PM Uploaded Images - Permission Issues

[Cerez]

Uploaded images that have been shared in private conversations cannot be reused and seen by any other members than the original PM participants.

This means that I/we have to reupload the same image in a new PM, unnecessarily draining server storage and resources.

I don't understand the logic behind these unnecessarily restrictive permissions set on uploaded/shared images, and I think the board (and server) would do much better without them.

 

[The Nameless Pirate]

I believe it's there if a personal image is uploaded and someone tries to use it.

But you could just download the image so...

 

[Cerez]

But you could just download the image so...

Exactly. The image can be simply downloaded and reuploaded -- so the permissions do a disservice to the server and storage load rather than serve to protect anything. Not to mention that this causes major confusion for users trying to reuse/reshare previously uploaded images (because they and some of the other people can see it, while others can't).

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Very true. I ran into that one as well.

Not sure though how to solve it.
I'm no expert at the inner workings of the forum software.

 

[Cerez]

This may help:
User groups and permissions - XenForo 1 Manual

I did a little bit of digging, and it seems the XenForo forums are designed in such a way that attachments (including uploaded images) are treated as part of a private conversation, and everything belonging to that conversation is given the same restrictive permissions:
XF 1.5 - Attachment permission problem

Not sure how permissions for attachments in general, globally, could be overwritten. But if there is such an option, that would be the solution.

I think it really is a silly design to treat private conversations and their attachments with the same permissions. It sounds good, until you really think about it and start to use it. If they wanted to restrict access to uploads/attachments, they should have given the user a choice when uploading/editing to set the permissions private or public on the attachment.

 

[Grey Roger]

If you want the image to be more widely, perhaps post it on the forum, then put a link in the PM?

It's possible to be sneaky with "URL" and "IMG" tags. Use the "URL" to link to the full image and the "IMG" to link to the thumbnail. Something like this:

(url=http://www.piratesahoy.net/attachments/us_interceptor_new-jpg.35338/)(img]http://www.piratesahoy.net/data/attachments/28/28996-d1b7b3431b52c5b6c38c8ee820feb6a0.jpg(/img)(/url)

I've replaced the "[" and "]" with "(" and ")" so that the forum software doesn't process the tags. The end result is this, which is an image I posted in a different thread and did not upload again for this one:

 

[Cerez]

If you want the image to be more widely, perhaps post it on the forum, then put a link in the PM?

That's exactly what's silly about this design. It shouldn't matter where you upload the image -- it all goes to the same web storage. By allowing it to be reused, you reduce the amount of times the same image is uploaded to that storage -- not to mention lighten the load on the server by reducing the amount of uploads.

If they wanted to give the user the choice to keep the attachment private -- which in itself is, admittedly, a bit silly a practice online -- they should have made public the default and given the option for the user to set permission to private on the attachment, at the user's own discretion.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

I suppose they figured "private" means private.
But I cannot disagree with you.

Most attachments are relatively small though, so the server space isn't a big issue.
The main annoyance would be the confusion when you can see it and someone else can't.

 

[The Nameless Pirate]

That is what happened with my signature image and why I uploaded on imgur.

A good way to check if others see it is to log out, but this only works if you are re using the image on a public post.