This 'rip off' was much more evident before Reddit got big (the first time) and redesigned the voting buttons. Before that the designs were almost identical.

Interestingly Vimeo does let you jump forward if you use their html5 player.

As 'cute' as this is please find a different API to use or at least find a way to attribute where you are _stealing_ the images from and ensure that the owners of the images are happy with you using the images.

Just because an image is on the internet does not mean you can reproduce it. I ran a couple of words I knew return copyrighted images and sure enough they come up.

Very true. I planned to introduce a page for every image to attribute the source in the near future. And I would delete them upon the owner's request. (just like youtube video)

I'm sorry but this is not good enough. You should try to do better than "what Youtube does".

Delete upon owner request (a la DMCA) is a legal maneuver. You should be able to parse out if an image is licensed as Creative Commons or public domain and show only those pictures. Else assume all rights reserved.

Not to pick on your project but it's time that people try to do better than take the easiest path of show all images (without attribution) because it was the most convenient thing to do.

(If you are going to do the delete on owner request thing, at least consider providing an immediate link to delete without 1) have to mail a paper request in, 2) having to sign in or 3) some other onerous route to delete)

Do you have a realistic way to go about this? Especially in what is more than likely a 50 line project.

I really disagree with the approach of blowing apart a fun project and insisting bloat like a text parsing engine be added to make you happy.

http://keyword.jpg.to/source or http://keyword.jpg.to/s would do just fine IMO.

Thanks for your advice. I will probably handle this issue in the next few updates.

If it linked to the source of the image, wouldn't it just be a minimalist search engine? Surely google doesn't individually license every image that shows up in image search.

I don't know what you think the site is doing but that is exactly what it is. It didn't curate the images, people didn't upload the images. It searched for an image that matched your word. No google didn't licence the image, but it only displays small thumbnails with a link to where it found the image. This is displaying the full size image with no link to where it found the image.

Thanks for your opinion. It will be handled better in the next few updates :)

Just because the image is copyrighted doesn't mean you are violating copyright law by displaying it. It would be quite nice of you to display a link to the site that Google found the image on - but if this is a non-commercial site, you have a very good fair use claim. If you really wanted to be in the clear, you could change your image search default to show "images labeled for reuse." Either way, don't be cowed by copyright maximalists.

Like this http://spot.jpg.to/ ?

London, UK - Full Time - http://spider.io

At spider.io, we look to catch bad people doing very bad things.

We catch botnets, browser emulators, clickjackers, traffic launderers, bots that probe for weakness, bots that learn. At spider.io, we look to distinguish legitimate human website visitors from nefarious automated traffic.

It’s a hard engineering problem. It would be a hard problem at toy levels of traffic. We need reverse Turing tests. We need to analyse from the application layer to below the TCP layer. We need clever stateful classifiers, that classify information based on previously received information. And if this isn’t hard enough, imagine doing this across four times the number of messages each day than the number of tweets received by Twitter each day. This is where we’ll be before the year is out. And for us this is just the beginning.

If you're an engineer and would like to help us make this happen, check out our careers page: http://spider.io/careers/

Spoke to Douglas (a founder) at silicon milkroundabout on Sunday (http://siliconmilkroundabout.com/).

Firstly, a really nice guy and clearly awesome team, who helped me think about some of the issues we're facing in my own startup.

Secondly I have to say this if the state of the web is as they claim, they're onto an awesome product here. If I wasn't working on my own start-up, I'd definitely be interested!

Good luck guys.

It is a protocol relative url. This way if you are looking at the site over https then the assets will also come down over https.

I was pondering today why no-one really knows about or even uses it.

As a bit of a general question to everyone, did old browsers not support it or something? Or do people prefer using relative urls over absolute style ones?

Paul Irish blogged about it a while ago http://paulirish.com/2010/the-protocol-relative-url/

For those interested, the reason the old google analytics snippet wasn't using this instead of document.write:

There is an edgecase bug in IE6 that causes a dialog to blow up… under some security settings (unsure if they are default) when requesting form the non-'ssl' subdomain

So looks as if it's fine to use if you're not supporting IE6.

The new GA snippet uses different domains for the two modes so it can't be used.

I had to be told, years back, so I think it's just an assumption.

Also, for those pesky secured sites that have unsecured static assets on a separate server, it might be that those servers aren't configured for SSL.

No point in that configuration though as your browser will report the site as insecure.

2.3MB of data for a one page site! While its pretty that is crazy big!

this can be greatly improved (losslessly) using http://punypng.com / http://www.smushit.com/ysmush.it/ / downloadable PNG recompressing software. I tried it on several files on this site and some decreased in size by more than half.

is that better than pngcrush? http://pmt.sourceforge.net/pngcrush/

I've always had good results with pngout

I wouldn't say it's crazy big. Bigger than 99% of one page sites? Sure. I've got a 50mbps connection and even with a far slower one, this would only take a few seconds to load.

It took me a couple of minutes on a 3G cellular connection.

It was worth the wait, for sure, but due to the way it rendered, I felt like I had to watch the whole thing because I didn't want to miss something neat.

It could (and should) definitely be optimized a lot, but as a proof of concept, I'm not going to quibble over file size, even if I'm negatively impacted.

Not to mention that it canes my cpu at 73%. What a waste of time.

"I really miss middle clicking links to open them in a new tab"

Hold down CMD while clicking (or the Apple Key as its popularly known).

Sweet!

Either Apple have worked on the speed or hardware has just got better but Spotlight is very usable for most people I know. This is especially true of those on a new MacBook Air where it appears instant. Also if you use it a lot it caches the results you hit, so for repetitive app launching it has always worked adequately.

Website doesnt seem to fit on an iPad sized screen, I can briefly read the content but then the iPhone comes and overlays the right hand size. Looks slick other than that though.

While I know what you are trying to get at please for a moment think about what you are saying. For most people photos aren't about optical perfection. Photos are a trigger. They are there to trigger a feeling of what a moment was like, to capture what the smells, the sounds and the atmosphere were like at a given point in time. A photo with a new born baby, you and your first girl/boy friend, you an your degree certificate.. these are personal moment with personal feelings. Its about what the moment means to you.

I look at photos I took 10 years ago with my 620x480 camera and I am not upset I didn't take them with a film camera, because the photos still have all the important things to let me relive that moment.