NationStates

Hola everyone,

It has come to my attention ImageShack is replacing deleted images with advertisements without the knowledge of the person who originally posted the image, in some threads that date back to the start of the current forum in 2009. ImageShack used to be a popular option for many forumers here, but anonymous uploading ended on 7 November 2013, and switched to a subscription-only model on 17 January 2014. Since around August 2015, ImageShack quietly started replacing deleted embedded images with advertising. And example of the tactic that ImageShack is now using is shown below:



Examples of affected posts:

• viewtopic.php?p=12190947#p12190947
• viewtopic.php?p=12898990#p12898990
• viewtopic.php?p=19349414#p19349414

Bear in mind that these are from threads which are still active (with recent replies).

This issue has been raised at other websites, such as StackExchange (http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions ... dvertising), as well as MathOverflow (http://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/ ... ad-banners).

Just to clarify that ImageShack used to be a respectable destination for image uploading before this happened, with many users using the service without ever knowing that ImageShack would do this.

I was thinking about suggesting that ImageShack links be blocked, but the situation has been made complicated by the fact that there are around 100,000 posts in this forum with ImageShack links, embedded or not, and there are still new posts with ImageShack images, but if any forumer decides to delete their ImageShack account later, then the deleted images would be replaced by adverts like this.

How should we approach this?

I have good faith belief that Technical is the category of best fit because it may require techincal intervention if it is decided that ImageShack links should be blocked, or at least, not parsed.

i guess its smart business.. if its smart to piss people off xd

Report the links to moderation so that the ads can be removed. I don't think any other action is necessary or practical.

We saw this a few weeks ago on the TBH offsite. Some of our rank banners and awards suddenly became ads, and we had to hunt down original copies and move them to Imgur. Guess it's a lesson on how long things really last on the internet...

Excuse my lack of technical knowledge, but - seeing as, at present time, it seems mainly to be the same few ads (in fact that Itunes one is the one I've seen by far the most), is it possible to just blanket-block the image itself? It's hitting the result, not the root, but if that's possible, could be a temp fix.

That's been happening for a while.
Hence why people have stopped using imageshack.

Well, once we finally get around to setting up a whitelist for images on here, I know one site that's crossed off the list. >_< For the time being, if you come across this in any currently active threads, report it with a link to the post(s) and we'll tidy it up if the poster doesn't beat us to it. Older/inactive threads are less of a priority simply because they aren't going to be getting a lot of traffic and will thus be less of a nuisance than the ones in current threads.

I'm not technically minded, but is there a way to prevent images being shown if they are a specific size (that of the banner ad) and hosted on image shack? That would clear the majority of the banner ads while preserving the vast majority of legitimate images on ImageShack.

New Hayesalia wrote:I'm not technically minded, but is there a way to prevent images being shown if they are a specific size (that of the banner ad) and hosted on image shack? That would clear the majority of the banner ads while preserving the vast majority of legitimate images on ImageShack.

There might be, but that'd take one of the techies.

Reploid Productions wrote:

New Hayesalia wrote:I'm not technically minded, but is there a way to prevent images being shown if they are a specific size (that of the banner ad) and hosted on image shack? That would clear the majority of the banner ads while preserving the vast majority of legitimate images on ImageShack.

There might be, but that'd take one of the techies.

/me wonders who is more techie than a Forum Admin


...I mean Game Admins but... xD

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:

Reploid Productions wrote:There might be, but that'd take one of the techies.

/me wonders who is more techie than a Forum Admin


...I mean Game Admins but... xD

Forum admin just means I can get at the phpBB forum admin tools. Doesn't mean I know diddly about coding. (Well, I know some general php and HTML basics, but that's it.)

Reploid Productions wrote:

New Hayesalia wrote:I'm not technically minded, but is there a way to prevent images being shown if they are a specific size (that of the banner ad) and hosted on image shack? That would clear the majority of the banner ads while preserving the vast majority of legitimate images on ImageShack.

There might be, but that'd take one of the techies.

In terms of amount of coding, a whitelist would be much easier (I am speaking of the forum side).

Of course, a whitelist would only start working on new posts (unless we start fiddling with the DB and its contents; not a good option).

The Blaatschapen - Not an official Techie, but having a copy of the phpBB forum code to look through

Reploid Productions wrote:Well, once we finally get around to setting up a whitelist for images on here, I know one site that's crossed off the list. >_< For the time being, if you come across this in any currently active threads, report it with a link to the post(s) and we'll tidy it up if the poster doesn't beat us to it. Older/inactive threads are less of a priority simply because they aren't going to be getting a lot of traffic and will thus be less of a nuisance than the ones in current threads.

It is tempting to think that the only absolutely foolproof option in respect of embedded images on this forum is to enable image uploads on NationStates, but I doubt that the webmaster may approve of this partly due to the disk space we would have to set aside, as was as other issues I am not aware of: the fact that Flickr is clearly one of the safe host providers possibly shoots down such an idea.

Given that ImageShack looks still widely used in the forums, factbooks and dispatches, in my opinion a forum announcement may be needed to get everyone aware of this. One of the reasons I opened this topic is because ImageShack has a potential to use inappropriate adverts later.

Thoughts?

EXTRA: Have you tried using the word censor feature? You could configure the censor to replace "imageshack.us" with something like "i********k.us".

Also, further investigation has revealed that yfrog images are affected: viewtopic.php?p=20570701#p20570701

The censor could replace "yfrog.com" with something like "y***g.com".

Thanks for the report. I think we'll probably block ImageShack completely. Which means old embedded images will stop displaying, unless the author hosts them elsewhere.

As Reppy mentioned, we're also going to start restricting where images can be hosted, since there are similar problems with other sites as well.

This will also affect Dispatches gameside.

[violet] wrote:Thanks for the report. I think we'll probably block ImageShack completely. Which means old embedded images will stop displaying, unless the author hosts them elsewhere.

As Reppy mentioned, we're also going to start restricting where images can be hosted, since there are similar problems with other sites as well.

This will also affect Dispatches gameside.

I assume there will be a list of image hosting websites that will be blocked once you've decided to start doing this, right?

[violet] wrote:Thanks for the report. I think we'll probably block ImageShack completely. Which means old embedded images will stop displaying, unless the author hosts them elsewhere.

As Reppy mentioned, we're also going to start restricting where images can be hosted, since there are similar problems with other sites as well.

This will also affect Dispatches gameside.

Could you give a loud, public warning before that actually happens, so people have some time to make arrangements for (currently functioning) ImageShack links to be replaced?

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Could you give a loud, public warning before that actually happens, so people have some time to make arrangements for (currently functioning) ImageShack links to be replaced?

I expect it will always remain possible to see what the image URL was; the image just won't display. But there would be a News post for something like this, yes.

[violet] wrote:

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Could you give a loud, public warning before that actually happens, so people have some time to make arrangements for (currently functioning) ImageShack links to be replaced?

I expect it will always remain possible to see what the image URL was; the image just won't display. But there would be a News post for something like this, yes.

Will there be a list of hosting sites that are to be blocked?

[violet] wrote:

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Could you give a loud, public warning before that actually happens, so people have some time to make arrangements for (currently functioning) ImageShack links to be replaced?

I expect it will always remain possible to see what the image URL was; the image just won't display. But there would be a News post for something like this, yes.

I will kindly offer to add my statement for the news item, based on the OP:

On 3 September 2015, Minoa stated:

“It has come to my attention that ImageShack (and its subsidiary yfrog) is replacing deleted images with advertisements without the knowledge of the person who originally posted the image, in some threads that date back to the start of the current forum in 2009: this is also affecting threads which started some time ago and are still active with recent replies.

“ImageShack used to be a popular and respectable image hosting provider for many forumers here, but anonymous uploading ended on 7 November 2013, and switched to a subscription-only model on 17 January 2014. Since around August 2015, ImageShack quietly started replacing deleted ImageShack and yfrog images with advertising.

“I must emphasise that users who used ImageShack or yfrog a long time ago could not predict that ImageShack would do this now. This issue has been raised at other websites and forums, such as StackExchange, as well as MathOverflow, which resulted in them banning ImageShack and yfrog links.”

I think that in my opinion the urgent fix for now is to block the parsing of embedded ImageShack and yfrog images and urge users to seek another image hosting provider, to prevent the problem getting worse, given what I have stated in the OP (about the new ImageShack links being posted, without knowing about what I found out).

[violet] wrote:Thanks for the report. I think we'll probably block ImageShack completely. Which means old embedded images will stop displaying, unless the author hosts them elsewhere.

As Reppy mentioned, we're also going to start restricting where images can be hosted, since there are similar problems with other sites as well.

This will also affect Dispatches gameside.

Block completely, as in even for just linking? Are there alternatives that can be used? I used imageshack to host very large images, mainly nation maps but others as well, that I often link on the forums and on the game side. I've tried others like Imgur (I literally tried ulat leat eight other sites a few weeks ago) but none of them would accept my file for it being too large. Imageshack was the only one that would, besides OneDrive. But linking images from OneDrive Public folder had other issues, such as not being able to zoom in.

Reploid Productions wrote:

New Hayesalia wrote:I'm not technically minded, but is there a way to prevent images being shown if they are a specific size (that of the banner ad) and hosted on image shack? That would clear the majority of the banner ads while preserving the vast majority of legitimate images on ImageShack.

There might be, but that'd take one of the techies.

PHPBB should let you just blacklist the specific URL for a image provider you want nuked (i.e imageshack.us or whatever)

edit: [violet] ninja

Parhe wrote:

[violet] wrote:Thanks for the report. I think we'll probably block ImageShack completely. Which means old embedded images will stop displaying, unless the author hosts them elsewhere.

As Reppy mentioned, we're also going to start restricting where images can be hosted, since there are similar problems with other sites as well.

This will also affect Dispatches gameside.

Block completely, as in even for just linking? Are there alternatives that can be used? I used imageshack to host very large images, mainly nation maps but others as well, that I often link on the forums and on the game side. I've tried others like Imgur (I literally tried ulat leat eight other sites a few weeks ago) but none of them would accept my file for it being too large. Imageshack was the only one that would, besides OneDrive. But linking images from OneDrive Public folder had other issues, such as not being able to zoom in.

I doubt the size of the picture is what's keeping you from uploading it to imgur. I know of a regional map that is 5000x5000 and imgur has no issues with it. I frequently use imgur and I run into problems that seem to have no cause, but I always find a simple solution. Perhaps you could provide a link to the image to me via TG so I can fix whatever issue is?

Parhe wrote:

[violet] wrote:Thanks for the report. I think we'll probably block ImageShack completely. Which means old embedded images will stop displaying, unless the author hosts them elsewhere.

As Reppy mentioned, we're also going to start restricting where images can be hosted, since there are similar problems with other sites as well.

This will also affect Dispatches gameside.

Block completely, as in even for just linking? Are there alternatives that can be used? I used imageshack to host very large images, mainly nation maps but others as well, that I often link on the forums and on the game side. I've tried others like Imgur (I literally tried ulat leat eight other sites a few weeks ago) but none of them would accept my file for it being too large. Imageshack was the only one that would, besides OneDrive. But linking images from OneDrive Public folder had other issues, such as not being able to zoom in.

I believe that arrangements will be made to outline the recommended image hosting sites, and for a transitional period, but given the recent incidents, ImageShack and yfrog will be out of question in the future.

I suspect Flickr may be among those acceptable, but it is largely photographer-related rather than just a place to host images, and most likely to appear in Arts & Fiction.

The Agnostic Collective wrote:

Parhe wrote:Block completely, as in even for just linking? Are there alternatives that can be used? I used imageshack to host very large images, mainly nation maps but others as well, that I often link on the forums and on the game side. I've tried others like Imgur (I literally tried ulat leat eight other sites a few weeks ago) but none of them would accept my file for it being too large. Imageshack was the only one that would, besides OneDrive. But linking images from OneDrive Public folder had other issues, such as not being able to zoom in.

I doubt the size of the picture is what's keeping you from uploading it to imgur. I know of a regional map that is 5000x5000 and imgur has no issues with it. I frequently use imgur and I run into problems that seem to have no cause, but I always find a simple solution. Perhaps you could provide a link to the image to me via TG so I can fix whatever issue is?

It is no longer an issue. I tried to prepare the image, now 4.96 MB, for upload and it froze my laptop for, well, ever since I saw your post. I'm done using such large images and plan to break them down.