Some members might not be aware that directly linking to images on other web sites is not acceptable without permission of the site owners. It is possible for them to discover where the links into their pages are coming from and if they have not given permission for the link, FunTrivia can incur complaints. Not only that but FunTrivia wishes to present exemplary behaviour on the Internet.

In view of this, members are asked to read the avatar guidelines posted at the top of this forum to determine if any Internet etiquettes are being broken. If it appears that they are, the link to the image/avatar should be removed. Alternative methods of display are suggested in the guidelines.

Your prompt co-operation in this matter would be greatly appreciated. FunTrivia hopes you will understand that action must be taken by Admin to prevent unauthorised direct linking to images on other sites.

Tellywellies - Does this mean that you can't refer or direct to another web site in an answer?

I think that I can answer that one. The problem that tellywellies is referring to is when people post a link to someone else's site in order to show an image by their name - like your little man. If your little man was on a site of graphics and you linked direct to that site instead of copying the image to your own webspace, then we would have a problem.

Some websites invite you to use their gifs but they do not want you to use their bandwidth, they have to pay for it. It might sound as if the money is insignificant but multiply that by thousands of people and it mounts up.

It is also necessary to check that the image is not subject to copyright, I know that one site I checked on more or less said that it was using the images on its site without permission, it asked not to be sued!

In the past FT has received complaints about images being pirated, it is not fair on the owner of the site to have to apologise for what the members of this site have done.

Silverginger made an offer to members of FT, he said that he has ample webspace and was willing to host avatars for members so there is no reason for members to link direct to sites when they shouldn't.

You can certainly post a clickable link, that is not a problem unless it is only to an image, then sometimes the host of the image will block the link - Tripod springs to mind. Most sites are happy for you to link to their pages, it gives them more traffic.

Thanks Sue - That's what I thought Tellywellies meant but it was a little ambiguous/misleading. Like you I'm sure the site will welcome any reference to visit them.

This is a slightly different issue to directly linking to images but my understanding of linking to other pages is this.

Although some sites can object to you placing a link to them, 99% aren’t going to mind since that’s what the web is all about. I’ve got a web site and I’m only too happy if other sites want to place a link to it. I’m pretty sure that most site owners may feel the same. If a site does object, all that is likely to happen is that they ask you to remove the link. Should that be the case I think you have seven days before they can take firmer steps to get you to remove it.

However, some sites may object more strongly to what is known as ‘deep linking’. This is where a link bypasses the homepage and links to a page somewhere within the site. The objection arises because the link does not display the site as a whole as was intended by its creator. Also, advertising on the homepage supports many sites and deep linking may bypass this.

I know of cases where people have placed deep links to other people’s sites and have subsequently been asked to remove them.

So, strictly speaking, you should only really link to a site’s homepage. If you want to refer to a page within that site then give instructions on how to reach it from there.

*EDIT* There's quite a bit of controversy over deep linking to web pages. Some law suites as well. Type 'deep linking' into a search engine for more comprehensive reading. Perhaps if not desiring to be part of the controversy it is perhaps best to link to homepages only ...unless anyone reads differently somewhere.

I have a question about images. I also, was unaware of the direct link thing, so I uploaded all my images to villagephotos. Now--TW, I don't know if you use this site or not, but it seems that I'm always over the allowed bandwidth. It allows for 25 images or so, and I only have 10. I don't understand, and I don't know whether you can answer why it's doing this or not, but I figured it was worth a try.
Thanks,
Drac

My name isn't tellywellies and this is only a guess but it MIGHT be the amount of traffic from Funrivia, every time someone reads a thread in which you have posted it links into that site, they presumably assume that you will only look at the photos from time to time and not many times each day. I could be way off-beam but that seems a possible explanation to me.

I don't use villagephotos personally but I would think the problem is something to do with how many times the images are viewed from other sites and what the file sizes of the images are. If you go to the villagephotos help page there's a section explaining why they limit bandwidth usage (entitled 'Why do you have bandwidth limits').

If you think that you are not exceeding the bandwidth allowed perhaps it might be worth getting in touch with them and asking them why they think you are.

*EDIT* Do you just link to one image at a time or are the other images also being linked to from various places?

Personnally I removed the pic I got on the net. I just don't want too much trouble, I lack the time to argue about it anyway.

I have roughly 4 images being used simultaneously. I guess that's why!

One thing that can be done to reduce bandwidth usage is to keep the file sizes of your images to a minimum. A paint or photo editing program can be used for this purpose before uploading the image for display on the Internet.

For instance, The Dracula image displayed at present has a true size of 159x200 pixels (pixels are the small squares of an image that go to make up the entire image). If you were to print it, the print size would be about 2.2 inches x 2.7 inches.

As talked about in the avatar guidelines, the space designed into the FT page for avatar display is 80 x 80 pixels. Therefore, images above this physical size get squashed up to fit into it.

Dracula’s photo height size is greater than its width but this makes no difference to the FT page. Because both height and width are above 80 pixels, it compresses the avatar into the 80 x 80 square hole the best it can. This is why the character looks as though he needs to diet a little. If the image width were greater than the height it would have the opposite effect of making him look rather thin.

The answer is to reduce the greatest dimension of the image (in this case the height) down to 80 pixels. The width will automatically adjust to keep the image in proportion. Not only would this make the image look better but it would also reduce the file size by half. The smaller file size would mean less bandwidth usage.

I'll give that a try and see if I can't get Bela to look normal! Thanks for the help, TW.