# attachments



## timpeac

Hi

Can you see the attachment in this post?

http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=441746&postcount=13

It is meant to be a picture of a guitarist, not a "hoted by" icon.

If you can't, can you see what I have done wrong?

I was hoping to make it come out as a picture rather than a link anyway, but couldn't seem to make it work.

If I right click on the link and chose properties, and copy and paste the URL into a browser the picture comes up fine.


----------



## alc112

HI!!
I clicked on your link and see the image you describe. Maybe the image was deleted by the owner of the page you took it.
I do the same, right click and properties.
I suggest you  for the next time to save the image on your pc and the upload it with imageshack or other similar page.


----------



## timpeac

alc112 said:
			
		

> HI!!
> I clicked on your link and see the image you describe. Maybe the image was deleted by the owner of the page you took it.
> I do the same, right click and properties.
> I suggest you for the next time to save the image on your pc and the upload it with imageshack or other similar page.


 
I don't understand what you mean alc - do you see the guitarist? The picture is still there and the link still points there if you copy and paste into a browser. I don't want to upload it and use up my upload allowance as it is such a big file.

Incidentally I tried editing an old post of mine, just copying and posting the image, and it appears fine. When I try that in a new post no image, just a link, appears and when you click on that link you don't see the guitarist but just the logo saying "hosted by tripod".


----------



## lauranazario

Let me try, timpeac...







Smiling man...

 the Lord of Cupertino


----------



## alc112

YOu ar eright. I copied the link and I could see the picture!
Anyway, I  uploaded the picture for you: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



http://xs52.xs.to/pics/05430/untitled143543.jpg
Cheers

PD: ¿desde cuándo podemos postear imagenes como antes?


----------



## timpeac

Ahh interesting, yes I can do it too with your picture. Look at the address in properties of your picture - it is different to that of my first one (not the one below which is a copy of yours). Why is that?


----------



## timpeac

I tried to copy and paste the above in the original thread, but now I am not getting an image, just a link. Where am I going wrong?


----------



## Jana337

Tim, an icon of tripod appeared on my screen.

Jana


----------



## Jana337

timpeac said:
			
		

> I tried to copy and paste the above in the original thread, but now I am not getting an image, just a link. Where am I going wrong?


 Images are not allowed outside CS (or am I missing anything?).

Jana


----------



## timpeac

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Tim, an icon of tripod appeared on my screen.
> 
> Jana


 
Yes, but why - if you go and look at the address of the link in properties and copy and paste into your browser, I think you´ll get the picture of the guitarist.


----------



## Jana337

timpeac said:
			
		

> Yes, but why - if you go and look at the address of the link in properties and copy and paste into your browser, I think you´ll get the picture of the guitarist.


Sorry, you are right - I misread your first post.

Jana


----------



## Rayines

Sorry: just a question: is it possible to send images in the messages now?


----------



## alc112

Rayines said:
			
		

> Sorry: just a question: is it possible to send images in the messages now?


As far as I know, you just can send images on you private messages. Or the link.


----------



## duder

timpeac said:
			
		

> H
> If I right click on the link and chose properties, and copy and paste the URL into a browser the picture comes up fine.



A lot of times websites can prohibit remote linking of images or other content. This means that if you click on a link from somewhere off-site, you will not be able to access the image/page/whatever, whereas if you simply copy and paste the url into your browser, it will show up because doing this will not reveal any record of where you got the link from.

I'm not sure what you tried to do originally, but a lot of times people don't like remote linking of images because it wastes the bandwidth of the original host unless you download the image and host it somewhere else. Some webmasters go so far as to replace pictures that have been posted to forums and things (keeping the original file name) with humorous or offensive material, just to play dirty tricks on the people who are using them without permission or eating up their bandwidth.

Again, I'm not sure if this applies at all to your case but it might be useful information and perhaps I answered a question somewhere in there.


----------



## Rayines

> Again, I'm not sure if this applies at all to your case but it might be useful information and perhaps I answered a question somewhere in there.


*Good day Duder  : My question was simply because there was a time in WR when images couldn't be placed (I think it was only accepted, and for a while, for the celebration of the first year). That's why I asked it because I saw the photos now. By all means, I tried to send one in a P. M., and didn't succeed. Not important, just to know....*


----------



## timpeac

duder said:
			
		

> A lot of times websites can prohibit remote linking of images or other content. This means that if you click on a link from somewhere off-site, you will not be able to access the image/page/whatever, whereas if you simply copy and paste the url into your browser, it will show up because doing this will not reveal any record of where you got the link from.
> 
> I'm not sure what you tried to do originally, but a lot of times people don't like remote linking of images because it wastes the bandwidth of the original host unless you download the image and host it somewhere else. Some webmasters go so far as to replace pictures that have been posted to forums and things (keeping the original file name) with humorous or offensive material, just to play dirty tricks on the people who are using them without permission or eating up their bandwidth.
> 
> Again, I'm not sure if this applies at all to your case but it might be useful information and perhaps I answered a question somewhere in there.


 
Sounds very probable. Thanks for that.


----------

