I'm just putting the finishing touches to a site that I hope will be a big hit with the MySpace crowd at least. However, one problem I have is whether to allow linking to a dynamic image or just a link to the generator page. That is: www.example.com/a-silly-pic.gif?name=myspace-user versus: www.example.com/make-a-silly-pic.html?name=myspace-user and rely on the linker to copy the gif. I'm worried about my server dying horribly if I allow direct linkage, but conversely will the average MySpace user be adept at manually copying and pasting the image to their server? The site I've been inspired by has the second form of linkage, but it doesn't seem to have done it any harm.
I would do a few tests to really find that out. Maybe even email that other sites webmaster and ask them straight up, make sure you don't tell them you are making a competiters site of course. Maybe try some links one way and some the other way, see how that goes.
I'd say go with direct linking. It might kill your server, but if your site is a hit you can always buy more bandwidth. You don't want to rely on MYSPACE users to be intelligent and potent enough to be able to copy anything.
Yes, expecting average web users to do anything marginally intelligent is a sure-fire way to failure.
Thanks for the advice guys - I think the direct link would be better from what you say. I'll present a copy-and-paste box with something like: <a href="http://www.example.com/make-a-silly-pic.html?name=myspace-user"><img src="http://www.example.com/a-silly-gif.html?name=myspace-user"/></a> So I have more chance of getting backlinks. BTW: what is the syntax for MySpace links? Do I need a bunch of [x] Copy to MySpace [] Copy to Blogger [] Copy to vB etc options to switch HTML formatting? (The site I'm doing better has had over 300 million page views in three months!)