isn't the first and certainly wont be the last image hosting service on the net. I don't see why anyone should miss it, considering this is the second time a hosting service has imploded on the forums. Macbeth posted:Sending a private message to Radium about the URL rewriting proved to be ineffective in solving this issue before it affected such a large amount of users. See guys, it's not his fault, they made him do it!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:10
|
|
|
This is getting pretty ridiculous. Let's shake hands, make up, disable the filter and use the direct link instead of the version that has the obnoxious URL tags. Everyone's a winner again.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:10
|
|
|
*mxyzptlk posted:I would be pissed because pepsi is awesome and sweet, whereas coke tastes like bitter crap. Suprisingly appropriate in the context of the analogy. Macbeth posted:words In the future, can you include a section with just the [img] tags and the image url, please? 
Professional Lamer fucked around with this message at 20:14 on May 20, 2006 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:11
|
|
|
tres dessert posted:Jesus christ people does an image hosting service going down merit a 32 page forum-wide hissy fit
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:11
|
|
|
Macbeth posted:Sending a private message to Radium about the URL rewriting proved to be ineffective in solving this issue before it affected such a large amount of users. But I... I thought it was an automatic script????
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:11
|
|
|
Hey Macbeth, can't you just let us save all of our images for a second and then be a crypto-fascist again? I mean you make enough money of of this "free service", can't you just show some kindness to the forums?  EDIT- Oh, and why don't you ban the hotlinked iamges to Myspace ad other social networking sites? A LOT of those remove your precious link codes. Chipotle fucked around with this message at 20:16 on May 20, 2006 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:12
|
|
|
tres dessert posted:Jesus christ people does an image hosting service going down merit a 32 page forum-wide hissy fit If you think it's going to stop before it hits fifty pages, you're so naive and innocent that it's just bordering on adorable. TehNSA posted:
Banning is not how I lash out. If you've never seen me put a troll in their place without pushing any probation or ban buttons, then you've been missing out on some fun, man. THEINHKO posted:You're like so fat, and you probably would taste of beetroot if simmered for 45 minutes if I was that way inclined culinary speaking. You're ugly and I had sex with your sister.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:12
|
|
|
This thread is almost spawning pages faster than I can read 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:12
|
|
|
This thread might just break the Sassmaster 4000. For a forum that seems to universally hate passive-aggressive poo poo, there seems to be enough of it here.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:13
|
|
|
igloo house posted:This is getting pretty ridiculous. Let's shake hands, make up, disable the filter and use the direct link instead of the version that has the obnoxious URL tags. Everyone's a winner again. I think it may be too late but we can keep a positive attitude nonetheless! 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:13
|
|
|
Bah, images are overrated. The wave of the future on these forums is ASCII art.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:13
|
|
|
Mayor Wilkins posted:Banning is not how I lash out. If you've never seen me put a troll in their place without pushing any probation or ban buttons, then you've been missing out on some fun, man. I'm still too afraid (and poor) to tempt fate.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:13
|
|
|
Hey Macbeth, if you're in the morally superior position, why lie earlier in the thread? I mean, you're claiming you're the good guy here, right?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:13
|
|
|
Mayor Wilkins posted:You're ugly and I had sex with your sister. You're attractive, you smell nice and damnit boy, when you walk by, my heart goes a'flutter. I can win this.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:14
|
|
|
igloo house posted:This is getting pretty ridiculous. Let's shake hands, make up, disable the filter and use the direct link instead of the version that has the obnoxious URL tags. Everyone's a winner again. The problem is that MacBeth is complaining about what SA does with the SA forums. No one should make up because he's being a bitch about what sa should/shouldn't do.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:14
|
|
|
adwkiwi posted:None of it. Its repeating what Macbeth said and then saying "you're only pissed off because of that". Its a tautology at the very least. That's a bad analogy. For a start, people use images as links all the time. There's nothing new there or wrong with it. Also as far as I can see, there isn't anything on imageshack that says "If you're using an image hosted here as a link then it must only link to imageshack!". Furthermore, imageshack itself allows you to direct link without the URL attached. What does it matter if somebody uses the direct link to the image with no URL attached or if somebody uses the direct link to the image with their own URL attached? It doesn't make any difference to imageshack, and in fact, there is no (feasible) way to tell either way (hence calling bullshit on this so called "script"). Now, I am NOT saying that this makse it ok for radium to replace all of the imageshack links with that of a competitor. What I'm saying is that Macbeth trying to claim that using an imageshack hosted image to link to anywhere other than imageshack is what got SA "automatically" banned is just bullshit. He's just using that as an excuse because he doesn't want to admit that the only reason he banned SA was because he was pissed off at what radium did. And to be fair to him, I would be pissed too, but it's still a pretty lovely thing to do - especially now that he's trying to effectively hold the images hostage or something.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:14
|
|
|
Imageshack is so gay  Doesn't he know that I'm entitled to abuse free services on the internet in any way that I see fit, even if it comes at an expense to the owner? Nutmeg posted:The problem is that MacBeth is complaining about what SA does with the SA forums. No one should make up because he's being a bitch about what sa should/shouldn't do. Maybe because it costs him money. GBS is full of hypocrites. Somebody hotlinks one of Lowtax's images from SA, we have a 500 page crusade full of people looking up houses on Google Maps. Then the tables turn and suddenly we can't host images on somebody else's dollar and it's a moral outrage. BATH TUB fucked around with this message at 20:17 on May 20, 2006 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:15
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Mr Wilkins, I dont want to bash you. Can I have a cuddle and maybe some thumb war?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:15
|
|
|
If the link was stripped altogether would that be a fair comprimise?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:15
|
|
|
How about we remove the imageshack "hotlinks" instead of changing them to a competitor to fix all the old stuff? This will apparently appease Macbeth but his bandwidth will be used and his adverts won't be seen! Then we all stop using imageshack. Everybody wins. Not that I care too much whether everybody wins or everybody loses.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:16
|
|
|
adwkiwi posted:OK, try this: surely this is as if Radium bought a Coke, ripped off the wrapper and put a Pepsi label on it. Same content, credited to a different location. Am I wrong? The way I see it, its like me using a friend's DreamHost webspace for image hosting. Except... my friend has this script that generates vbcode for me and it sticks a link to DreamHost in there.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:16
|
|
|
Nutmeg posted:The problem is that MacBeth is complaining about what SA does with the SA forums. No one should make up because he's being a bitch about what sa should/shouldn't do. It's his service. I think he has the right to say what we should/shouldn't do with it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:16
|
|
|
Kefkanigma posted:Bah, images are overrated. The wave of the future on these forums is ASCII art. Penisbird represent!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:16
|
|
|
Honestly, this whole fiasco is unfortunate, but the only thing that I really didn't understand was the promotion of Photobucket, which has a tendency to kill high-bandwidth images and isn't made for handling the kind of high traffic we see on the forums. Everything else that went on is totally understandable, radium changing the links because Macbeth abused the forums for his personal financial gain, and Macbeth trying (and I would say, miscalculating big time) to protect his business interests.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:16
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that I've only ever done straight up [ img ] url [ /img ] on the forums. In cases where the images were too big I would tag on .th just before the .jpg so in effect I would do this. [ url=http://imageshack.woohaa/goyouallincheck.jpg][ img]http://imageshack.woohaa/gotyouallincheck.th.jpg[ /img][ /url] So clicking would directly load the fullsize image and none of this php generated ad covered page. I'm really sad to see how things went down because I love both the forums and the image hosting. There are plenty other image hosters out there, but the transition sucks.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:16
|
|
|
duck monster posted:But remember your also loving over the general userbase of SA with this, who AREN'T radium/lowtax/whatever. Because the general userbase aren't in anyway being ungrateful cocks after years of free imagehosting, and ostracising him because it's the flavour of the moment mob mentality thing to do? This whole situation is hosed up. No one's coming out of it looking good, not Imageshack, not the SA staff, and not the SA community. Surely this whole thing was entirely avoidable in the first place?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:16
|
|
|
Mayor Wilkins posted:You're ugly and I had sex with your sister. You poor thing.  P.S. That image is on Random M but I made it link to Imageshack because I'm a nice guy!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:16
|
|
|
Nutmeg posted:The problem is that MacBeth is complaining about what SA does with the SA forums. No one should make up because he's being a bitch about what sa should/shouldn't do. No, he's complaining about SA messing about with his referral link for, as far as I can see, no obvious reason.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Danbo Daxter posted:In the future, can you include a section with just the [img] tags and the image url, please?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2006 20:17
|
|
