I've searched about this, but I'm not completely understanding it. Is direct linking good or bad? I've heard it's bad, but then why does Photobucket have direct linking to pics? Is that bad? Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks! n.n
theymos answered Saturday October 13 2007, 11:45 pm: Direct linking/hotlinking is bad. When you direct link to something, you're using someone else's bandwidth without giving them ad revenue; it's basically stealing. Linking to a URL that ends in .html, .htm, .asp, or .php is not hotlinking, and you can do that as much as you want.
Photobucket etc. are hosts, and they have bandwidth limits on your image. So when you put a link on photobucket, YOU own it, and anyone who hotlinks it is stealing from you. If someone hotlinks it and makes it really popular, photobucket might take down the image or even suspend your account, even though it's not your fault.
If the idea of stealing isn't enough to deter you from hotlinking, then remember that the person who owns the image can replace it with any other image whenever they want. Many people have been goatse'd and many lulz have been had because of this.
Instead of hotlinking, you right click the image and "save". Then you upload that to imageshack, hotlinkfiles, photobucket, etc. [ theymos's advice column | Ask theymos A Question ]
Attention: NOTHING on this site may be reproduced in any fashion whatsoever without explicit consent (in writing) of the owner of said material, unless otherwise stated on the page where the content originated. Search engines are free to index and cache our content. Users who post their account names or personal information in their questions have no expectation of privacy beyond that point for anything they disclose. Questions are otherwise considered anonymous to the general public.