Directly copying the image source (as opposed to at the very least the page it was on) is very unhelpful, especially with most image galleries having different directory structures for images and webpages.

For example:
http://bittenhard.deviantart.com/gallery/?q=blaziken#/dvq0kn is informative.
http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs13/f/2007/105/d/f/Blaziken_Noogie_by_bittenhard.jpg is not informative.

Can we have a guideline for source links to at least be more informative?

When you upload a post by URL, the image's address stays in the source field. It's better than leaving nothing. Some users don't bother with sourcing their images, for whatever reason. Sometimes it isn't possible anymore.

The second link is very informative... you can see where it came from (deviantart), who drew it (bittenhard), and the title (Blaziken noogie). Google those four words and you get your source!

Riversyde said:
The second link is very informative... you can see where it came from (deviantart), who drew it (bittenhard), and the title (Blaziken noogie). Google those four words and you get your source!

That's just because the image JUST happened to be named informatively. Not to mention that just because it's named as such means it is accurate. For all it matters, I'm better off using the tags in the upload to search for the image.

I can give better examples if you wish.

(Seems I was quoted while editing my post...)

It isn't always possible to source posts. Sometimes they come from imageboards like 4chan, or the artist has removed it from their galleries.

http://www.tineye.com/

tineye doesn't always work.

the other day I got an image that I got off of a booru. tineye didn't work. there was a sig, but I couldn't get anything by googling it (protip: make your sig something people can google and find you with. really). finally someoen said "hey, I know that guy" and provided me a source.

So many other pictures where I just have to go "i don't know"...

On that note...

do we prefer http://bittenhard.deviantart.com/gallery/?q=blaziken#/dvq0kn or http://bittenhard.deviantart.com? every time I post I wonder. *I* prefer the picture itself so I can go and see what the artist had to say about the image, but a lot of people seem to prefer main gallery page....

SnowWolf said:
do we prefer http://bittenhard.deviantart.com/gallery/?q=blaziken#/dvq0kn or http://bittenhard.deviantart.com? every time I post I wonder. *I* prefer the picture itself so I can go and see what the artist had to say about the image, but a lot of people seem to prefer main gallery page....

Definitely the first one. Getting to the artist's page from the submission page is usually a click away, but it's not that easy the other way around.

Riversyde said:
(Seems I was quoted while editing my post...)

It isn't always possible to source posts. Sometimes they come from imageboards like 4chan, or the artist has removed it from their galleries.

True. But that still leaves the option of leaving it blank. As opposed to being misleading entirely, like the link in http://e621.net/post/show/121784/ball_gag-blindfold-female-penetration-pok%C3%A9mon-pus To someone who doesn't know what oekaki is, they would just go backwards until they find DrComet's page, then falsely assume that the artist is DrComet. And I HAVE seen image links hotlinking fchan, which is completely uninformative.

On a slightly offtopic note, I notice that hotlinked pixiv images seems to be automatically converted to the actual page they are sourced from. Is that new, and/or only possible for pixiv images?

Example: http://e621.net/post/show/98780/avian-bird-butterfly-canine-dragon-elf-female-fera
The address goes to the page the image is sourced from, but the link text (obtainable if you edit the address) is the hotlinked image, which is inaccessible.

Lyokira said:
True. But that still leaves the option of leaving it blank. As opposed to being misleading entirely, like the link in http://e621.net/post/show/121784/ball_gag-blindfold-female-penetration-pok%C3%A9mon-pus
To someone who doesn't know what oekaki is, they would just go backwards until they find DrComet's page, then falsely assume that the artist is DrComet.

Maybe, but it's not really the site's fault what people assume about source links.

On a slightly offtopic note, I notice that hotlinked pixiv images seems to be automatically converted to the actual page they are sourced from. Is that new, and/or only possible for pixiv images?

Example: http://e621.net/post/show/98780/avian-bird-butterfly-canine-dragon-elf-female-fera
The address goes to the page the image is sourced from, but the link text (obtainable if you edit the address) is the hotlinked image, which is inaccessible.

I believe the method of easy linking to Pixiv was written into the base Danbooru code, which e621 is based off of. Also URLs from a lot of image boards get changed to "Image board" after uploading.

Riversyde said:
Maybe, but it's not really the site's fault what people assume about source links.
I believe the method of easy linking to Pixiv was written into the base Danbooru code, which e621 is based off of. Also URLs from a lot of image boards get changed to "Image board" after uploading.

Maybe I'm recalling from far too long ago then. Still, a guideline on how best to link (for instance, your note about linking to the page with the image as opposed to the artist's page, where applicable) would be useful.

Lyokira said:
Maybe I'm recalling from far too long ago then. Still, a guideline on how best to link (for instance, your note about linking to the page with the image as opposed to the artist's page, where applicable) would be useful.

There is a small section about sourcing here but that's really all I could find. Should really be updated/used more often imo.

I'm all for favor of NEVER leaving the source blank. :( Even if it's going to another gallery without an image, or just a link, at least we are sharing with our users where it came from.

However I would like to get as close to the artist as possible. They deserve props.

I'm all in favor of not leaving the source blank, either, but it shouldn't be a direct link if it's from Deviantart or Furaffinity, which are both almost always completely uninformative. I've seen more than once images direct-linked to and really, REALLY wanted to see the source-artist, with no way to do so because the file wasn't named so awesomely conveniently.

Percy101 said:
I'm all in favor of not leaving the source blank, either, but it shouldn't be a direct link if it's from Deviantart or Furaffinity, which are both almost always completely uninformative. I've seen more than once images direct-linked to and really, REALLY wanted to see the source-artist, with no way to do so because the file wasn't named so awesomely conveniently.

If it helps, I've checked and it seems like directly linked images from Furaffinity and Deviantart (and SoFurry) all appends the uploader's name somewhere in the linked address (even if they didn't do so previously). There may be other image galleries which doesn't store/name images in a convenient manner though.

Suggestion:
Multiple source fields!

1) Artist's gallery
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/chizi/

2) Pic with comments
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5427551/

3) Direct link to the jpg
http://d.facdn.net/art/chizi/1300502526.chizi_e621fp.jpg

That sounds like a pretty good idea, actually.

KloH0und said:
That sounds like a pretty good idea, actually.

/agree

Should the artist's gallery be automatically added when an author tag is applied? What if it's a collaboration picture, thus having multiple artists?

On second thought, Munkelzahn's idea might be redundant. The "?" link next to the artist tag leads to the artist's wiki page, which should already have links to their galleries. If the page that has the image is already linked in the source field, then you can get directly to the image file from there (right-click, "View Image").

So we already have 1), 2), and 3).

Hmm... how about if you tag an artist, it'll provide an 'artist info' column under 'Statistics' (or somewhere) that'd display what info we have available for the artists... name, active status, any URLS, and maybe the 'description' that we have for 'em (or maybe not. that could be spammy and mildly abused).... plus, it'd give the artist further recognition for their work.

KloH0und said:
On second thought, Munkelzahn's idea might be redundant. The "?" link next to the artist tag leads to the artist's wiki page, which should already have links to their galleries. If the page that has the image is already linked in the source field, then you can get directly to the image file from there (right-click, "View Image").

So we already have 1), 2), and 3).

1) I don't think many people know much about the wiki.
2) I don't think people automatically update the wiki for new artist tags. (or old artist tags which doesn't have a page)

Perhaps some way of users to know which artists don't have the artist page on the wiki updated without having to go there manually? It would be better off if the artist pages have a fixed template for this so that it can be automatically retrieved to display somewhere on the image page itself (even if only on mouseover)

I think most of that could be fixed by somehow getting users to understand the site better so they can learn to use the different functions of the site more effectively for the sake of maintaining an up-to-date repository of knowledge on artists and their works.

Wait, that requires having faith in humanity.

I post a lot of things (flashes mostly) by source uploading because I don't have a program compatible with flash files, so I can't save them to my computer. I'm sure I'm not the only one who does it this way, so that's usually why you get direct image links as sources.

cookiekangaroo said:
I post a lot of things (flashes mostly) by source uploading because I don't have a program compatible with flash files, so I can't save them to my computer. I'm sure I'm not the only one who does it this way, so that's usually why you get direct image links as sources.

I guess you could always change the source after uploading though, or does that not work?

Lyokira said:
I guess you could always change the source after uploading though, or does that not work?

No, that works quite well, actually.. I frequently do it, because my upload/download kinda sucks. it jsut takes another few moments of your time after you click 'upload'.... I take the moment to skim over the tag list and make sure I didn't do anything stupid like femail or pnoy, or atrist:furartist.

KloH0und said:
On second thought, Munkelzahn's idea might be redundant. The "?" link next to the artist tag leads to the artist's wiki page, which should already have links to their galleries. If the page that has the image is already linked in the source field, then you can get directly to the image file from there (right-click, "View Image").

So we already have 1), 2), and 3).

Key words: "_should_ already have links to their galleries".

Many of them may not, and new artists are to be added all the time.