5 ms·

What's the added value of using imgur's embed code rather than a good ol' <img>? Is this a trend? I would understand it for albums, but why would you do it for

What's the added value of using imgur's embed code rather than a good ol' <img>? Is this a trend? I would understand it for albums, but why would you do it for individual images? </rant>

nomel 10y ago
Direct links are against imgurs TOS (http://imgur.com/tos http://imgur.com/tos): "Also, don't use Imgur to host image libraries you link to from elsewhere, content for your website, advertising, avatars, or anything else that turns us into your content delivery network."
- slig 10y ago
  Funny how not long ago that was one of their selling point.
  - bpodgursky 10y ago
    Yeah, but then massive gifs became a thing.
    - mavhc 10y ago
      but then serving animated gifs as mp4 became a thing. Of course then using it as a video host became a thing
  - skeletonjelly 10y ago
    Seems as though they don't want to be a CDN, not that they don't want direct linking from forum users? Anyway I went for a dig through Alan's old reddit posts because I thought I recalled him saying he's fine with direct links https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/y81ju/i_created_imgur_ama/c6smgqm?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/y81ju/i_created_imgur... > Nothing has changed in regards to direct linking. I'm not sure what you're seeing exactly, but we'll always allow you to direct link to any image you want. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/y81ju/i_created_imgur_ama/c5t921v?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/y81ju/i_created_imgur... > Yes, but you can also look at it as a marketing budget. When people share links, direct or not, the other person now knows about Imgur. https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/ea4vi/for_the_beginner_imgur_user/c16jtkp?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/ea4vi/for_the_beginne... > People linking to the page rather than the image is what keeps imgur going. If everyone linked to the direct image then imgur would have no source of revenue. However, I want people to use the service however they want, and by no means would I ever force anyone to do it one certain way. So, I like it when people link to the page because that's how imgur makes money, but you don't have to do it if you don't want to. I'm just happy that you like the service.
- hatsunearu 10y ago
  Well, sorry to say but website owners should start opening their wallets and host their own images to protect the free web.
  - derefr 10y ago
    The people who most want hotlink-embedding are precisely the people who don't "own" a website, but rather are posting content on someone else's services (forums, blog hosts, etc.) that allow semi-arbitrary HTML embedding (so you can write an <img> tag) but don't support attachment uploading or auto-rehosting.
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  > Also, don't use Imgur to host image libraries you link to from elsewhere, what can that possibly mean? there's no way to use imgur at all without linking to it from elsewhere, except if you visit imgur.com as a destination site (which is fine, but not how imgur has been promoting itself for years) The rest of the sentence means that <a href="http://imgur.com/foo.jpg" http://imgur.com/foo.jpg" >linking to imgur image</a> is fine but don't directly hotlink <img src="http://imgur.com/foo.jpg http://imgur.com/foo.jpg "> on your site.
zeveb 10y ago
> What's the added value of using imgur's embed code rather than a good ol' <img>? Well, you can shaft users who browse without JavaScript turned on and help destroy the Web, all in one fell swoop! I particularly hate how imgur requires JavaScript to use. We have had images in HTML for over twenty years now, and for some reason imgur has decided that they are above all that.
- EatonZ 10y ago
  Definitely not my intention. )-: Embeds will be gone soon.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    No worries — I don't blame you personally. FWIW, I loved the article. But it does sadden me to see the once-promising Web turned into what it has.
- skeletonjelly 10y ago
  They could easily write a <noscript> section but probably don't to reduce bandwidth. Anyway they use React pretty heavily which is why they "need" JS support
EatonZ 10y ago
Hey guys, author here. I used the embed code because some of the images are large and WordPress wasn't resizing them correctly for some reason. I also was unaware of the policy in Imgur's ToS. I will look into these issues and update the article accordingly.
- lucb1e 10y ago
  Well it might or might not be against the ToS. I personally just think it's bad practice to use resources you don't have to. People just want to share a funny picture and that's okay. But if you already own web space somewhere, use it and pay those extra few cents (if anything) to host your own images.

What's the added value of using imgur's embed code rather than a good ol' <img>? Is this a trend? I would understand it for albums, but why would you do it for individual images? </rant>

nomel 10y ago

Direct links are against imgurs TOS (http://imgur.com/tos http://imgur.com/tos): "Also, don't use Imgur to host image libraries you link to from elsewhere, content for your website, advertising, avatars, or anything else that turns us into your content delivery network."

slig 10y ago
Funny how not long ago that was one of their selling point.
- bpodgursky 10y ago
  Yeah, but then massive gifs became a thing.
  - mavhc 10y ago
    but then serving animated gifs as mp4 became a thing. Of course then using it as a video host became a thing
- skeletonjelly 10y ago
  Seems as though they don't want to be a CDN, not that they don't want direct linking from forum users? Anyway I went for a dig through Alan's old reddit posts because I thought I recalled him saying he's fine with direct links https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/y81ju/i_created_imgur_ama/c6smgqm?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/y81ju/i_created_imgur... > Nothing has changed in regards to direct linking. I'm not sure what you're seeing exactly, but we'll always allow you to direct link to any image you want. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/y81ju/i_created_imgur_ama/c5t921v?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/y81ju/i_created_imgur... > Yes, but you can also look at it as a marketing budget. When people share links, direct or not, the other person now knows about Imgur. https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/ea4vi/for_the_beginner_imgur_user/c16jtkp?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/ea4vi/for_the_beginne... > People linking to the page rather than the image is what keeps imgur going. If everyone linked to the direct image then imgur would have no source of revenue. However, I want people to use the service however they want, and by no means would I ever force anyone to do it one certain way. So, I like it when people link to the page because that's how imgur makes money, but you don't have to do it if you don't want to. I'm just happy that you like the service.
hatsunearu 10y ago
Well, sorry to say but website owners should start opening their wallets and host their own images to protect the free web.
- derefr 10y ago
  The people who most want hotlink-embedding are precisely the people who don't "own" a website, but rather are posting content on someone else's services (forums, blog hosts, etc.) that allow semi-arbitrary HTML embedding (so you can write an <img> tag) but don't support attachment uploading or auto-rehosting.
srtjstjsj 10y ago
> Also, don't use Imgur to host image libraries you link to from elsewhere, what can that possibly mean? there's no way to use imgur at all without linking to it from elsewhere, except if you visit imgur.com as a destination site (which is fine, but not how imgur has been promoting itself for years) The rest of the sentence means that <a href="http://imgur.com/foo.jpg" http://imgur.com/foo.jpg" >linking to imgur image</a> is fine but don't directly hotlink <img src="http://imgur.com/foo.jpg http://imgur.com/foo.jpg "> on your site.

zeveb 10y ago

> What's the added value of using imgur's embed code rather than a good ol' <img>? Well, you can shaft users who browse without JavaScript turned on and help destroy the Web, all in one fell swoop! I particularly hate how imgur requires JavaScript to use. We have had images in HTML for over twenty years now, and for some reason imgur has decided that they are above all that.

EatonZ 10y ago
Definitely not my intention. )-: Embeds will be gone soon.
- zeveb 10y ago
  No worries — I don't blame you personally. FWIW, I loved the article. But it does sadden me to see the once-promising Web turned into what it has.
skeletonjelly 10y ago
They could easily write a <noscript> section but probably don't to reduce bandwidth. Anyway they use React pretty heavily which is why they "need" JS support

EatonZ 10y ago

Hey guys, author here. I used the embed code because some of the images are large and WordPress wasn't resizing them correctly for some reason. I also was unaware of the policy in Imgur's ToS. I will look into these issues and update the article accordingly.

lucb1e 10y ago
Well it might or might not be against the ToS. I personally just think it's bad practice to use resources you don't have to. People just want to share a funny picture and that's okay. But if you already own web space somewhere, use it and pay those extra few cents (if anything) to host your own images.