The not-jonquil, redux

[pecunium]

Apparently the linking problem people commented on is something which didn't affect my viewing of the image. So I saw the flower.

If they don't want people to be able to find them from the image, fine.

The previous post now has the photo, as a captured image.

Comments

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

It's not the finding. It's the bandwidth. You know those websites that do things like run feeds of all the images posted on lj or randomly harvested from the web or whatever?

Occasionally one of them runs someone's bandwidth over for the month and costs them a pile of money, and sadly most of the people who run them respond to polite requests not to do that with "it's legal, you can't stop me, and I make ad money off this site so I'm not going to stop."

Which is why lots of people have or used to have the kind of redirect you ran afoul of. Because it's the only way you CAN stop them.

So generally if you want to show an image on someone else's server it's best to either do what you did or just offer a link.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Mostly what irks me isn't them; I understand the bandwidth problem, it's LJ.

I was unaware of the re-direct. Had it been something rude, I'd not have known.

Had it not been for so many comments (some more opaque than others) I'd still not know.

TK

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

Aaaah, gotcha. Sorry, didn't quite parse you correctly.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I might not have been clear enough, but yeah, from I was always able to see the image, not the re-direct.

TK

[urox.livejournal.com]

Your browser may have had a cache of the original image and was using that in place of the updated one.