Clicking image which leads to URL seems busted
09-02-21, 10:41 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 5,085
Bikes: many
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1442 Post(s)
Liked 1,388 Times
in
758 Posts
Clicking image which leads to URL seems busted
I keep my bike photos in Flickr and use its sharing tool to generate a bit of BBCODE I can insert in my posts. For instance, this BBCODE (with extra spaces to prevent interpretation of the BBCODE)
[ url=https://flic.kr/p/2mkMMAV ][ img ]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51419774773_dc200c1aac_w.jpg[ /img ][ /url ]
yields this picture
The only problem is that sometimes (but perhaps not all the time???) clicking the image doesn't take the user to Flickr. Case in point is this post from the classic-vintage-sales subforum. When I click any of the images, I'm shown the image as it apparently exists in the BF system. If I hover over an image, however, it shows me the correct Flickr URL. I can right press over the image and ask my browser to open it in a new tab. What the heck is going on? (FWIW, I'm using
Here's the weird thing though. Previewing this post, clicking the image works properly. I am taken to the relevant page on Flickr.
I'm running Brave 1.28.105 on XUbuntu 20.04. I see that Brave can be updated. Will post this then try the new version and report back, just in case a serious bug is fixed.
[ url=https://flic.kr/p/2mkMMAV ][ img ]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51419774773_dc200c1aac_w.jpg[ /img ][ /url ]
yields this picture
The only problem is that sometimes (but perhaps not all the time???) clicking the image doesn't take the user to Flickr. Case in point is this post from the classic-vintage-sales subforum. When I click any of the images, I'm shown the image as it apparently exists in the BF system. If I hover over an image, however, it shows me the correct Flickr URL. I can right press over the image and ask my browser to open it in a new tab. What the heck is going on? (FWIW, I'm using
Here's the weird thing though. Previewing this post, clicking the image works properly. I am taken to the relevant page on Flickr.
I'm running Brave 1.28.105 on XUbuntu 20.04. I see that Brave can be updated. Will post this then try the new version and report back, just in case a serious bug is fixed.
09-02-21, 10:45 AM
#2
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 5,085
Bikes: many
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1442 Post(s)
Liked 1,388 Times
in
758 Posts
Okay, I updated to the latest version of Brave, 1.29.76. No change. In fact, now that post #1 of this thread is live, I get the same problem was in my example post on classic-vintage-sales.
09-03-21, 09:18 AM
#3
Administrator
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked 224 Times
in
146 Posts
The reason for the file uploader is to prevent issues like this. Basically we have it so that we don't have to rely on other sites that may change their hosting policies at a moment's notice. This happened with Photobucket and hundreds of photos on the site were lost.
So it sounds you're trying to use the old method of Bike Forums' photo display, but we're on the new system.
You can post a link to your Flickr album if you want, but we encourage you to just use the BF file uploader (the little image of the mountains and sun in your text editor ribbon)
So it sounds you're trying to use the old method of Bike Forums' photo display, but we're on the new system.
You can post a link to your Flickr album if you want, but we encourage you to just use the BF file uploader (the little image of the mountains and sun in your text editor ribbon)
09-03-21, 10:04 AM
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 5,085
Bikes: many
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1442 Post(s)
Liked 1,388 Times
in
758 Posts
Are you suggesting that wrapping [ url ] tags around an uploaded image is supposed work differently than for an image hosted elsewhere? I *do* want people to be able to click the image and go to Flickr so they can view a higher resolution version of the image should they choose to.
Looking at the generated HTML for the image, the <a> and <img> tags look correct. I can't see how the src of the <img> should matter. Does the BF BBCODE-to-HTML generator change the class of the <img> depending on the image source?
Regarding this:
I think the horse left the barn long ago on that one. While Photobucket was actively giving everyone the middle finger for a while, lots of other places to host images have gone belly up or have never been in the business of hosting images indefinitely. Perhaps you should add a checkbox to peoples' settings so they can make a one-time confirmation that it is okay for BF to sideload images sourced elsewhere. eBay does that (upload from your computer or from a URL). For instance, here's a reference to an eBay image which is long gone. The post isn't actually all that old (2015) and last time I checked, eBay was still a viable company.
https://www.bikeforums.net/17518323-post78.html
And their policies about what they do with images are (operationally, at least) pretty apparent. After several months, you can no longer view completed listings or the images they contained. I think it's always been that way.
Looking at the generated HTML for the image, the <a> and <img> tags look correct. I can't see how the src of the <img> should matter. Does the BF BBCODE-to-HTML generator change the class of the <img> depending on the image source?
Regarding this:
Basically we have it so that we don't have to rely on other sites that may change their hosting policies at a moment's notice. This happened with Photobucket and hundreds of photos on the site were lost.
I think the horse left the barn long ago on that one. While Photobucket was actively giving everyone the middle finger for a while, lots of other places to host images have gone belly up or have never been in the business of hosting images indefinitely. Perhaps you should add a checkbox to peoples' settings so they can make a one-time confirmation that it is okay for BF to sideload images sourced elsewhere. eBay does that (upload from your computer or from a URL). For instance, here's a reference to an eBay image which is long gone. The post isn't actually all that old (2015) and last time I checked, eBay was still a viable company.
https://www.bikeforums.net/17518323-post78.html
And their policies about what they do with images are (operationally, at least) pretty apparent. After several months, you can no longer view completed listings or the images they contained. I think it's always been that way.
09-03-21, 10:33 AM
#5
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,953
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6178 Post(s)
Liked 4,796 Times
in
3,308 Posts
When linking pic's, I usually have less issues if I right click on the image and select "open image in new tab" then drag the image or use that URL.
It's not fool proof, but works most often when other things don't.
It's not fool proof, but works most often when other things don't.
09-07-21, 02:26 PM
#6
Administrator
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked 224 Times
in
146 Posts
Are you suggesting that wrapping [ url ] tags around an uploaded image is supposed work differently than for an image hosted elsewhere? I *do* want people to be able to click the image and go to Flickr so they can view a higher resolution version of the image should they choose to.
Looking at the generated HTML for the image, the <a> and <img> tags look correct. I can't see how the src of the <img> should matter. Does the BF BBCODE-to-HTML generator change the class of the <img> depending on the image source?
Regarding this:
I think the horse left the barn long ago on that one. While Photobucket was actively giving everyone the middle finger for a while, lots of other places to host images have gone belly up or have never been in the business of hosting images indefinitely. Perhaps you should add a checkbox to peoples' settings so they can make a one-time confirmation that it is okay for BF to sideload images sourced elsewhere. eBay does that (upload from your computer or from a URL). For instance, here's a reference to an eBay image which is long gone. The post isn't actually all that old (2015) and last time I checked, eBay was still a viable company.
https://www.bikeforums.net/17518323-post78.html
And their policies about what they do with images are (operationally, at least) pretty apparent. After several months, you can no longer view completed listings or the images they contained. I think it's always been that way.
Looking at the generated HTML for the image, the <a> and <img> tags look correct. I can't see how the src of the <img> should matter. Does the BF BBCODE-to-HTML generator change the class of the <img> depending on the image source?
Regarding this:
I think the horse left the barn long ago on that one. While Photobucket was actively giving everyone the middle finger for a while, lots of other places to host images have gone belly up or have never been in the business of hosting images indefinitely. Perhaps you should add a checkbox to peoples' settings so they can make a one-time confirmation that it is okay for BF to sideload images sourced elsewhere. eBay does that (upload from your computer or from a URL). For instance, here's a reference to an eBay image which is long gone. The post isn't actually all that old (2015) and last time I checked, eBay was still a viable company.
https://www.bikeforums.net/17518323-post78.html
And their policies about what they do with images are (operationally, at least) pretty apparent. After several months, you can no longer view completed listings or the images they contained. I think it's always been that way.
We do not allow any HTML in posts. Everything requires BB Code
