GerrySiegel Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Heavens to Murgatroyd. Surely the system can be taught to accomodate the secure symbol s in URLs which is now getting to be so commonplace, right? A gentle msg to the esteemed person whoever she is that does the programming and fixes PN stuff. And I am sure it has been noticed before.... Jim Choi, any situation report/ timetable/ findings or who gets the question I ask? Anyone back there in my old stomping ground in Waltham Ma... Not urgent, or irritating, like most flyspeck things- but it is a minor nuisance as some others have picked up on. I remain, Your humble and somewhat obedient /occasionally vexed member, Gerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parv Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Thanks Gerry for putting the words of my wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles_Webster Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 <p>Why is secure HTTP necessary for hot linking to your photos?</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parv Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Flickr, for one, forwards "http" URL requests to "https". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 Don't know specific difference of that security symbol s but it does not hyperlink here which is all I speak of. I do not do HTML and like to ration my online biz... I Trust same not out of line. I mean to make tan entreaty to the web mistress to adjust the program and fix it. Or report back in via the help line..re status... Words of Yoda come to mind at such moments-- " Either do or do not do. There is no try, or take it under advisement. " Yeah, send this up the chain of command if you like. To the bosses at Image Media. Tell the guys that Bugsy would like to see this ... I have some friends back there. Ah, No more I think. All in stir at FMC Devens. White collar wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parv Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 As Gerry had mentioned, a raw URL in plain text starting with "https" is not recognized as a genuine link & turned into one, as opposed to the one starting with "http". Here is an example ... - raw HTTP link in plain text: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bitteralmonds/ - above without me doing anything takes me to (raw HTTPS link in plain text): https://www.flickr.com/photos/bitteralmonds/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 <p>It seems to me that you-all have your answer to your "do or not do" ukase.</p> <p>Frankly, I think I speak for many when I say that I wish people would just post the crummy 700 pixel or less images directly on Photo.net* so that archived posts later on would not be filled with gaps telling us that the picture is no longer "available" or whatever.</p> <p>*Even with lousy watermarks all over everything.</p> <p>OH, I almost forgot:<br> "GET OFF MY LAWN!"</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 <p>Many https links work if you substitute http. Most sites that use https will actually convert http requests into https, so you can use either to reach a page</p> <p>HTTPS prevents (or at least makes more difficult) "man in the middle" or evesdropping on data being transmitted between web servers and clients.</p> <p>There's no reason I know of that photo.net couldn't recognize https. Currently if I want to add such a link I just convert it to http.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted April 2, 2015 Author Share Posted April 2, 2015 "Currently if I want to add such a link I just convert it to http." Yep I do too Bob, takes only a couple seconds. So why should that be necessary was my lower case bitch, or very minor update to software suggestion. Just seems kind of solvable at your end by a tweak or too.... recall that there was a time we had to do the link ourselves by html or cut and paste...time marches on and there are software packages I can buy to set up a web site. Lord forbid I should want to add to the static out there..:-) Obviously zip is expected to happen soon until changes take place in Waltham or wherever. I can see that parv is on board with this item...Think of it this way, If https is a useful standard protocol for security, then why not accept it automagically, for linkages to images we cannot or must not show( obviously if PN members did it we could not harass anyone from doing likewise casually for our own protected by user rights images.) I I think JDM you are saying why the need for links but I may miss your point. I can live with that opinion too. Though unlikely to happen because copy rights trumps all other things apparently except on FB of course which moves too fast to catch such stuff. I mean some people here still do not say EBAY and use language like that other place. What a joke we are.....yes if we reduced to a small image would it be fair usage, beats me, I am only lib arts type.. Though I see a couple other dittos on my trivialish subject. I close my contribution with my aloha to moderators and we will stay onboard and maybe try a Slovenian app that removes he s from https... In other words, no big deal comrades.. Shalomaloha , Gerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now