New Posting Rules Grooby Content - January 9th PLEASE READ

[GroobySteven]

Ok as you can see we've been posting content (see 2006 Girls link) that is uncensored and showing genitals and sex content. The difference is, they're held on our servers and are "img" tags, we don't upload to the HA server, so we retain control over them should there be an issue. They're held on the servers that all their main photos are on and hence, are under our 2257 notices.

Members of this forum MAY NOT post photos of any Grooby content that shows genitals or anus.
Members MAY post a link to images already shown on a Grooby posting (by "seanchai") to the same image on other threads.
Members MAY show a limited number of non-genital images of Grooby content as long as the image is un-altered.

eg:
http://www.grooby.com/promo/tais_la_decastro2061.jpg

This is an image link to our photo on our server at
http://www.grooby.com/promo/tais_la_decastro2061.jpg

You can use the same link if you wanted to put this photo of Tais into another thread. You do it by pressing the Img button above this window - putting in the link and then pressing the Img button again.

Grooby Productions - http://www.grooby.com
Shemaleyum.com
Ladyboy-Ladyboy.com
Black-Tgirls.com
Brazilian-Transsexuals.com
Shemales-From-Hell.com
Franks-Tgirlworld.com
Joey-Silvera.com
Grooby-Archives.com
Grooby.com
Real-Tgirls.com


Thanks - please feel free to ask questions.

seanchai

[BeardedOne]

Thanks for the updates and clarifications, Mr. S. And featuring the lovely Tais as your example...Woo! :D

As an afterthought: Using the IMG link option also frees up quite a bit of bandwidth on the server where HA resides. This way we get to enjoy the Grooby treasures with less of the slow response that heavy web loads can cause.

[InHouston]

As an afterthought: Using the IMG link option also frees up quite a bit of bandwidth on the server where HA resides. This way we get to enjoy the Grooby treasures with less of the slow response that heavy web loads can cause.

Think so huh? The IMG link makes no difference. The same image (same bandwidth needed) will be fetched directly from the Grooby server via the IMG link. Grooby's network will experience more bandwidth utilization, and the image must now make multiple hops from Grooby, to HA, to your desktop.

So more bandwidth utililzation for Grooby, and a longer slower trip to download the image specified in the IMG link.

Now I know some people will jump in with all kinds of technical rebuttals on this, and so be it. I'm a senior level internet applications systems architect and developer, so believe what you will about the IMG link.

[GroobySteven]

As an afterthought: Using the IMG link option also frees up quite a bit of bandwidth on the server where HA resides. This way we get to enjoy the Grooby treasures with less of the slow response that heavy web loads can cause.

Think so huh? The IMG link makes no difference. The same image (same bandwidth needed) will be fetched directly from the Grooby server via the IMG link. Grooby's network will experience more bandwidth utilization, and the image must now make multiple hops from Grooby, to HA, to your desktop.

So more bandwidth utililzation for Grooby, and a longer slower trip to download the image specified in the IMG link.

Now I know some people will jump in with all kinds of technical rebuttals on this, and so be it. I'm a senior level internet applications systems architect and developer, so believe what you will about the IMG link.

That would be true if all servers are equal ... but ours are faster and larger than the Hung Angels server.
From my link/computer, they're downloading far faster than if they had been added as attachments. Go and try it for yourself on one of our latest posts.
We've done some tests and don't expect the traffic from this site to adversely affect the servers.
seanchai

[BeardedOne]

InHouston:
Gibblegibblegibble

I honestly did not know that. I thought that links, rather than hosting, would make things run smoother. I hang with a bunch of technogeeks (Not a derogatory term, they sometimes pay my rent) and try to pick up what I can from the neepery that pervades the conversation, but it doesn't always stick and/or translate well.

PS: InHouston, send a resume, if you like. We keep them on file.

[InHouston]

InHouston:
Gibblegibblegibble

I honestly did not know that. I thought that links, rather than hosting, would make things run smoother. I hang with a bunch of technogeeks (Not a derogatory term, they sometimes pay my rent) and try to pick up what I can from the neepery that pervades the conversation, but it doesn't always stick and/or translate well.

PS: InHouston, send a resume, if you like. We keep them on file.



A text link like below is direct from Grooby and the fastest.
http://www.grooby.com/promo/tais_la_decastro2061.jpg

This picture is an embedded link to the Grooby server that the HA server must fetch using it's own bandwidth to render the image directly in the page.

http://www.grooby.com/promo/tais_la_decastro2061.jpg[/img]

[GroobySteven]

...but still faster than downloading it from the Hungangels server right? Or so it appears to me?
seanchai

[InHouston]

...but still faster than downloading it from the Hungangels server right? Or so it appears to me?
seanchai

In my example, the first text link is the fastest, and the embedded link where the pictures draws directly in the page using the [img] tag will be as fast as HA's server at the moment. But, to concede your point, the fact that their just images doesn't really affect the servers significantly. I was simply correcting that post from a technical standpoint. A 300k image using the [img] tag will still require 300k of HA's bandwidth to draw the image directly.

[GroobySteven]

...but still faster than downloading it from the Hungangels server right? Or so it appears to me?
seanchai

In my example, the first text link is the fastest, and the embedded link where the pictures draws directly in the page using the [img] tag will be as fast as HA's server at the moment. But, to concede your point, the fact that their just images doesn't really affect the servers significantly. I was simply correcting that post from a technical standpoint. A 300k image using the [img] tag will still require 300k of HA's bandwidth to draw the image directly.

Would the website cache affect it at all - or am I thinking of something else?

seanchai

[BeardedOne]

A 300k image using the [img] tag will still require 300k of HA's bandwidth to draw the image directly.

Interesting. I thought it worked like Call Forwarding on telephones. The call just gets bypassed to the active line.

[Bigguy]

This picture is an embedded link to the Grooby server that the HA server must fetch using it's own bandwidth to render the image directly in the page.
Nope, that is not true, your local browser fetches the image and inserts into the page, the HA server wouldn't need to do that. In some cases a PHP script may go fetch an image so it can get the image width and height so it can add it to the img html tag, but if you look at the source of the page, it is not doing that:


http://www.grooby.com/promo/tais_la_decastro2061.jpg
Now if PHPBB is coded to fetch an image every time, that would be a pretty dumb thing to be doing since it isn't required.

[Ecstatic]

This picture is an embedded link to the Grooby server that the HA server must fetch using it's own bandwidth to render the image directly in the page.

The HA server doesn't render the page; the browser which made the http request does. Each dependency on the page (such as an image) requires an additional http request to deliver that content, and that request is made of the linked domain, not the original server; the user agent (browser) contacts the remote server for the hot linked content, not the original server contacted for the page itself. (E.g., http://www.grooby.com/promo/tais_la_decastro2061.jpg is requested by the user agent--the browser--of the hosting server--in this case, grooby.com.) Check the web logs of the source server, and you'll find the access request entries for those images reside on the grooby server, not the HA server. As far as the user agent (browser) is concerned, the source domain is not hungangels.com but grooby.com; it sees the url (img src=xxx) and makes the http request of that server.

This is fundamental to the design of HTTP; the protocol was written to allow the display of content from different sites on a single page. However, the abuse of this is known as hot linking, direct linking, or, more insideously, leeching. Often, this leads to "bandwidth theft" whereby one site reduces its bandwidth and increases another site's bandwidth by pulling the images from that other site (which is also why many sites--like the Grooby sites--demand that their affiliates download their banner ads and serve them from their own server, not linked from the original site server).

One of the problems that often arises with drawing content from multiple domains is that a page load may hang or slow down considerably if one of those servers isn't capable of delivering the requested content (as by being offline). We see this in a minor way on HA whenever someone is hot linking to an avatar on another server.

As for the cache, seanchai, I think you're thinking of your browser cache, which will speed subsequent loading of cached images and other content. Also, a web server likely has a cache which holds more commonly requested content to speed delivery, so that when a post on HA receives 13,456 views in 24 hours (heh heh), that image is served more quickly.

[GroobySteven]

ouch

[BeardedOne]

Like I said...

Gibblegibblegibble. :shock:

[InHouston]

...but still faster than downloading it from the Hungangels server right? Or so it appears to me?
seanchai

In my example, the first text link is the fastest, and the embedded link where the pictures draws directly in the page using the [img] tag will be as fast as HA's server at the moment. But, to concede your point, the fact that their just images doesn't really affect the servers significantly. I was simply correcting that post from a technical standpoint. A 300k image using the [img] tag will still require 300k of HA's bandwidth to draw the image directly.

Would the website cache affect it at all - or am I thinking of something else?
seanchai

Website cache is handled by the browser. You can't cache bandwidth, so browsers cache pictures and content on the user's computer. Subsequent visits to the same content are retrieved off the user's hard drive instead of consuming bandwidth.

Webservers have cache settings, but are predominantly there for cacheing dynamic webserver content to ease processing loads on the server.

[partlycloudy]

Ok as you can see we've been posting content (see 2006 Girls link) that is uncensored and showing genitals and sex content. The difference is, they're held on our servers and are "img" tags, we don't upload to the HA server, so we retain control over them should there be an issue. They're held on the servers that all their main photos are on and hence, are under our 2257 notices.

@seanchai: can this also apply to images posted on grooby forums? (i.e. can you post an image on a grooby board and then hotlink it to HA)

[GroobySteven]

Ok as you can see we've been posting content (see 2006 Girls link) that is uncensored and showing genitals and sex content. The difference is, they're held on our servers and are "img" tags, we don't upload to the HA server, so we retain control over them should there be an issue. They're held on the servers that all their main photos are on and hence, are under our 2257 notices.

@seanchai: can this also apply to images posted on grooby forums? (i.e. can you post an image on a grooby board and then hotlink it to HA)

Good point PC. I don't see why that should be a problem as it would be held on our servers - but also you would need to create a proper post on one of our boards and not just use it as a warehouse for linking to here.
regards
seanchai

[partlycloudy]

Good point PC. I don't see why that should be a problem as it would be held on our servers - but also you would need to create a proper post on one of our boards and not just use it as a warehouse for linking to here.
regards
seanchai

cool


on a side note, here's something for the grooby suggestion box. there was a post a while back that mentioned something about being able to search for a model by name on your websites. i don't know if you've done that yet or not (i haven't been a member in a while, sorry) but i was thinking you could also use that feature to cross promote between your websites because some girls appear on multiple sites.

for example, say i join brazilian-transsexuals and i do a search for fabi. the search function would return all available pics sets from brazilian-transsexuals right. but she also got pic sets on shemaleyum, joey-silvera, and franktgirlword. so in addition to listing all the brazilian-transsexuals sets, you mention that she also has sets on the other sites with links to a preview pic. something like this:


search results: fabi

brazilian-transsexuals set1 >>link to set<<
brazilian-transsexuals set2 >>link to set<<
etc...

note: fabi also appears on the following grooby websites

shemaleyum >>link to preview pic<<
joey-silvera >>link to preview pic<<
franktgirlworld >>link to preview pic<<


you always got guys asking where to find pic sets of girls so if you let them know where to find them, that's 3 more potential memberships, know what i mean.

[GroobySteven]

Good ideas and I'll definately try to incorporate when we rework the sites.
At the moment on each of the models galleries we have a "Can also be seen at..." - with links to either Grooby sites or even other sites that they're on - as well as their personal sites.
seanchai

[partlycloudy]

Good ideas and I'll definately try to incorporate when we rework the sites.
At the moment on each of the models galleries we have a "Can also be seen at..." - with links to either Grooby sites or even other sites that they're on - as well as their personal sites.
seanchai

oops, i guess you already did it. :mrgreen: