PHOTOBUCKET DILEMMA

[Retsel_imp]

[url=http://s1168.photobucket.com/user/lester9/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2015-12-03%2016.19.45_zpsainbg1ux.jpg.html]

Just trying this using photo bucket.

Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk
Works! Thanks for all the instructions / advice!

Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk

[curlyjoe]

I don't use photobucket, but are you all pasting the direct link code into the "insert image" option on the forum (where it requests the Image URL)? That should work.

Here's one of nvbobr images using photobucket direct link code and using the "insert image" on the forum.

Curlyjoe,

Where the photobucket share options are

Email & IM
Direct
HTML
IMG

I have always just copied the IMG code into the body of my posts.

Curlyjoe,

Where the photobucket share options are

Email & IM
Direct
HTML
IMG

I have always just copied the IMG code into the body of my posts.
The IMG code from photobucket has an odd format which is more complex than need be. Perhaps that's why we are seeing the odd behavior.

Code:

This is all that is necessary:
Code:

Alternatively, you can copy the direct link from photobucket and in the forum post click on the insert image icon (see below) and in the dialog box that pops up, right click and choose paste from the popup and then click OK.



Right click and choose paste from the dialog box (below). Then click OK.

[Cormanus]

curlyjoe,

You're right that the format of the IMG code is odd, but it seems to be the case only on some Photobucket pages. For example, if I copy the IMG code from PB, I only get the IMG reference while others seem to get it preceded by the URL code. In other words, PB seems to treat what goes in the IMG box differently.

In practical terms it doesn't make any difference. The images display just fine on the forum, although it may well explain why, when you click on some images it displays the PB page, not just the image. That's not always the case, though. Even when the link is only to the image, Photobucket redirects it to the page where the image is embedded. If you want to test what happens when you click on what is supposed to be a link directly to the image, try the links in one of my Seat Time posts which contain only the IMG link.

For Popgun's benefit, Photbucket stores the images at an address that starts "ixxx". Normally it displays the image on a page where it is surrounded by lots of Photobucket propaganda. The URL for those pages starts with "sxxx". Theoretically, when a user clicks on a link to a page with an "ixxx" address, their browser should display just the image. That isn't happening and all links are being redirected to the "sxxx" page. I have found that, even when I copy the "ixxx" link and paste it into the address bar in the browser, I get the same redirect problem.

I don't know, but it looks to me like an issue at the Photobucket end. I'm pretty sure it isn't a problem with the forum software.

[curlyjoe]

curlyjoe,

You're right that the format of the IMG code is odd, but it seems to be the case only on some Photobucket pages. For example, if I copy the IMG code from PB, I only get the IMG reference while others seem to get it preceded by the URL code. In other words, PB seems to treat what goes in the IMG box differently.

In practical terms it doesn't make any difference. The images display just fine on the forum, although it may well explain why, when you click on some images it displays the PB page, not just the image. That's not always the case, though. Even when the link is only to the image, Photobucket redirects it to the page where the image is embedded. If you want to test what happens when you click on what is supposed to be a link directly to the image, try the links in one of my Seat Time posts which contain only the IMG link.

For Popgun's benefit, Photbucket stores the images at an address that starts "ixxx". Normally it displays the image on a page where it is surrounded by lots of Photobucket propaganda. The URL for those pages starts with "sxxx". Theoretically, when a user clicks on a link to a page with an "ixxx" address, their browser should display just the image. That isn't happening and all links are being redirected to the "sxxx" page. I have found that, even when I copy the "ixxx" link and paste it into the address bar in the browser, I get the same redirect problem.

I don't know, but it looks to me like an issue at the Photobucket end. I'm pretty sure it isn't a problem with the forum software.

I think you are right. It's too bad posting photos on forums is still a relatively difficult and time consuming process.

[Cormanus]

curlyjoe,

You're right that the format of the IMG code is odd, but it seems to be the case only on some Photobucket pages. For example, if I copy the IMG code from PB, I only get the IMG reference while others seem to get it preceded by the URL code. In other words, PB seems to treat what goes in the IMG box differently.

In practical terms it doesn't make any difference. The images display just fine on the forum, although it may well explain why, when you click on some images it displays the PB page, not just the image. That's not always the case, though. Even when the link is only to the image, Photobucket redirects it to the page where the image is embedded. If you want to test what happens when you click on what is supposed to be a link directly to the image, try the links in one of my Seat Time posts which contain only the IMG link.

For Popgun's benefit, Photbucket stores the images at an address that starts "ixxx". Normally it displays the image on a page where it is surrounded by lots of Photobucket propaganda. The URL for those pages starts with "sxxx". Theoretically, when a user clicks on a link to a page with an "ixxx" address, their browser should display just the image. That isn't happening and all links are being redirected to the "sxxx" page. I have found that, even when I copy the "ixxx" link and paste it into the address bar in the browser, I get the same redirect problem.

I don't know, but it looks to me like an issue at the Photobucket end. I'm pretty sure it isn't a problem with the forum software.

I think you are right. It's too bad posting photos on forums is still a relatively difficult and time consuming process.

Indeed, although I'm not sure how it could be made easier given that linking to other sites keeps the space required to store the forum manageable.

[Lord Popgun]

Thanks for the explanation Cormanus. It explains the i and s thing

[flynrider]

I don't use photobucket, but are you all pasting the direct link code into the "insert image" option on the forum (where it requests the Image URL)? That should work.

Here's one of nvbobr images using photobucket direct link code and using the "insert image" on the forum.

That's what I do. The Photobucket image code seems a bit busy. I just copy the "direct link" at photobucket, click on the "insert image" icon in the forum, then paste the direct link into the resulting box. The forum software just inserts the image code at each end of the "direct link" URL. Like so :

[nvbobr_imp]

I don't use photobucket, but are you all pasting the direct link code into the "insert image" option on the forum (where it requests the Image URL)? That should work.

Here's one of nvbobr images using photobucket direct link code and using the "insert image" on the forum.

That's what I do. The Photobucket image code seems a bit busy. I just copy the "direct link" at photobucket, click on the "insert image" icon in the forum, then paste the direct link into the resulting box. The forum software just inserts the image code at each end of the "direct link" URL. Like so :

That's what I do. The Photobucket image code seems a bit busy. I just copy the "direct link" at photobucket, click on the "insert image" icon in the forum, then paste the direct link into the resulting box. The forum software just inserts the image code at each end of the "direct link" URL. Like so :
I might do the same in the future, but for me the question is whether other members can see images in higher resolution that I post, given the types of computers and browsers they are using. Lots of forum pictures don't need to be enlarged but some do. For example, real pretty seat time pictures and close up "how to" tutorial images might be nice in higher resolution. I certainly know what I can see on my computer, but if Safari and Firefox users can't enlarge a high resolution photo that I post using Photobucket, no matter what code or technique I use, then Photobucket becomes a deal breaker for me. Maybe it's time to find another photo hosting site on the internet (tinypic.com, smugmug, etc.)

I agree with everyone else that this probably isn't a forum software issue. I also really appreciate all the tireless help. Cormanus, my hat is off to you!

[Cormanus]

Flyn, if I click on your picture in order to enlarge it, it takes me to http://s112.photobucket.com/user/flynrid...4.jpg.html even though the link in your post is clearly to http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n178/...a4924.jpg.

Even if I copy the second link and paste it into the address bar, it redirects to the Photobucket page.

I've heard nothing from Photobucket yet.

Edit: Bob, have a look at postimg.org.

[nvbobr_imp]

Flyn, if I click on your picture in order to enlarge it, it takes me to http://s112.photobucket.com/user/flynrid...4.jpg.html even though the link in your post is clearly to http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n178/...a4924.jpg.

Even if I copy the second link and paste it into the address bar, it redirects to the Photobucket page.

I've heard nothing from Photobucket yet.

Edit: Bob, have a look at postimg.org.

Thanks for the tip, Cormanus.

I searched the forum for "postimg" and got 6 pages of posts from members who are using the hosting site successfully. At least on my Chromebook the photos enlarge as promised when there's a higher resolution to be seen. (It is handy, too, that the search picks up these hidden codes.)