Hope the brains trust might help out with a solution.

I'm working on a future seabreeze post which will have a good number of external links:-
- to external websites,
- to external documents,
- to external images <----- It is this last one that has got me beat.

In the old days many forum post editors supported a good variety of BBcode tags[..], which I thought might get me to where I want to be. However as far as I can see the supported BBcode subset here is very limited. I'll use curly brackets as fake square brackets in the following text line to avoid trouble:
Although {img} is supported (insert image from url), {url} (create link to url) is not. Neither is [color=] nor [size=].

So what's the issue? Trying to make a clickable link to an external image, so the reader can choose whether to follow it or not.
All attempts so far have failed to do this, even attempts to insert a line of direct html code.

It seems that if the link's target file smells at all "imagey", then seabreeze renders and inserts the image straight into the post's text, rather than presenting a link to that image with the reader able to choose whether or not to follow it (eg. in a new browser tab or window).

Only work-around I've found so far is to "hide" the image as a *.PDF file, which seabreeze won't attempt to render. It then simply shows as a clickable link to that PDF, allowing the reader to chose whether to view it or not, (and separately from the post's text.)

That's the sort of behaviour I'm trying to get, but this method isn't satisfactory for what I want to do. Firstly because the image doesn't display at a full 100% scale, which is important, and secondly "very tall" images get unceremoniously chopped up across multiple PDF pages.

Can anyone solve this issue?

(Seabreeze Support tells me there is no manual for either of the "basic" or "rich text" editors, so I'm fumbling in the dark.)

Thanks

I am not into IT or code but for the below image out of the below link I used snipping tools to save the image to a folder then added it to this post. The forum site needs you to be a poster for numerous posts before allowing photos to be attached.

www.yachtingworld.com/extraordinary-boats/extraordinary-boats-stormvogel-139120

I don't think we'll get past the filters without being very tricky.

Hello r13,
Thanks for your reply above - and for the picture of your new boat! She's a real beauty.

Seriously though, I shall use your post to try to explain the problem better. I hope you don't mind that I've poked around in the html code that rendered your post - don't worry I don't really understand it either, but have extracted enough scraps to demonstrate my problem.

(By the way I'm past the "newbie limit" and so am allowed to post links, upload pics etc.)

So here we go! Your first underlined clickable (url) link is to the yachting world website article on stormvogel. In turn that article has the embedded pic of "your boat" from:
h t t p s://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/06/YAW274.extra_boats._ncc8864-630x354.jpg

I have had to insert some spaces early in the URL to prevent seabreeze from recognising the link as an image and doing an immediate render.

You seem to have snipped out that image from the article (or used the above URL) and then loaded it into the seabreeze photo collection where it was given this URL name:

h t t p s : / / s e a b r e e z e . com . au/img/photos/sailing/21500866.j p g

I have had to butcher that URL with a lot more inserted spaces to prevent seabreeze from recognising it as one of its own photos and rendering it.

With the spaces out, we get an immediate rendering of the pic within the post itself, like so:



So my aim is to try and find a way of stopping the immediate rendering of an image within the post and instead have its URL as a clickable link that the reader may or may not choose to open.

If they do "click" rather than just reading further down the post, then they can choose the usual "open in a new browser tab" or "open in a new browser window".

It is all way above my pay grade but I am hopeful someone on here understands it all well enough to find a solution.

Jake,

Just trying it out.

www.boatdesign.net/gallery/judy-d-jensen.25633/

www.boatdesign.net/gallery/judy-d-jensen.25631/

www.boatdesign.net/gallery/imoca-open-60-render.23438/

Yep, same as R13 put up. Isn't this the behaviour that you want?
Ie: if you just paste the link (not save it in Seabreeze) it doesn't render.

Jake try tinyurl.

Select to expand quote

shaggybaxter said..
Just trying it out.

www.boatdesign.net/gallery/judy-d-jensen.25633/

www.boatdesign.net/gallery/judy-d-jensen.25631/

www.boatdesign.net/gallery/imoca-open-60-render.23438/

Yep, same as R13 put up. Isn't this the behaviour that you want?
Ie: if you just paste the link (not save it in Seabreeze) it doesn't render.

Not sure what I think of Judy D Jensen design, modern classic? makes me think of old man wearing skinny jeans. The render looks really good though.

How about a free blog, like Wordpress, Webbly, Wix, or Squarespace? This forum is locked down tighter than a sub hatch.

Thanks for the replies so far:

To shaggy: Your demo clickable links are all to websites that contain an image, not to the image itself. These don't render into the post because seabreeze doesn't recognise this as an image so translates it as a clickable hyperlink.

To JohnE: that's a very interesting thought that I will look into. However I thought tinyurls just encoded the pathname but left the target filename the same - not sure though.

To Silent Hunter post #2: I need to stay in this forum because the post I'm working on is a detailed response to a (much) earlier discussion. It's nearly all done, but for the final touches I just need to open that sub hatch a smidge with letting in too much water!
Going to the other blog sites you mention would just open up another whole world of pain. (I'm an old fart, and struggle with anything new!)

To Troph: Thanks for your PM, hope reply satisfies

Jake

One can hypothesise all one likes. The simplest thing with computers is to try it.

Looks like Seabreeze won't do tinyurl.

Thanks JonE,

Just came to the same conclusion, and you are right even the file name/type is hidden. Probably why this is not allowed in seabreeze.

However while fafing around I did note that probably the easiest solution is just to present my link without the (optional) h t t p s:// part as plain text. Then seabreeze doesn't recognise and render it.

Then I would rely on the user doing their own copy & paste into a new browser window if they want to see that particular image.

Perhaps less convenient for the reader than my *.PDF fudge, but the resultant display is better.

Jake

PostImage and Imgur are not ideal but work. I haven't tried the other image hosts. They may not last long before joining TinyURL

My Avatar
postimg.cc/k6MMQpmj
imgur.com/a/93E2T4e

Select to expand quote

JakeH5 said..
Thanks for the replies so far:

To shaggy: Your demo clickable links are all to websites that contain an image, not to the image itself. These don't render into the post because seabreeze doesn't recognise this as an image so translates it as a clickable hyperlink.

Jake

Aaah, now I get it.
Lemme see how Dropbox handles it as a source..

Edit: Righto, badly is the answer. More thunking required......

Lemme try this one....

Edit edit: Curses! This is harder than I thought!
I like Silent's option, that seems the most painless way to do it.

Hi Silent Hunter,

An interesting approach, while when I tried your links I didn't see an image but got a "forever loading" indication. However that might be my very old browser.

It did get me thinking that the hosting site I used did have a coded link to its own viewer, so to seebreeze didn't see it as an image and left it as a hyperlink, just like in your examples.

This time when I clicked on it and selected open in a new tab, the image did then render in that tab. Alas the render quality was absolutely terrible. I suspect the hosting mob's "viewer" might be just good enough for small images like avatars, etc but I have a big 800w x 7000h pixel giff composite image to deal with and it seems only direct browser viewing preserves the quality needed.

Thanks to all who have offered help. Perhaps it is now time to "call off the dogs" as I think I can now cobble together an adequate work-around with the assistance of all your input. (but if anyone thinks they have "the perfect solution" a reply about it would still be nice

I think while seebreeze has tried to make posting images within the text pretty easy, that code has probably scuttled doing things the way I wanted via a hyperlinked image.

(Which could have been useful in light of the growing popularity of blurting out long sequences of phone screen grabs that not all readers might be interested in seeing.)

To shaggybaxter: Glad to see you now understand the issue and that a solution ain't obvious, but I suspect everyone is just about '"thunked out" by now.

thanks everyone,
Jake

Glory Jake why don't you just post your epistle and we can all know what you are wanting to say to us. We don't need any highfaluting IT presentation involved. If you can't post it within the confines of this forum then maybe find another mountain to broadcast off.

While I tend to agree with r13 and the keep it simple mantra, I also appreciate Jake's effort in what he's trying to achieve.

The post from my understanding will interest most of us but will have a component that unless we are uniquely interested in that part, some of us will find annoying to scroll past (several pages) if it was to be rendered directly to this site. Jake is purely trying to save us from that.

Did I get that about right JakeH5 ?

Hi Troph,
Yeah that's about right. Thanks for giving me some feeling of support.

I was a bit hurt by r13's claim "I was trying to beyond the site's capabilities" (and so should piss off) - No, I was just trying to scope out what those capabilities were, as there is no manual on what can and can't be done.

I've done a lot of trimming but I know I'll still get a lot of get flak for being "too long", but geeze I post only once in a dozen blue moons.

I also get put off by long post sequences about keels falling off etc. (I had a 10m steel sloop - keel welded on tight, and only paint damage when she broke off the mooring one night and went ashore.)

All you have to do is click away as soon as you loose interest!

Jake

Select to expand quote

Toph said..
While I tend to agree with r13 and the keep it simple mantra, I also appreciate Jake's effort in what he's trying to achieve.

The post from my understanding will interest most of us but will have a component that unless we are uniquely interested in that part, some of us will find annoying to scroll past (several pages) if it was to be rendered directly to this site. Jake is purely trying to save us from that.

Did I get that about right JakeH5 ?

Thanks for the clarification Toph.
R13 said exactly what I was thinking, so it was nice of you to put some context around it.

Select to expand quote

JakeH5 said..
Hi Troph,
Yeah that's about right. Thanks for giving me some feeling of support.

I was a bit hurt by r13's claim "I was trying to beyond the site's capabilities" (and so should piss off) - No, I was just trying to scope out what those capabilities were, as there is no manual on what can and can't be done.

I've done a lot of trimming but I know I'll still get a lot of get flak for being "too long", but geeze I post only once in a dozen blue moons.

I also get put off by long post sequences about keels falling off etc. (I had a 10m steel sloop - keel welded on tight, and only paint damage when she broke off the mooring one night and went ashore.)

All you have to do is click away as soon as you loose interest!

Jake

Jake, don't be hurt, you've a writing style that can open itself to misinterpretation. I got condescending vibes, but Toph's a good bloke and I would be more than happy to be proven wrong.
I own a commerical 3D Lidar and photogrammetry website that stores and manages all sorts of really high res imagery and am well familiar with rendering issues and working with third party hosting sites and html coding nuances. I intended yesterday to give your issue to my lab rats to work up a solution for you, but your prose put me off.
Our interactions are a mirror of how we treat people mate, if you're feeling hurt I'd humbly suggest sometimes its good to look inwards for the cause.
I look forward to reading this mystery piece of work.
All the best to you!

Hi shaggybaxter,

Yes, a fair bit of introspection going on this morning ( plus some 2am regret! ).

I'm taking on board all the comments and I do appreciate the honesty.

My "hurt" level was perhaps magnified largely because I have enormous respect for r13 and his posts. He is a real online gentleman, incredibly helpful to others, and is an amazing sleuth in digging up useful material on the web for the benefit of others. Pretty handy and knowledgeable at restoring boats too! Thanks r13 from everyone!

I wonder if he thought I violated his "MyPhotos" folder to get the link I used in the example. Of course that can't be done and it isn't the case. My understanding is that all of our "MyPhoto" images are stored in a common pool, with only the links to them kept in your own private "MyPhotos" folder. However every time you post one of those photos you effectively expose that link.

I thought my use of that link was ok in the context that r13 pointed us all to the yachting world website he copied the image from, told us how he "snipped" it out, and then uploaded it to his own folder. In retrospect I should have stuck with yachting world's link to that photo, but it was so damned long and confusing. I now regret that choice, and sincerely apologise to r13.

After all this fuss if I am brave enough to continue planning a longish post (on a safety issue), I will talk to Laurie about whether it can then be locked, with all feedback, discussion, & brickbats, (praise?) being directed to a second related post thread that runs strictly on the "short and simple" community chat rules. This seems much better than feedback being added to the original post.

I hope no more replies come in so this thread can quickly slide down the screen into the forgotten past.

Jake

Hello Jake

It is me who needs to sincerely apologise to you which I am doing by means of this. Looking back on my "vent" clearly indicates that it was way out of line, completely not cricket and totally unnecessary. Great apologies, let's wipe the slate clean and move forward me being all the more wiser for it. We look forward to your safety issue post.

best regards Rob

I'm pretty sure it's not possible Jake. I was a web developer a decade ago. None of my tricks are working because the code gets stripped from the post. Sorry.

Select to expand quote

Silent Hunter said..
I'm pretty sure it's not possible Jake. I was a web developer a decade ago. None of my tricks are working because the code gets stripped from the post. Sorry.

Thanks SH for your efforts here and it does seem like an insoluble problem on the seabreeze site. I was quite happy with the manual copy & paste solution for those images that needed to come in from an external source. Everything was looking good and rendered just as I wanted while in the "Rich Text" post editor. However when I did some actual test posts, they got degraded enough to be a bit disappointing in the actual post screens.

Those images are low res and use a small 8x8 pixel character box & just a 4bit colour depth. They are perfectly clear & sharp when displayed in a commercial browser because they support old image standards exactly and without loss. Any sort of processing that does not preserve each pixels position and colour exactly, will degrade the text readability and general sharpness.

Somehow from the perfect rendering while in the RichText editing window, they get a "spoilt" a little by the time they make it to the seabreeze screen. Not sure what is going wrong, or where. The page code also doesn't seem to be pure html as I was expecting, with some complex RTF commands that I can't make any sense of. Its hopelessly too complicated for me to determine why, or how, or even when the images get slightly tampered with.

I'll wind up either just accepting things as they are, or try to find another like minded group, with a website that can do a pure rendering of external image links with plain html code. I've got one or two organisations in mind but they may not be prepared to do it as they don't do forums. However they have expressed interest in the topic so there is some hope.

If that does work out I'll put a post here with a link to that other website but still handle any discussion/feedback through the seabreeze post. I think Laurie suggested that's the way he would prefer me to go. Maybe his code trickery is what seems to keep the site relatively free of ratbags & scammers. Of course going down that path will also kick the can down the road for a several more weeks.

Thanks SH for looking into this as I was all at sea with what was going on. Thanks to all others for their suggestions, each of which throws some light on this devilishly tricky problem I butted up against. It is what it is and I will try my best not to disappoint or annoy.

Cheers,
Jake