(Out of Date) Guide: How to Insert Uploaded Images in a Post

zoomkat: I've tried to find the stored attached files so I could link to them but no luck. As I attach the same files over and over the names must be changed when they are stored.

The problem is the deliberate obfuscation that for no sensible reason, is implemented in the forum software. It refers to them by a "dark Web" reference; they are given a number and only ever referenced by that number using a PHP server script.

For example the image link in the first post above is "http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=364156.0;attach=146178" which is not an image URL but something the PHP script reads and inserts its version of the file. You can refer to that as frequently as you like, using it as an image link, but you can never see the file itself and if the attachment is removed from the original post, the file completely disappears from all links. This is presumably the phenomenon LarryD has experienced.

Paul__B: The problem is the deliberate obfuscation that for no sensible reason,

The general philosophy of the Forum developers seems to be "if there is a more complicated way to do something let's use it.

...R

I find it really informative. Thank you for sharing your technique with us :)

It's a pity this technique is needed though. Before the site was "up"-graded year or so back, it was much easier.

Robin2: I have used that technique also. Alas I cannot remember when or in what Thread so I can't check if it is still working.

It would be a real PITA if they have broken a very convenient feature.

...R

I haven't had the images break yet, the image in my sig is done this way. The original thread has it listed at almost a 1/4 million downloads over almost a year & still is going strong.

Also if anybody wants to find any attachments they have posted, click this link here: http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;sa=attach

The method does not work with Internet Explorer 10 or 11.

The original tag...

[img width=281 height=500]http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=406514.0;attach=170844[/img]

|281x500

The working tag...

[img width=281 height=500]http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=406514.0;attach=170844;image[/img]

|281x500

Please append;imageto the end of the URL.

Do people still use Internet Explorer?

Why does Microsoft insist on making it non-standard?

...R

The IE must remain non-standard, so that as many web pages as possible can be viewed only by the latest IE on the latest Windows version, not on older Windows or by FF on a Mac or Linux machine :-]

Robin2: Do people still use Internet Explorer?

I suspect the vast majority of Americans accessing the forum from work have no choice.

Why does Microsoft insist on making it non-standard?

This particular problem is a question of recovering gracefully. The forum software includes a disposition tag that conflicts with the way the data stream is being used. Obviously, Firefox and Chrome recover gracefully using the data stream the way the HTML author intended. Internet Explorer, on the other hand, just does not bother.

So, it is actually possible Microsoft is adhering to the latest internet standards and Firefox / Chrome are not. But I doubt it.

In any case, recovering gracefully should always trump any standards.

[quote author=Coding Badly link=msg=2803129 date=1466103584] accessing the forum from work. [/quote]

Should that be mentioned? :)

...R

Microsoft is/has replaced I.E. with Edge (Windows 10) https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/windows/microsoft-edge

I am convinced 'Edge' will be the answer to all the worlds woes.

|500x304

NOT !

Robin2: Should that be mentioned? :)

:)

LarryD: Microsoft is/has replaced I.E. with Edge (Windows 10) https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/windows/microsoft-edge

I am convinced 'Edge' will be the answer to all the worlds woes.

NOT !

Yeah, its a bit incorrect. Religion and terrorism should be the same line...

Test

test

EDIT ... test FAIL and FAIL again... fruc it and post on google drive its easier to add a link than it is to add a picture...least size doesn't matter (well that's what she said)

DSC_7957 lipo.jpg|1856x1503

Ballscrewbob:

test

EDIT ... test FAIL and FAIL again... fruc it and post on google drive its easier to add a link than it is to add a picture...least size doesn't matter (well that's what she said)

You seem to have posted the path to your local copy:

[img]http://D:\ard pics\20160524_104840.jpg[/img]

What you need is the link of the image you uploaded:

[img]http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=364156.0;attach=181327[/img]

Here it is: |500x405

Yup there it is in only half its glory (70% to be precise).

The only reason it shows quite well here is that it is a 24 Mp pseudo macro shot taken with a 300 mm lens then cropped quite extensively to fit the limits of the forum.

Most of the other sites I take part in have a simple file selection option even allowing multiple files to be selected not a danged URL !

The also tend not to have file size limits per pic (except large or high megapixel panoramic's ) They often do that by moving the pics offsite to such as Amazon for high speed storage and retrieval to keep forums etc at acceptable speeds.

Its no wonder so many people in these forums prefer to use Dropbox or cloud site links for thier pictures (myself included) despite some of the seniors in here refusing to even look at them on occasion or having to do the post themselves. (like you just did LOL)

Many sites also allow viewing of a full or original size image by simple clicking on it rather than it being constrained to WYSIWYG

I know some find this archaic Arduino method acceptable and know how to work it quite well through the multiple steps needed. Me ? nah !

I know this link is a photography site but I can throw up to 10 x 24 megapixel pics up in a couple of clicks. Yes they are slightly constrained but that's to help prevent plagiarising and such and there are some world class pics up there. But regardless of that it maintains the quality quite well and I have swapped a few pics with others for the originals.

OK pet peeve / rant over as I know anything I said will fall on deaf ears.

Ballscrewbob: The only reason it shows quite well here is that it is a 24 Mp pseudo macro shot taken with a 300 mm lens then cropped quite extensively to fit the limits of the forum.

The also tend not to have file size limits per pic (except large or high megapixel panoramic's )

Give some thought to those of us with low-speed broadband and reduce the pixel count to 640x480 or 1280x960 before uploading.

Most of the other sites I take part in have a simple file selection option even allowing multiple files to be selected not a danged URL !

I agree that the system on this Forum is a PITA. But please use it as it makes it easier for us to help you - I presume that is your principal objective.

...R

@ Robin2

I would like to see the system support both such as yourself and those who are capable of putting up clearer pictures with more detail as well.

Would you prefer to squint at a blurry constrained picture or a full screen with more detail ?

My eyes are not as they once were and maybe you have to also account for many of us who don't have 20/20, laser, x/ray vision.

There is no reason today that the forum should not have the ability. Looked at some of the pictures posted and while even mine are certainly not pro in any way quite often trying to follow a picture of somebody's wiring in a highly constrained picture can and has led to few mistakes in answers.

I know that some pics are just poor lighting or just a simply poor picture but a user is also more often restricted by the method used here and seems like some don't or wont post pics simply because they cant or wont look this thread up and find the method "stone age" compared to what they are used to.

All I would like to see is a simple method to post an inline picture with larger size limits and with a simple double click to see the unconstrained version. Those items are not too much to ask for I don't think.

Adage " A picture is worth a thousand words" and even more so for electronics and fine detail.

Ballscrewbob: Would you prefer to squint at a blurry constrained picture or a full screen with more detail ?

IMHO if it is a clear picture it will be perfectly clear at 640x480 - I doubt if you are trying to include fine detail for all the craters on the moon in a single image.

Also IMHO if the stuff you want to display cannot be easily seen in a 640x480 image then you need to present it as multiple images each focused on a specific item.

If you have an example of an image that is clear in higher resolution and not at 640x480 I would be interested to see it. And, of course, an image that is relevant to an Arduino question.

...R