Someone's site that I visit just came back yesterday after being out for over a week. Sent her a message at MySpace asking what happened and she said that her hosting company took her site hostage and wouldn't give it back and sent her a bill for over $3,700 for going over the bandwidth for that month. Yeah right. Like she has the money?? But the site is back up after she moved it somewhere else. And luckily she had her site on backup. So she didn't lose anything like some other sites I know in the same situation that didn't know about backup and lost years of work.
Need help? Check out our Support site, then
What would WordPress do in this situation?
WordPress isn't a host so that wouldn't arise.
$3700? That's beyond ridiculous.
Who is this host?
I just checked her site now and she's hosting her site now on WordPress. :) But I think the previous host was GoDaddy:
p.s. never use Go Daddy to host your website.
I've edited the above to remove the address.
Looks like 633*1 GB ? That's a massive bandwidth hit. And it's still a stupid bill.
Looks like Dreamhost are the current site's host.
Last I heard she gets over 10,000 unique hits a day. But she doesn't use thumbnails. I told her to but she hasn't. I told her not to pay the bill but she said they have all her information.
GoDaddy - Doesn't surprise me. I have clients whom have registered domains with them that have been held hostage after their doamins were 'Joe Jobbed' by spammers. A Joe Job is when a spammer uses a domain that's not theirs in the reply field of an email spam and all of the bounced emails or those that can't be delivered go back to that domain. It's named after joes.com who is generally considered the first site to go after a spammer for doing this.
She probably got slashdotted or something. It's one of the reasons why I don't have a hard limit on bandwidth with my clients because I have about 6-10 a week that got linked via /. or another news service. I tell folks 100 Gigs a month but I think I only have less than a dozen sites up around there.
$5.99 a gig for overages? Ouch! That's high.
A quick looksee at Google shows me that there's a lot of other sites on the net hotlinking to her images. That's when they post her pictures on other sites and not host them locally. (Like what folks do here when they post a flickr picture in one of their posts.) I bet that that's where most of the used bandwidth went.
You may want to suggest to her that she might want to rethink her hotlinking policy. If she continues to allow others to use pictures like this, her bill is going to happen again and again.
She might be able to talk to godaddy but I've got to admit that I've really never heard them to backdown on one of their bills.
Although its strange that they let her rack up this amount of overages without any form of warning or notice.
Perish the thought, but what happens to our blogs if WordPress goes down? Do they get backed up?
britgirl yes our blogs are backed up if you search the forum and perhaps the FAQ you will find specific threads on this.It's come up more than once.
britgirl - they are backed up hourly and daily.
What this should not do is dissuade anyone from going for their own domain.
Things like the above are rare - especially if you choose good hosts who talk to you.
We don't charge for bandwidth or spikes. People get slashdotted and digged and such every day which is totally cool. I think it's silly to punish your most successful bloggers. :)
That said, WP.com is not meant to be a file host. If you just want image hosting or similar, check out someplace like Flickr or Imageshack which are designed for hotlinking and image hosting.
The big forums now hotlink all the time to sites like ours because they don't post pictures on their own forums anymore because of all the lawsuits that came with posting pictures with tags on them, Getty, etc. They can only now post pictures that they took themselves and also pictures that they paid for.
What's the difference between a host hosting someone's site, and powering a site like how the bottom of her site now says Powered by WordPress? I thought WordPress was like a hosting partner with those other hosts like Dreamhost.
Dreamhost is where the site sits.
WordPress is what the site is made of.
It's also very easy to stop all hotlinking. There are a number of places that offer help to do that.
is one, a google for anti hotlinking should turn up a pile of others.
Hotlinking can cost a LOT of money and it's all at zero cost to others. You have to protect against it because they are stealing your bandwidth.
I upload most images at supload.com. Their thumbnails are a good size and not really small. So isn't it them that gets screwed with bandwidth? lol
I hosted all the images for my wordpress guides on free ISP space so it cost me nothing. But then I found hotlinkers who were duplicating my guides. As I could not stop that hotlinking - and therefore theft of my content - I brought all the images into my website and stopped hotlinking. Cost me more in bandwidth but it protected my work.
I brought all the images into my website
A good idea. That way you have complete control over where your files are used. That's one of the reasons I set up my Gallery and put in a "Don't let the search engines scan me" robots.txt file. I allow hotlinking but I've got bandwidth to burn.
And have you ever noticed that when you get slashdotted or mentioned on a news site, is the day the server starts acting up? I got dugged heavily a few days ago and my host's network went down. Lots of fun.
Pardon me for being dense.I'm trying to follow this conversation and becaue I'm a newbie I'm confused.
If the line is as blurry as I think I'm hearing then I'm wondering why on earth I been bothering to ask for permission and additionally to only upload images from sites that allow free uploads for "non commercial use" only.
If a person doesn't get permission to post photos like the ones nosy does from their owners then isn't it a violation of copywrite? And if WordPress allows people to post photos for which permission hasn't been given doesn't that make WordPress an accomplice too?
Now let's take this one step further suppose WP does allow advertising on blogs do the photos uploaded then become uploaded "for commercial use".
This is mind-boggling for me but I truly can't see where the copywrite use line is being drawn, and where the "commercial" use aspect enters the picture and whom should be paying for bandwidth and at what point.
If a person doesn't get permission to post photos like the ones nosy does from their owners then isn't it a violation of copywrite?
One of the reasons why I push thumbnails as I would believe they would be covered under fair use. I consider my webcomic to be fairuse as well since a screen capture is only a small part of the entire complete work. Now, if I was to post an entire episode, that would be a different story.
And if WordPress allows people to post photos for which permission hasn't been given doesn't that make WordPress an accomplice too?
No, that's different. Donncha and I had a chat about this a few months ago and WP.com is considered to be a "Common Carrier" like the phone company. There's no way all of the blogs here could be monitored, much like there's no way for a long distance company could monitor all of their phone calls made through them. They aren't responceable for the content being carried over their equipment.
Now, that wouldn't stop them from being sued though. I get a few lawsuits and "cease and desist" orders every month with the hosting I do. I'm pretty well covered as above and also my TOS states that anyone posting stuff in their webspace is telling me that they either have permission or the copyright to do so. I usually get my portion of the case thrown out and, by then, I've already booted the client causing trouble or they've removed the material. Only once have I agreed with the client and we settled that one out of court. (The client got permission as who actually held the copyright was a grey area anyway.)
The commerical use would probably be a grey area as well but I could see where they would fall under 'Commerical use' if there we adverts on the site in question.
Of course I still haven't gotten a check from Google for their adverts yet. :)
WOAH! This is all so very new, weird and loaded with ticking legal timebombs. So I guess I'll just go on doing the right thing.[sigh]
Shucks! There are sure some beautiful photos out there I'd like to help myself to but if you're asked I didn't say that, right?:D
Have a look at those.
All are clearly labelled, and the vast majority are free.
I've never had a complaint about using thumbnails that link to the site in question. Actually had people thank me for me doing the method that I use.
Morguefile's not bad for free stock either. And of course you can always do a Creative Commons search on flickr.
Hey, thanks you three for the free photo leads. This is going to be fun.
No wonder she got hit with a big bill. That's one of the most bloated sites I've ever seen. The HTML alone on the front page is over 80K. I have a broadband connection and the page is STILL loading.
There's JPGs there that are 150k each, and there's dozens of them on the main page. Even without being slashdotted, if they're moderately popular that's a huge amount of bandwidth.
Well, it finally finished loading. The main page, with images, is a whopping 1.9MB. That's outrageously high.
Bad customer service for GoDaddy not giving them a heads-up on a big bandwidth jump, but it looks to me that it's not that unbelievable.
Timethief, the copyright legal mess comes into play when pictures with tags are posted (Getty, WireImage, WENN, etc.) I rarely post images with tags. But everything on everyone's entertanment blogs are all recycled. None of us actually took the pictures. Except Perez Hilton. He gets invited to parties and premieres now. But those pictures that don't have tags that are bounced from one blog to another, someone did pay for them because there are no tags. If the original owner wants them taken down, you just wait until their email warning comes.
But just as long as we credit or link back to the site that we got them from (giving that site for publicity), then everything is okay. Most blogs never even credit the sites. But I do.
I'm also now paying for WireImage pictures so they don't come with the tags. I know for a fact that a few sites take the pictures that I paid for and never credit me back. They use the same pictures in the same order. One site didn't even bother to change the file name that I had. lol But I don't complain about it. The big forums are now linking to my site because most of my pictures don't have tags. So I really don't care that much if some blogs never credit me.
You can take whatever picture you want for your own blog. Just link back and they usually don't care because it gives them traffic. If they say something, then just take it down. You make it sound like I'm this criminal or something. Unless you took the picture yourself or paid for them, then I'm doing what everyone else is doing. And it's been proven that big major news outlets have taken pictures and stories from entertainment blogs. So everyone is stealing from each other and using each other.
Hey! nosy read what I said to drmike again.
I said: "If a person doesn't get permission to post photos like the ones nosy does from their owners then isn't it a violation of copywrite?"
... "like the ones nosy does from their owners" ...
In other words, I thought you were getting permission. Sheesh please don't leap to conclusions like that. I'm just trying to figure things out that's why my post started with: "Pardon me for being dense. I'm trying to follow this conversation and because I'm a newbie I'm confused."
So nosy what are "tags" and how does one find out if a photo has a "tag" or not?
"So everyone is stealing from each other and using each other."
Dosen't make it right though.
That's like telling an recording artist it's o.k to copy his work or a film studio it's o.k to pirate their films. It's still infringement of copyright (assuming no creative commons licence or similar terms). What's so difficulat about asking permission to use a photo if you want it so badly?
Sorry. I thought you were attacking me. But tags are a mark on the picture that shows where they came from like this Getty picture. But if the person or agency buys them, then it's taken off:
What's so difficult about asking permission to use a photo if you want it so badly?
Most of what I put on my blog are from the sites on my blogroll. I don't know where they got it from and I really don't care. That's their problem. But I've always said that when I start making money from my site, the money will go straight back to my site and I'll be paying for more images and also for story feeds so that I don't have to credit anyone anymore. Every site and fans site that I know of wants us to credit them because it gets them more attention for their site.
As wrathchild points out, the page size is amazing.
Optimising your images will have two effects:
1 - it will save you bandwidth and therefore money
2 - it will gain you MORE visitors. People on low-speed lines won't hang around waiting for each page to load - they'll leave and won't come back.
Optimising is very very easy and can be done as a batch job.
This topic has been closed to new replies.