I started seeing these "unregistered domain" frog images instead of the real images.
(http://i.imgur.com/cfsnH.png)
That was just an example, that's true for all their images, even my own!
I can only see the images if I login to imageshack...
Am I the only one?
That can't be, I've seen this with 3 different computers, but no-one else is complaining...
Also googled and found this:
http://getsatisfaction.com/imageshack/topics/why_my_images_show_unregistered_domain (http://getsatisfaction.com/imageshack/topics/why_my_images_show_unregistered_domain)
This is really irritating, I've switched to use Imgur instead.
I checked out that Thread. All the images worked properly on my end.
Domino
Quote from: Domino on Sat 05/03/2011 14:47:56
I checked out that Thread. All the images worked properly on my end.
Domino
Maybe because you are registered (as shown in the pic)?
Edit:
Sorry, read the text from the link too late. But I have no problems (till now) and most of all: I don't have a domain.
So let's say: Please ignore my post - and sorry again.
I don't know what's going on with Imageshack, but just in case I reuploaded the images on the Roadworks thread to a different place. Hope you see them now.
I'm too lazy to dig up the information atm, but I've googled for the cause of it a few days ago (as it happens to me also).
It is because imgshack recently changed their terms (probably because too many sites linked to their hosted images).
For images from imgshack to appear on another site, either:
1. the domain of that site have to apply for permission or something, then everyone browsing the site can view the images as before; or
2. if the domain has not applied for this, people who have registered an imgshack account (and have their accounted logged in) can view the images, but if you don't have an imgshack account (like me) the images will be broken like what tzachs has posted.
Does that mean people can't see the images in my signature? I can see them and I don't think I'm signed into imageshack right now...
It's not been a problem for me. I know they recently removed direct linking if you haven't signed up... lucky for me I have a nifty work around ;)
(which I won't post here because if imageshack found out they'd do something about it D:)
Quote from: Ali on Sat 05/03/2011 16:40:25
Does that mean people can't see the images in my signature? I can see them and I don't think I'm signed into imageshack right now...
Exactly, I have this problem too and I can't see your signature or your avatar or anything in imageshack. :-\
Quote from: Ali on Sat 05/03/2011 16:40:25
Does that mean people can't see the images in my signature? I can see them and I don't think I'm signed into imageshack right now...
I am registered (but not logged in) and I can see your images in your Signature.
Quote from: Ali on Sat 05/03/2011 16:40:25
Does that mean people can't see the images in my signature? I can see them and I don't think I'm signed into imageshack right now...
I see your images and I'm not registered. I haven't encountered any problems with imageshack recently.
Quote from: Atelier on Sat 05/03/2011 16:43:49
lucky for me I have a nifty work around ;)
Me too, it's quite easy really :)
What I recently discovered is they don't let you copy the direct link anymore unless you sign in; of course you can easily work around that, too.
For images supposed to be available "forever" I use my photobucket account anyway.
I do have to question why direct linking is considered "bad". The only thing I can think of is that direct linking removes the requisite of associating the image with ImageShack (or whatever other image host). If having images hosted on your site being directly associated therewith, why not simply add, for example, like a 10px border at the bottom that says something like "Hosted by: ImageShack.us"? I honestly doubt that people would object to something that non-invasive if it meant free hosting (without the asterisk indicating stipulations).
Anything above and beyond direct linking actually causes a higher amount of bandwidth to be consumed simply because more data has to be processed for a script to read and then rerepresent the images, so that logically cannot possibly be the issue.
If you want to offer free image hosting, I would say that you should offer free image hosting. Let people do with the images what they will.
Quote from: Khris on Sun 06/03/2011 02:28:26
What I recently discovered is they don't let you copy the direct link anymore unless you sign in; of course you can easily work around that, too.
For images supposed to be available "forever" I use my photobucket account anyway.
To save me having to re-upload images, would anyone mind PMing me this workaround?
Just right-click the image and "Copy link image location". You might have to copy-paste the link from the first box into the address bar first.
Shouldn't that be "Copy image location"? If it were a direct link to the image..then you could just follow the link and get the URL that way..
I use a different method. You can see it just by looking at the source code for the webpage.
Quote from: gameboy on Sat 05/03/2011 15:18:16
I don't know what's going on with Imageshack, but just in case I reuploaded the images on the Roadworks thread to a different place. Hope you see them now.
Thank you Gameboy, i saw them earlier and they're looking really good. Now I see them as red 'x's for some reason, might be just a problem with my current computer, though..
Quote from: Iceboty V7000a on Sat 05/03/2011 16:19:47
For images from imgshack to appear on another site, either:
1. the domain of that site have to apply for permission or something, then everyone browsing the site can view the images as before; or
2. if the domain has not applied for this, people who have registered an imgshack account (and have their accounted logged in) can view the images, but if you don't have an imgshack account (like me) the images will be broken like what tzachs has posted.
I've read that too, but that still doesn't explain why it works for some people who's not registered.
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sun 06/03/2011 04:50:03
I do have to question why direct linking is considered "bad". The only thing I can think of is that direct linking removes the requisite of associating the image with ImageShack (or whatever other image host). If having images hosted on your site being directly associated therewith, why not simply add, for example, like a 10px border at the bottom that says something like "Hosted by: ImageShack.us"? I honestly doubt that people would object to something that non-invasive if it meant free hosting (without the asterisk indicating stipulations).
From what I've read, it's because they want you to go to their site so that they'll get more money from ads, so "Hosted by ImageShack" label won't help them...
Quote from: Ali on Sun 06/03/2011 18:01:55
To save me having to re-upload images, would anyone mind PMing me this workaround?
If I understand correctly, this trick won't really help, Ali, it's a workaround so that you can use the direct link in new uploaded photos.
Both Atelier's and Matti's signatures are still frog images, just like yours (and Khris's ok but he's using PhotoBucket)...
Who uses slow, ad-ridden piece of trash imageshack anyway nowadays? Imgur is where the party's at. Also, it's kind of incorporated with new cool IM client Digsby.
http://www.imgur.com
Thanks for the advice guys! I guess I'm registering with photobucket or imgur...
Yeah, imgur is much better.
Ive been using imageshack for years, I always found it to be the easiest uploading service without having to register. However, Ive been noticing during the past year or so that they too are pushing more and more to having you register. And now you cant insert the image urls anymore without the imageshack link embedded. Though you can still take that code and cut off that part. I dont mind giving credit to imageshack but Im afraid that soon there wont be a free service anymore.