Timeline for Hosting options for people that have Imgur blocked by their ISP
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 10, 2023 at 22:07 | comment | added | Tim | Surprisingly, Jeremy, the author of this reply that is upvoted the most, is suspended network wide. Another victim of bad moderation! | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 26, 2016 at 5:20 | comment | added | Jeremy |
As it happens, Reddit, the original heavy user of Imgur, has now switched to self-hosting under their short domain, at i.redd.it.
|
|
| Jan 8, 2016 at 17:59 | comment | added | pabrams | @RobH Why stop there? Why not block the entire internet? | |
| Jan 8, 2016 at 17:32 | comment | added | RobH | @pabrams With a mentality like that, I'm surprised they're not blocking the Stack Exchange sites on the same grounds... | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 20:07 | comment | added | pabrams | @RobH And anyway, I asked my IT Security folks to whitelist i.stack.imgur.com but they refused because "It’s a sharing site and (my company name) proprietary information can be uploaded there – therefore its blocked on those grounds. " | |
| May 22, 2014 at 20:53 | comment | added | nanofarad | @RobH You are forgetting about bureaucracy/regulation keeping such a request stuck in processing for months. | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:28 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Oct 25, 2013 at 16:38 | comment | added | RobH |
Since the images are now hosted under the URL http://i.stack.imgur.com, rather than http://i.imgur.com, I was able to persuade our IT people to unblock that particular URL. If your IT folks have a problem with it, just tell them that it's part of Stack Exchange and that Stack Overflow, etc. are hobbled without the images coming through. That should weigh the argument in your favour.
|
|
| May 16, 2013 at 18:57 | history | edited | Jeremy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
| Jan 16, 2012 at 7:09 | history | edited | Jeremy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 263 characters in body
|
| Oct 21, 2011 at 19:02 | comment | added | Michael Mrozek | @Kevin I'm pretty sure every one of those reasons is ridiculous, but I get the opinion the "short URLs are ridiculous" argument is already lost | |
| Oct 21, 2011 at 18:55 | comment | added | Kevin Vermeer |
@MichaelMrozek - So that we can fit it in comments, tweets, etc, so that it's quick to type, so that you can fit  on one line, so that an inlined link doesn't make it hard to read a paragraph, because I don't want to waste RAM by loading something from a longer domain name, and I want to make my network requests faster. (The last two were a joke, the others weren't).
|
|
| Oct 21, 2011 at 18:49 | comment | added | Michael Mrozek | @Kevin Why in the world does it matter if the image URL is "long"? | |
| Oct 21, 2011 at 17:55 | comment | added | Jeremy |
I like http://i.s.tk/, I've updated my post with it.
|
|
| Oct 21, 2011 at 17:54 | history | edited | Jeremy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Oct 21, 2011 at 17:52 | comment | added | Kevin Vermeer |
Also, http://images.stackexchange.com/ is long. http://i.stack.imgur.com is pretty long, but it's 2/3 the length of your proposal. I suggest http://i.s.tk/ (to be consistent with Imgur's i.imgur) or http://images.s.tk to be verbose.
|
|
| Oct 21, 2011 at 17:51 | comment | added | Kevin Vermeer | This would prevent a future Images stackexchange site from popping up, though. :) | |
| Oct 21, 2011 at 17:30 | history | edited | Jeremy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| Oct 21, 2011 at 17:20 | history | answered | Jeremy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |