Is it bad to use [IMG]?

I have noticed that if you use the tag that you can make your urls clickable, is there a reason why we shouldnt do this?

It only makes some of them clickable. With some, they don't appear at all. I don't know why. I always try IMG and if the link doesn't show up I do URL.

Some reported that enclosing links in [img]makes them clickable on some systems, it makes them disappear on other systems.

I don't think so, except that some of the more cutting edge users here who use something other than IE have said they don't see tthe links when this is done.

But on my system it works for some links and not for others. Wierd.

Yep.. I just see the missing image icon when people do that.

I'm confused. Are we talking about just images or links?

If I'm doing just a link I enclose it in If I'm doing a link to an image, such as on flicker, I enclose it in [img]For me the url shows up as a clickable url, the image displays on my post as an image. I use Firefox. Is it showing up differently for others?

Quoted from BBCode experts:

BBCode incorporates a tag for including images in your posts. Two very important things to remember when using this tag are: many users do not appreciate lots of images being shown in posts and second, the image you display must already be available on the Internet (it cannot exist only on your computer, for example, unless you run a webserver!). There is currently no way of storing images locally with phpBB (all these issues are expected to be addressed in the next release of phpBB). To display an image, you must surround the URL pointing to the image with tags. For example:



As noted in the URL section above you can wrap an image in a tag if you wish, eg.

I use Firefox. When I use [IMG]for a url, it sometimes shows up as a clickable link.

EDIT: I don't use Greasemonkey.

Bradley, you are using the Greasemonkey extension Strife wrote, correct?

Some urls for images end in an image filetype extension, like jpg of gif. Others end in php or asp. I think the forum software may treat these differently. This is just speculation.

Yes, I do use Strife's Greasemonkey extension.

When I want to post a photo I post it on Flickr first. Once it's there I click on the small tag to the right of my photo that says "See Different Sizes".

From that page there is a box that says Grab the photo's Url. That is what I put between the brackets and they always show up for me at least. Some of my pics are bmp, jpg, and png

That is how someone here in the forum suggested it to me. How it would work on other photo sites I don't know.

I think it depends on the format of the url. Some URLs directly reference HTML pages, whereas others trigger server processing that generates the page you wish to see. I'm going to try an experiment:

Implicit reference to HTML file:
(http://wildefirewalcott.com/webtab)


Direct reference to HTML file:
(http://wildefirewalcott.com/webtab/index.htm)


PHP command:
(/327/1.html)

Looks like the last one, that launches a command instead of directly loading a web page, is the only one of the three that worked as a link using the IMG tag fake-out. The first two disappeared.

Strife's greasemonkey extension largely fixes the problems caused by most of the vBcode being turned off in these forums. Those who use the greasemonkey extension see the various tags for img and url and such like they should be. That's why you use the extension.

Those who don't use the extension have found a trick, enclosing url links in img tags, that works for them. Some try it and it doesn't work, others find it works sometimes and not others, and others find it makes the urls vanish altogether.

The way to enjoy these forums to the greatest extent is to use firefox or opera and use the Greasemonkey extension. Make you posts like normal - i.e., use the img and url tags normally. People who are seeing the forums looking ugly are doing it by choice. They could use firefox or opera and Strife's extension if they wanted.

Yes. But it's not an entirely irrational choice: I use Firefox without the extension on the premise that most of the users--especially the newer ones who need help--will be experiencing it that way. (Unfortunately, it's never fair to assume a Lowest Common Denominator of HTML processing: I too used to use the trick with the img tags to get clickable url links, till I found out some browsers were just showing a broken picture link icon. )

I dont mean to sound like an oldie, but I'm going to anyway... If you can't view this site with your regular stardard, packaged with your pc explorer browser, then I think its high time that the technical operator on the forumv steps outside to get a breathe of that sweet sweet fresh air..and if this tecknical operator still cant come up with a solution then maybe its time to try a new message board system... doesnt that sound more sensible to have one person change his software than countless others change theirs?

Oh. There's a current "Dear Torley" thread, which probably describes the whole embarrassing history of how the forum software got lobotomized because of an ancient security flaw, long since fixed in newer releases of the software. But since then, LL has been pretty much hands-off on the forums, so there hasn't been an upgrade, and so we're still operating with the same crippled version till LL decides what to do with the forums. Presumably, if they finally make a conscious decision to keep the forums, the software will get upgraded. It was much happier times when BBcode formatting was the greatest concern.

Not that it isn't aggravating.

I shouldn't have to use a differernt browser and a 3rd party extension, in order to use a basic functions of a frigging message board. FIX THE GODDAMN THING!!!!! Take your Firefox and shove it up your Opera.

I just realized we had so many Friday threads this week that we were too tired to bother with one today...

Sometimes one has to accept reality and work in accordance with it. I use Firefox 3 beta and Opera Kestrel 9.5 beta and Flock on one machine. They all use the greasemonkey script well enough. All of them are nicer than Internet explorer. Getting Firefox or Opera or Flock isn't an imposition, it's just doing yourself a favor.

Having apoplexy and get all verklempt about things in ResAns is a waste of perfectly good apoplexy and verklempticiousness. Verklemptiocity. Verklemptedness.

There is a Jira issue about restoring vBulletin code function.

"BBCode not working on official SL Forums"
https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/WEB-156

I just voted for it.

Vote for the Jira issue mentioned above and, if you want the matter to get more attention, post about the matter and the jira issue at slexchange and sluniverse and in the NCI forums and in your blog and on other people's blogs. Bump that vote total up to 500 or a thousand.

I think that LL is planning a big change in the login process and that they don't want to work on the forums until after they do that. Upgrading the forums now so that vBcode can be restored would mean doing work they'd have to redo when the new login process comes into use. I'm not sure of that it's just my guess.

You are 100% correct, nothing on this board, or in SL for that matter is worth getting verklempt about. I can do without the Code. IE works perfectly well for my needs, I can't be bothered with all sorts of different browsers. Thank you for a very informative post, though. I'm sure it is of great value to those who do care about it.