We're moving stuff to the new server right now. So some backend stuff might be down for a while. If it's down too long I will have to take my tech outside and beat him with a large stick. But hang in there with us.

Problem with a frame is that you can't change stuff if the code with jquery or JavaScript if the stuff isn't on the same domain. So I can't see if a user leaves for a sponsor. So that's something the gallery builders have to build in themselves. Not a biggie: add target='_top' and you're done.

I can see that the 'more from this poster' brings in more traffic to the posters. A lot more now it's in the bar (it was on thehun.net/new.html only).

A cookie set in a frame will be exactly the same as if it wasn't set from a frame, but from a full page. Cookies are set for a domain, not for a level of frame or something.

3rd party cookies are not usable. Many (if not all) people have that disabled by default. There is still a lot of paranoia about cookies... Some of it for good reason maybe. There are ways to transfer cookies between domains, but that requires some server side programming. Off topic though ;-)

Oh, I'll look at that prioritize stuff today. I thought I had that fixed. Apparently not.

IE, for example, will by default accept third party cookies only if the site sering the cookie uses a P3P compact privacy policy header.
In order to greatly increase acceptance of third party cookies, add a compact privacy policy. See:
http://www.softwareprojects.com/reso...side-1612.html

:thumbsup

You have got to be fucking kidding me. For the third motherfucking time, a frame is a third party object hence cookies set in a frame are THIRD PARTY COOKIES! Any stupid asshole can go Google it to prove you wrong. If you're not trying to manipulate people and it's your developer feeding you this bullshit, fire him on the spot.

p3p policies
 

Simply adding a compact header only gets you part of the way - you'll want to add a policy file to be sure everything's cool (IE8??).

It's should be easy enough to just throw a header in web server config and then add the necessary xml files - I use two, if you can figure out how to fit it in a single file... it's supposed to do that.

Apache conf:

Then a p3p.xml file:

Then your lovingly hand-crafted p3p policy file: (since all of the generation tools seem broken or just gone)

Not having appropriate policies in your program's traffic funnel can be a fun way to try to Gilette yourself a little extra change.

what's in a name...

I mean, if it's in a frame it's not really third party cookie, is it? If for instance thehun.net loads a frame from kinghost.com and kinghost sets a cookie thehun can't get to that cookie without some sort of server side code. So a domain can only get to the cookies it set itself. That's not really third party to me since a third party wouldn't be able to set a cookie for a second party... only on a frame on his own domain.

Now if this whole discussion is based on my literal translation of third party cookies and the term 'third party cookies' means that a domain, no matter how deep in frames it's hidden, can set a cookie on a computer you're right... that can easily be done. No problem

Ok, I think you're mixing things up. The problem is not security related, no modern browser allows domain A to read cookies set by domain B. The problem is privacy related.

When I visit domain A and domain A includes a page from domain B in a frame, domain B is considered a third party object by the browser, because I never requested domain B. Therefore domain B can be limited in its ability to set cookies, not just for domain A which it never can, but also for itself, domain B.

As I wrote earlier, I don't think it will be a major loss, but it's simply not true that is has no effect.

Oh that... I read that all over google ;-)

gotta love the hun! :thumbsup

"Third party cookie" is a technical term with a precise meaning and it's not what it sounds like. It does not mean a.com setting a cookie to be read by b.com. It means a cookie set by an image, frame, or other object on a domain different from the main page. Do if you frame a page, any cookie set by the framed page is called a third party cookie.

Third party cookies became interesting when ad networks starting using them. A.com would have a banner or frame from adtracker.com. B.com also runs a banner or frame from adtracker.com. With third party cookies allowed, adtracker.com could then track the user across both a.com and b.com. Privacy advocates didn't like that.

Fitty Hun Galleries:thumbsup

Hun guys am having problem logging at "The Hun Management Area".

Anybody else having this problem?

Its almost all day now.

we are going through a less-then-fortunate server upgrade right now. We had to move to a new server. That too was from 1995 almost ;-)

the move was a bit harsh to my taste, especially now it results in some odds and pieces not functioning the way they should... we'll get on the webmaster submit ASAP to make sure that's working.

and as soon as the update is done I'll start on the priority thing... that has been on the agenda for far too long now ;-)

Nothing changes my feelings towards The Hun ...

that can be explained in to very contrasting ways ;-)

'to' should be 'two' obviously... I thought this thing used to have an edit function as well? or did too many people chicken out of their comments too often?

No, you don't. Maybe at one time you did have to love "The Hun", but you don't have to anymore.

I'm not following all this crap, but every program on the face of the earth can delete your account and keep your money if you load their content (or site) in a frame.

I have no idea what desperate is as desperate does is doing, but if you have sponsor shit being loaded in a frame - it might be a good idea to tread carefully. I'll assume that The Hun is opening sponsor links in a new window or tab but - if they're not - umm, well, thanks for the traffic.

They'd be better off redirecting the domain to a hosted Pimproll tube. I'm not being negative - I owe my whole "career" to The Hun and AL4A.



Still love you, Nikki... Whether that's a good thing or not I dunno.

yes... ok... very helpful... very constructive as well. Ah well, I'm used to that by now, don't worry ;-)...

Why do people always look at the down sides of things? Open the sponsor in a new window, or put a target='_top' in there to escape from the frame. Is that really such a huge, unmountable problem?? The votes bring in a lot more extra traffic. So do the 'more links from this submitter'. I know this industry well enough though that the skepticists out there tend not to look at the upside of things. I think I know what I'm doing... don't worry, I'm laughed at before TGP's were even called TGP's... Guess I proved the skeptics wrong before. If you don't believe in this, redirect your traffic to a tube. If you do believe in this enjoy the traffic we send. It's free and it's still a lot! And it's starting to get more as well, so we must be doing something right!

i think the iframes are a great idea mr. hun don't listen to these haters.

What about having the gallerys leave the frame when there is a click on a sponsor link?

I do not see the use in keeping the frame when the person leaves the site.

Would be a very good idea if it were technically possible to do that from my end... unfortunately it's not. I will put something on the submit page about it to let people know how they can open sponsors in a new window and such. It's really not such a big deal. I don't think so at least ;-)

so, all sponsor links in a new window

<a href='http://sponsor.com' target='_blank'>sponsor</a>

or in the top frame

<a href='http://sponsor.com' target='_top'>sponsor</a>

or even better (cause I'm really not the only one sending traffic in a frame) put this on your paysite (don't use this on your gallery, we can't review your gallery if this is on there):

<script>
If( parent.document.location != self.document.location )
parent.document.location.replace = self.document.location;
</script>

didn't check it, so try it out before you put this one ;-)

or a <base target=_top> in your header would work nicely as well...

So adding the above to my current listed gallerys will not cause any problems?

The script would be a problem, the other options not. The script is for use on your sponsor page.

Free6 was opening galleries in frames since the late 90's if I'm not very mistaken.
I never heard anyone complain about that

people are change-o-fobic...

we expected complaints, and we got a few as well. But we got some great feedback as well. Especially from the webmasters, and the surfers seem to like it judging by the numbers...

I love The Hun ...

Was about time someone said this !
What i think also.

Put this in <head>:

:)

much less confusing, thank you! ;-)

don't do that, not on the gallery listed anyway... the bot won't like that... The solution is simple: open the sponsor in a new window or set target=_top. You can put it on your member's page. I'm certainly not the only one sending stuff out on a frame. I can't believe people make such a big deal out of this? It's not like I just invented the frame or anything? And it's not like I'm the only site out there using them.

Besides, the posters (including the paid advertisers) love it. They get an extra traffic boost to the galleries that were already listed. People don't have to see one gallery, they can see more. People get signups from pages that were listed months ago since we're constantly sending traffic there through the hunbar's 'more from this submitter'. And that's VERY targeted traffic. It's people that want to see more from the same guy. Sure, they might not sign up right away, but after they I-don't-know-how-many'th gallery they'll see the same galleries... and if they love your stuff they'll want more...

Ah, I don't have to explain how things work. But let me tell you this: if we're all going to be afraid of changes, and if we're all nicely going to stay firmly put in 1997 we're going to have a great time, but it won't be with a lot of traffic...

any news? (:

@ The Hun

Using <base target="_blank"> inside the header will open all links to a new window, I guess it is great because surfers will not "lose" the gallery, but in the case of pic galleries it will also open new windows to each picture that the surfer click. Do you have any problem with that?

Hey Garce, nice to see you back bro....

Thehun, I still love it.. sales every time I show a gallery.. here's to Michel :thumbsup

still the best traffic & tgp site on the web :)

Just submitted a few galleries the other day :) can't wait until they're listed...I always get a couple sales with each listing

No, not at all, this is fine. You're opening all pictures in a new window as well though, that means a lot of clicking on the close button for people. We have people submitting galleries like this to us since we started accepting submissions in err... 240 BC... so that's not a problem

Holy cow...I just had a gallery go from priority 3 to priority 15 overnight :)

Same here, however my other gall in the Accepted list is Coming up... for days now.

I swear to God I read cock instead of cookies