March 29, 2007

Redefining The IMG Tag

Michael Arrington

137 comments »


The basic format for embedding images into a web page using the <img> tag has been around almost as long at HTML itself, since the first graphical web browser. It works, and it is used constantly. But can it be better?

Advertising network AdBrite, which is always looking for new ways to think about things, says it can. This morning, AdBrite launches BritePic to help people add a lot of new functionality around embedded images. Just by changing the embed code, web publishers can add a caption, watermark, zoom, share, resize and other features. And an advertisement, if they choose to.

The end product is shown above. Instead of embedding an image using a standard tag like:

<img src=”http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/144942552_81a96c87cb_o.jpg/”>

BritePic simply uses a javascript code (non-javascript version is also available for myspace, blogger, etc.) and a very lightweight Flash 7 player to show the image with lots of additional features. BritePic has a code generator tool (see image at bottom of post), although all of the parameters are in the code itself, so power users can just quickly write it out. Here’s the code for the above image:

<script>
britepic_id = “297898″
britepic_src=”http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/144942552_81a96c87cb_o.jpg”;
britepic_keywords=”Laguna, dog, pets, cute, perfect”;
britepic_show_ads=”1″;
britepic_caption=”Laguna: Attack Dog”;
britepic_width=”560″;
</script>

Any of the parameters can be changed above. When you register with BritePic you add a watermark and payment information if you choose to include advertisements in pictures. The id in the code above tells it what watermark to add. BritePic doesn’t host image files, so the src field tells it where to pull the image from. Keywords can be added (future functionality will show related pictures), adds shown or not, a caption added, and the width reset.

There are also a number of features in the pull up menu at the bottom left of the image above. Zoom is my favorite. Zoom in on a picture and see a larger version of that area. If you are using a large image and resizing, there will be less pixelation. But even for non-resized images the zoom feature could come in handy. On this blog, where we are limited in the horizontal space allowed for images, it will allow us to upload larger images and allow people to zoom in, or simply click to see the larger image on a new page.

The company has created a demo video, which we’ve embedded below.

AdBrite was founded by Philip Kaplan and Gidon Wise. Background information on the company is here.

  • Sphere It

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

  1. Internet Pro Weblog
  2. BritePic: Making Static Image Flash! - eBrand Marketing
  3. Blinkx AdHoc Lets Publishers Monetize Your Embedded Videos Too
  4. Lookin’ for A New Image : albinoalbinism

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Robin Wauters

    Clever

  2. Elijah

    Interesting, but the problem with including metadata in Javascript is its not web-crawler (Google, Yahoo, etc…) friendly. Web-crawlers ignore Javascript and rely on html/xml metadata to index images.

  3. http://www.jhatak.com

    Well..after a long long time… something really innovative.

    What next….how about the other tags…

  4. honestdave

    cool post.

    we have also been looking at awesomebox.
    http://paularmstrongdesigns.co.....wesomebox/

  5. Dan

    There we go! Very smart work.

  6. Pito Salas

    Interesting and cool. One problem is that javascript is not always enabled and in that case images don’t render.

  7. Amit Chowdhry

    Mike, you should take out the in the blog title. When looking at this title in an RSS feed, it just says “Redefining The Tag”

  8. Peter Cooper

    Surprisingly poorly accessible code there. They should change it so it can work on existing <img> tags that have certain attributes/CSS class.. which means it won’t break for people with JavaScript turned off, but people with it on will get the cool new version. Adding attributes can introduce validation problems in certain situations, but that’s always preferable to using JavaScript as a crutch.

  9. Amit Chowdhry

    Mike, you should take out the less than and greater than symbol in the blog title. When looking at this title in an RSS feed, it just says “Redefining The Tag”

  10. Yakito

    It’s a clever ideal although I am not sure if the implementation part is that good.

  11. doug

    web standards police.

  12. Ed

    peter cooper- just add a <noscript> tag with the IMG SRC. then non-javascript people could see the images too.

  13. doug

    try that again

    image tag needs to be closed

  14. Andrew Zarick

    This is a very clever idea. I thought it would be done with video first, but I guess images apply just as well. However, I’ve had bad experiences with AdBrite’s regular contextual advertising network in the past, so I doubt from that standpoint this will be a better experience from the advertiser’s point of view. Fraudulent clicks galore.

  15. Carson

    @Amit, Mess up my feedreader too

  16. TC why attack startups?

    Not good idea to use adbrite. To many linux hackers and users… Who uses adbrite?

    They saw stolen ss# accounts

  17. markus941

    I second Andrew. Had a horrible experience with them as an advertiser - tons of clickfraud in their system. Kinda makes it hard to get excited about anything they put out.

  18. Rajeev Vashisht

    Better use front WYSWYG editor for all these functionalities.

    http://www.tekno-world.blogspot.com

  19. MacStansbury

    I was looking at the image, and it is served by Flickr, and you could be violating their terms of service. It’s like that for all the major image services, so you’d have to serve the images off your own hosting, or you’d be breaking the contractual agreement you have with them.

    I don’t see this working out well at all.

  20. html guy

    fixing italic comments

  21. Augustine Fou

    yes, but … most blogs don’t allow javascript (blogger, myspace, etc.)

    so the above won’t work … here is how flickrcash.com solved it …

    to install a lightbox grid, we are generating a jpeg on the fly and you can embed it with a simple tag which works on blogger, etc.

    in action
    http://blog.myspace.com/acfou
    http://augustinefou.blogspot.c.....trees.html

    versions which DO use javascript also available here…
    http://flickrcash.com/lightbox_install/rnx2nu1v

  22. Nicolas

    SWIFR is a nice alternative to the img tag, and lets you round corners and such.

    http://www.swfir.com/

  23. Frank

    To the haters.. maybe it’s your site/ads that suck. I use AdBrite as an advertiser and a publisher, and it’s worked very well so far.

    And this image thing is a neat idea.

  24. Randy

    britepic_id = “297898″
    britepic_src=”http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/144942552_81a96c87cb_o.jpg”;
    britepic_keywords=”Laguna, dog, pets, cute, perfect”;
    britepic_show_ads=”1″;
    britepic_caption=”Laguna: Attack Dog”;
    britepic_width=”560″;

    Wow, that is much better than:

  25. Randy

  26. Colin Faruk

    Ads in images..I can see this becoming very popular. Kudos BritePic!

  27. Shelley

    Images can easily have this information embedded directly in them, and JS used to serve this up as semantic markup that pops up when one keys into or mouses over the image (showing in screenreaders as following the image).

    This is really not a clever implementation, leaving aside that it doesn’t degrade gracefully and isn’t accessible (as well as having performance issues). Talk about a case of overengineering and useless waste of Flash.

  28. Direct Textbooks

    Sounds like you’ve got it solved there Shelley, looking forward to the example.

    I like the idea, nobody has to use it, and I like AdBrite the company. They seem to make quite a few things that work well for situations left unaddressed by bigger advertisers.

    The nice thing is, whatever folks say, is that it works for most people and it’s easy. The 95% that can see it don’t care that much about the web-standards-panties-in-a-bunch crew.

  29. gilltots

    i guess i’m the only one that notices there’s a puppy in a pot on a stove? this has animal cruelty written all over it.

    so now we’ve got…the adsense ads on the side, ads embedded in the text of the page, banner ads at the top, a couple flash ads at the side, and that image that you thought was actually a picture of something relevant - now that’s got an ad in it too!

    world wide waste, indeed.

    thank god for adblock plus

  30. c

    i’ve no script installed and i can’t see the embedded adbrite image while i can see all the other images that are tagged “traditionally”

  31. Michael Fagan

    I agree with Shelley. It’s not a bad idea, but poorly implemented so far. It would be quite easy to use an [img /] tag with the alt and other attributes, and have a single javascript include that performed the “magic bits” for any images, without any compromise to usability/accessability/crawlers/etc.

  32. john

    To be sure:

    This *is* a violation of Flickr’s TOS. (to not link back to the photo page on Flickr) I assume someone is paying attention to that, yes ?

  33. Jason Cartwright

    Implementation is dreadful. Best to leave the img tag in place, then use the javascript to rewrite it to add the functionality. Suggest they go and Google “Unobtrusive Javascript”.

  34. Jay

    Why are comments in italics??!? It’s making my head slant :/…

  35. Chum

    Don’t know about Flickr’s TOS, but looks like you can assign a link to the image to go wherever you want. It says “Link the image to another URL”, among other things, on their Learn More page: http://www.britepic.com/learnmore.php

  36. jd

    love that AdBlock automatically includes *.adbrite.com in its filter list, so BritePic pics — served for some reason from that same domain instead of britepic.com — are automatically blocked for anyone with AdBlock installed.

  37. tr101

  38. matthew

    I wouldn’t want adbrite putting ads in my images.

    what is the point of having an rss feed for an image? it’s not like it’s going to change!

    what is up with the puppy in a pot? and why is half the video a lead in? annoying!

  39. Kevin Marks

    Shelly is spot on. Even if they want to replace img’s with a hyperactive flash thing, they coudl do tht by having a javascript decorator script that uses the correct semantic markup on the img, and represents it as a flash embed fro browsers that support that.

  40. tr101

    Michael must like the AdBrite folks to make such a big statement as “redefining the img tag”.

    Come on. This is nothing but ANOTHER widget. RockYou and Slide also have “slideshows” that if you want to define it this way also redefines the img tag.

    Blah.

  41. Adam Michela

    I’m with Peter Cooper, this has poor practice written all over it. Surely this is not something we should be encouraging.

  42. Brian

    jd,

    Believe it or not, “anyone with AdBlock installed” is not really Adbrite’s target audience.

    I guess the reason they are using Flash is to protect their implementation details a little bit–if they did a pure HTML+CSS+JS implementation (which I agree seems possible to do), then all the functionality would be copied in two hours. By doing it this way, it will probably take two days instead.

  43. dramatoo

    very cool

  44. Nathan Schmidt

    Smells a lot like the video indirection AdBrite built a while back. http://www.techcrunch.com/2007.....eo-product

    The key feature seems to be that you’re not _required_ to use someone else’s bandwidth, but they sure make it easy.

  45. Danny

    Stupidest idea ever. It’s a misuse of Flash and an insult to web standards.

  46. john

    Michael - Please put the link back in your example to the Flickr photo page. The way you have it shown up there, it’s a violation of Flickr’s Terms of Service.

    (I work at Flickr)

  47. john

    I also suspect that wrapping advertising around any photo (at least on Flickr) with or without considerations for said photo’s licensing, is also really really bad.

    We also have concerns about the obviously commercial use of Flickr photos. There’s some stuff about that in Flickr’s TOS as well:

    From the Community Guidelines (http://flickr.com/guidelines.gne)

    “Don’t use Flickr for commercial purposes.
    Flickr is for personal use only. If we find you selling products, services, or yourself through your photostream, we will terminate your account.”

  48. Andrew

    Did someone forget to close an italics tag?

  49. Andrew

    I have to agree with what others have said. It’s an interesting idea, but I’m not sure I would be compelled to use it (especially with the ads), and the licensing model has a lot of intricacies that they’ll need to deal with.

  50. Philip Kaplan

    hey. philip from adbrite/britepic here.

    regarding accessibility for browsers without javascript - just add a <noscript> tag after the britepic javascript, and put your regular img tag in there. then non-javascript people can see the pics. we should probably add that to the demo code..

    regarding slideshow widget companies - they don’t do ads, and we don’t do slideshows. and britepic won’t make your myspace pages look shiny and awesome. :) britepic is more for people who want to add sharing to, and make money with, the pics they would ordinarily embed with the img tag.

    regarding TC embedding a pic from flickr - we don’t encourage it, but just like the img tag, you can host pics anywhere.

    to the web standards police - sorry! but it’s not all bad.. we still like the img tag for some stuff, like embedding logos and navigation elements etc. i realize some people are protective of old school html and aren’t fans of ajax/flash/javascript/etc..but i think that stuff is kind of cool sometimes…and we built this with Flash 7 which is supported by like 97% of browsers or something like that.

    regarding all these comments in italics for some reason - (speaking of web standards and html weirdness…)

    - pk

  51. Ben Long

    Media as first class citizens:

    Yahoo recently hosted an event titled “Browser Wars Episode II: Attack of the DOMs”. You can see the opening statements from the participants here: http://yuiblog.com/blog/2007/03/05/browserwars/

    The format was a Q&A session between the major browser vendors, and a host of webdevs and designers. The event was moderated by Douglas Crockford (bound to be entertaining, right?).

    One of the speakers was Hakon Wium Lie, Opera’s CTO. In his opening statement he spoke to the fact that the Browsers treat images as first class citizens, and we should start thinking about doing the same for video.

    Why use a plugin to display images when they’re already first class citizens?

  52. JuniorStarr

    “However, I’ve had bad experiences with AdBrite’s regular contextual advertising network in the past, so I doubt from that standpoint this will be a better experience from the advertiser’s point of view. Fraudulent clicks galore.”

    Just to reply to that message- AdBrite isn’t contextual and they never claimed to be. Are you sure you are talking about the right network? How can you have fradulent clicks on a site specific ad buy? Even if you bought a CPC network ad, how would you be able to know when and where your ad will appear in an auction based marketplace??

    They have had excellent controls to prevent click fraud in my experience. Anyways, i’m curious to see how myspace reacts to this.

  53. Marc

    Where’s the ‘above picture’ - don’t see anything in FF 1.5…

  54. bob

    Is something wrong with their site, i can’t even see this in action? Perhaps they took everything down because of the flickr violation? And could someone explain what exactly is in flickr’s tos that makes what they’re doing wrong? I recall quite clearly flickr providing static html to paste onto my pages that do NOT link back to flickr, but mabye things have changed (or i am wrong).

  55. Pratham Kumar

    I like the idea, though not a big fan of flash.
    What would the RSS Feed contain?

    Anyway here’s something similar I created
    to power the tag with Image annotations.
    http://notes.2view.org/home

  56. bob

    O there it is… must’ve been a hiccup, excuse me.

  57. john

    Flickr says:

    “To link to this photo on other websites you can either:

    1. Copy and paste this HTML into your webpage:
    2. Grab the photo’s URL:

    Remember! Flickr Terms of Service specify that if you post a Flickr photo on an external website, the photo must link back to its photo page. (So, use Option 1.)”

  58. Charnchon

    future

  59. basicity

    Looks very neat to me. I like it!

  60. engtech

    Fixing italics

  61. engtech

    test

  62. engtech

    fix didn’t work. Comment #6 has a trailing >i /< that made everything after it italics.

  63. engtech

    wow, my brain isn’t working today

    comment #13 has a trailing <i /> that made everything after it italics.

  64. Tom

    Looks like a great idea, but I doubt the web will really adopt it. What I mean is: the cutting-edge techies might use it, but I question whether the use of Flash for showing images will infiltrate many web sites outside of the “techie crowd”. (sorry for the long sentence).

  65. engtech

    I guess I fall into the web standards police category.

    People complain all the time about javascript widgets slowing down page loads of their sites (probably the number 1 reason why MyBlogLog is removed). This is the same thing.

    If you use the non-javascript version you’re getting an embedded flash player instead of an image.

    Also note: anyone who is using the popular ad-blocker Firefox extension will have these javascript/flash generated images blocked.

    All this for watermarks / ads in images? Are we trying to return to the animated banners of yesteryear?

  66. engtech

    This isn’t cutting edge at all, except for the ease of use for the casual person. Flash-based ads are as old as Flash. This is just an easy service for building flash-based ads.

  67. tr101

    re: Pud.

    Come on.. I know its your company, but seriously how many people are going to want to put an ad on their dog or 5 year old niece?

    Lets call it for what it is… another flash based widget.

  68. rack pallet

    Great idea ;

    - but then again; breaking your page for the users that have java turned off - probably about 10% …

    - will keep it from being implemented on any sites that are major.

  69. Sherwin Techico

    Nice. Regarding the noscript-tag, they should just add it totheir HTML generator as well.

  70. Ben Metcalfe

    It’s crap.

    Implementation is dire, as per above. From what I can see, zooming involves downloading a bigger-than-necessary img to my computer on the off-chance I choose to use the zoom feature. Watermarking offers false sense of security, as the original img is left untouched.

    BTW @John: surely Mike only needs to add the link around his example Flickr

  71. Mike Panic

    Nicolas - any clue how to get that working in WordPress??

  72. Andrew

    To much click fraud with adbrite. Way too much. I’ll stick with the regular img tag.

  73. Philip Kaplan

    techcrunch is the best q.a. helper site ever. :)

    regarding not working with javascript - good call. we’re adding the <noscript> tags to the html generator, so britepic will work for non-javascript people.

    regarding “who would want to advertise on pictures?” - advertisers want to advertise anywhere they can reach their target audience, i.e., you. the same was said about tv, radio, web sites… more specifically, we could link 10,000 pictures of ipods to bestbuy.com, as an example. or link pictures of football to beer sites. or a picture of a dog on techcrunch to web geeks :)

  74. Ben Metcalfe

    hmmm, is there a commment limit? My last comment appears to have been truncated.

  75. mathew

    Good idea, horrible execution.

    The smart way to do it would have been to do the image processing server side. Then you could use a normal image tag and it would work with all browsers, even if they had JavaScript turned off and no Flash player.

    e.g. <img src=”http://www.adbrite.com/mogrify?http://www.mysite.com/myimage.jpeg&watermark=SAMPLE&ad=Drink%20Coke”> or similar.

    Their server would process the image and cache the processed version.

    Is there a way to subscribe to TechCrunch with Atom rather than the old RSS format? Then we wouldn’t have to deal with problems caused by angle brackets in titles, for example…

  76. http://www.jhatak.com

    I see a cartel forming here. how does it happen that on all the posts there come a set of users, who start criticizing on any small thing available. where are the days..when we people used to get excited about every post at TechCrunch.

  77. tr101

    “we could link 10,000 pictures of ipods to bestbuy.com, as an example”

    Pud, fine. You made your point. But its still a WIDGET, it is in no way “redefining” the img tag as in unless Dreamweaver or whatever standard tools out there start adopting this “format”… its a widget… like Slide, RockYou and all those other startups.

    Not saying its not worth anything, it could be worth zillions like all those widget startups.

  78. Gerardo Garcia

    I was publisher of AdBrite, and this bastards of AdBrite misteriously lost one of my payment check for $2,000+ in the snail mail, when I write to the support requesting a reissue they say: “The check has been cashed and we cannot be held responsible for the postal service” so I don’t receive the money from the ads that I sell on my websites, I am not the only publisher saying this more publishers expose this kind of fraud in webmaster forums. Be careful with this fraudulent company.

  79. StartupMeme

    This is one of those things where you instantly say WOW… really a nice idea. and quiet innovative as well. But this isnt redifining img tag in any way. Yeah its a cool use of images in widgets.

  80. www.youtubesearcher.com

    all this whining about having javascript turned off, reminds of the day people worried that users will turn off cookies, the simple fact is that the web experience these days is pretty much crippled when javascript and cookies are turned off, so my opinion is to just bag those users

  81. www.youtubesearcher.com

    also, to all the folks whining about the flickr TOS…

    I can’t see how this is any worse than the current practice today of posting an image hosted from flickr in your blog (with the tag) and then having google ads on your blog.

  82. www.youtubesearcher.com

    sorry, wordpress swallowed by attempt to display the <img> tag, trying with lt and gt :)

  83. Alfred Toh

    Why is this flash-based? I’m sure this could be implemented with JS with a little of moo.

  84. Doug Williams

    Is there no concern that another website can use your ID to post a watermark of your logo in a photo to make it appear legit and from your website? Perhaps they should use the referring domain as the identifier so that the publisher can own the permissions for such use?

  85. Michael Arrington

    regarding the use of a flickr image - we normally use png files on TC for screenshots. britepic only works with jpg files for now. So I used a picture I had on flickr. I should have just uploaded the damn thing to my own server rather than listen to flickr employees and everyone else complain about this. Or use my photobucket account.

  86. Adam Baker

    BTW, just noticed a some new Amazon widgets on typepad gallery, this time by Amazon itself! And it seems they have also done some innovation with html tags

    http://typepadwidgets.amazon.c.....ker-Widget

    They have chosen the A tag! Cool stuff, but looks like its available only for typepad users like me :)

  87. Technati

    “”regarding the use of a flickr image - we normally use png files on TC for screenshots. britepic only works with jpg files for now. So I used a picture I had on flickr. I should have just uploaded the damn thing to my own server rather than listen to flickr employees and everyone else complain about this. Or use my photobucket account.”"

    Lmao photobucket for the win!

  88. Benedict Herold

    Sounds to be a good idea..!! but potentially not much use…

  89. john

    “I should have just uploaded the damn thing to my own server rather than listen to flickr employees and everyone else complain about this. Or use my photobucket account.”

    Good point, Mike.

  90. engtech

    @matt

    Good idea, horrible execution.

    The smart way to do it would have been to do the image processing server side. Then you could use a normal image tag and it would work with all browsers, even if they had JavaScript turned off and no Flash player.

    Yeah, I thought about that one was well. Technically much nicer for the end user, but then they would have to pay image hosting costs. With their javascript/flash implementation I’m pretty sure it’s using the original image host to grab the image (hence the TOS violation whinging)

  91. Jeremy Kandah

    I was having a conversation yesterday about how we are “outsourcing” all of the utilities on our webpage. RSS to feedburner, MyBlogLog for users, Analytics to Google, etc. Finally, someone figured it out with images.

  92. Jason Cartwright

    Pud said “some people are protective of old school html and aren’t fans of ajax/flash/javascript”

    You can do both you know. Progressive enhancement - its pretty basic stuff.

    Look at http://www.swfir.com - technically doing what you’re doing there (replacing an IMG with an embeded SWF), but far far more elegantly.

  93. Allen Stern

    Unfortunately I see no use whatsoever for this product. Why? Simple. If this server is down, your images are down. Everyone. Now you might ask me about the same issue with say Flickr. In this case with AdBrite, they are a middleman - so you have 2 potential issues. If you use this code, you are putting your faith in their service.

    In addition, all you are doing is slowing your page load.

    In addition to the addition, I have tried to give AdBrite every benefit of the doubt on their ad side. Each time I am disappointed and refused to run them on CN. I find their interface very difficult to use. So why trust them for this?

    So I show an advert - what do I make off that and what does AdBrite make? Clearly they are in this for that revenue.

    I am guessing (I hope I am wrong) we will see these ads on TC now? That’s really what they are. Ads with images.

  94. earbudace

    good demo video

  95. David Layne

    I really must stop reading this blog,since it continues to annoy me on a regular basis.This is a bad idea,another example of Arrington hyping some bullshit he has a stake in.Blow Me.I’ve had enough.

  96. Amy Webb

    You must have gotten a special demo version, because it looks like AdBrite hasn’t released the service to the general public yet: http://www.adbritewiki.com/ind.....=Main_Page

    Sad…I was looking forward to trying it.


    Amy L. Webb
    webbmedia, LLC
    (blog) http://www.mydigimedia.com
    (company) http://www.webbmediagroup.com
    (sked) http://www.mydigimedia.com/map.html

  97. Jürgen R. Plasser

    All those people here whining about problems with the tag in the title of their feed readers seem to have feed readers with a cross site vulnerability or at least a bug.

  98. Dazed

    this post is boring

  99. Weak Sauce

    C’mon.

    It’s been pointed out that this isn’t redefining jack shit, much less the img tag. It’s not clever. It’s not inventive. It’s not even new. (see slide, rockyou and ever other flash widget co.)

    But, that’s not to say you /can’t/ make the img tag dance. But you DO have to be clever and you DO need to invent. And it needs to be server-side, not just use the built-in capabilities of flash. We’ll see it soon enough I guess.

  100. tr101

    Valleywag, which pretty much condemns everything seems to love AdBrite.

    Pud, you’re a damn slick salesman I tell you. You have both Mike and Nick wrapped around your crummy fingers.

  101. Kosso

    I dont think that’s very innovative at all. Also for the degrading img tag side of things. Making money from ads is ok, I suppose. The Flickr TOS issue also needs to be looked at.

    But I do like using a similar Javascript method for embedding Flash called SWFObject. It probably uses it - or similar
    http://blog.deconcept.com/swfobject/

    Loading an image into flash by using parameters in JS or any other data format is really no big deal. I’d say coming up with a potential business model arounf this is interesting sure. But see enough ads as it is, thanks very much.

    As for you guys over in the USA, I’m constantly AMAZED at how much advertising you are willing to put up with in your media.

    I’m sure it won’t be long until someone has the bright idea of putting ads on the dollar bill ;)

  102. Valerie Cruz

    #99 - the valleywag post is basically a paid post since valleywag uses adbrite. so its hard to want to 100% believe what they say.

    this too feels a bit sponsored just in how positive it is for something that from a programming standpoint is not so exciting.

  103. tr101

    #101 - Actually its not hard to figure out why Nick and Mike might be so positive. Pud probably supplies a ton of scoops for both of them since he probably has a large base of insiders from his days at F’d company.com.

    As the saying goes, you scratch my back… I scratch yours.

  104. manfmnantucket

    Is there even a Contact form on the site?

    I don’t see how to send them email….

    It would be useful if the ads were not mandatory and providing personal
    information not mandatory… looks like an easier route to create myspace flash widgets.

  105. Vincent Flanders

    Nicolas — As stated on the SWFir home page, “alt text is not preserved upon replacement” and that’s a deal killer because search engines like alt text.

    Another problem (from the SWFir home page) “Incompatible with other JS libraries like Prototype or MooTools.” With so many JS plugins like Google Analytics, CrazyEgg, ClickDensity, Snap, etc., being used, everything is going to conflict with everything (plus page download times shoot up).

  106. Michael Arrington

    no, Kosso, the Flickr TOS “issue” doesn’t need to be looked at. If they have an issue with this, they can take the image down and I’ll just take a couple of minutes and put it on my server instead.

  107. Tony Chen

    BritePic simply uses a javascript code (non-javascript verion is also available for myspace, blogger, etc.)

    What’s a “verion”?

  108. Michael Arrington

    yeah, figure it out.

  109. David Mackey

    Wow. This is pretty sweet.

  110. Andrew

    Funk Dat! If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I like the img tag. I don’t like messing up my images. This sh*t is bunk.

    Web 2.0 is all dried up - this proves it! I haven’t seen anything in 2007.

  111. Aditya

    This is a funny thing. I think its easier to tag images on Flickr. Plus look at that thing on the homepage…

    A puppy and an ad for DELL LCD. For sure powered by britepic.

    And I hate that Powered by Britepic in the menu… thats too much.

    Honestly, I would stick with the img tags. But this can be very useful for videos.

    AD

  112. Florian Cervenka

    Its overall a nice way to make some money from hosting photos..
    My problem with it is the overall very poor loading time. The javascript starts working once the page is loaded.. then some more milliseconds and its finally loaded. Compared to the simple image loading its not doing good.

    Some javascript that puts an overlay over the image would be better in my opinion.

  113. Michael Arrington

    Florian - I’ve been disappointed with the load time too, and spoke to Kaplan about it today. We’ll see if it improves over the next few days.

  114. manfmnantucket

    I just tried creating a non-javascript pic and putting it on myspace - all I got was a grey box and no error info… hmp.

  115. Arlen Ritchie

    @ Kaplan

    If the ad is meant to be contextual to the picture (and not to the page, like Google’s AdSense), how will the ad server know that the picture is really that of an ipod?

    I see in your specification that defining keywords is optional when embedding a picture using BritePic. What ads are served if no keywords are defined…non-targeted ads?

    There is a risk in putting the contextual determination in the hand of the embedder and not the trusted network: Do I want to chance that my company’s advertising will show up on some adult site photos because they were tagged incorrectly?

  116. Holger Rabbach

    So you mean you don’t want me to see your images anymore if you start using this on TC? I’m not going to click on every single image (yes, I use Flashblock with Firefox) to see it just because you decided that Flash is needed now for one of the very basic functions of any website…

  117. xale

    What about adult pictures ?

    I guess adult site owners will make huge amount of clicks and wasted advertiser money.

  118. Alex Leonard

    Dare I be the absolute nerd and point out that your post title is incorrect!

    In HTML img is an element, not a tag. I can’t believe I’m pointing this out, but I’ve read Roger Johannson giving out about this for too long to not have it jump out at me!

    Here’s the W3C pages that discuss the img element and the references to elements, tags, and attributes.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/str.....tml#h-13.2
    http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/i.....ml#h-3.2.1

    Here is Roger’s article about it.

    http://www.456bereastreet.com/.....ttributes/

  119. Clyde Smith

    That’s the slowest loading image I’ve seen in a long while.

  120. Jason Cartwright

    Vincent said: “As stated on the SWFir home page, “alt text is not preserved upon replacement” and that’s a deal killer because search engines like alt text.”

    Yes, but the Javascript isn’t executed by the search engine, therefore the ALT text is unaffected, and the semantics of the page remain intact for the search engine to derive meaning from.

  121. DB

    JavaScript version of BritePic (as above) should load much faster now. Clear your browser cache and try it again. ;-)

  122. Jen / domestika

    Don’t mean to be negative, but at first look I’m just not convinced that the benefits outweigh the “yet another layer of belly-fat” this adds to code… and could be ugly results in careless hands. Maybe I’m missing something?

  123. Florian Cervenka

    now it is loading a LOT faster :D
    thanks DB!

  124. Florian Cervenka

    @Jen.. you are missing the fact that no other ad-companies offer such a service - and that adbrite will earn even more belly-fat (from lobsters).

  125. Florian Cervenka

    @adbrite-guys..
    it still needs some work (I’m sure you are still tweaking). Why load the image again if it has been loaded?

  126. eetzucks

    Sorry, but this looks terrible to me. The controls on the image are obtrusive, the code is ugly.

    And who is going to click on random ads targeted by keyword that appear by rollover in images? For starters, I don’t float the mouse over every element on a web page as I read it.

    The whole idea is vaguely mystifying, floating along in a cloud of buzzword vapor.

    Community!

    Targeted Advertising!

    Javascript platform widget wank wank wank.

    There’s nothing wrong with the tag. It works. Leave it the hell alone. Go do your damage somewhere else.

  127. DB

    @Florian - To answer, the image only loads once, as the page is loading. The Flash ‘viewer’ then loads it from the browser’s local cache, which is almost instant.

    @Chorus - People without Flash 7 or better (3%) will now still see the regular ‘img’ version. People who have Flash and JavaScript get the BritePic version automagically once the viewer is fully loaded.

    Also, as Philip stated in #73, a ‘noscript’ tag has been added to the html generator, so people with JavaScript disabled will still see the regular ‘img’ version (those who already have our code can add the ‘noscript’ tag manually). Better?

    I work for Philip. He’s on the road so I decided to chime in. …We all really want ‘BritePic’ to work well for everyone. There is a ton of great feedback here. Thanks for hammering on it folks, and keep it coming. We’re on it. ;-)

  128. Florian Cervenka

    it seems that now the menu button and ad-bar only appear once the mouse hoveres over the image.. would be better if it would appear right away.

    thanks DB

  129. Danny Choo

    User friendly for users who want to right click and save an image (not)

  130. Money

    Looks very nice … I cant wait to try it. Does it make money???

  131. PS3 Folding

    I have a few questions regarding this. Say someone embeds your image on their website, do you still get the revenue?

    Also, seems to me that no ads are being displayed? Could this be because of my keywords selection? Also, would be nice if we would add multiple websites and not just be stuck with one.

  132. tself

    Just another way for them to shove more ads in our face. Blocking them will become more difficult. Lose lose.

  133. gary

    Looks interesting.
    As I have alot of my own advertisers, would prefer to be able to embed my own text ads within an image, and be able to work if either javascript or flash were disabled. Impossible? Anyone know of an open source way to do this?