Originally Posted by BCRider
OK so it's not supposed to link to a larger version? When I hover over the small picture in your first post I get the "finger and fist" indicating a link. ......
If you do a reply w/quote, you can see that the first image is tagged [ URL ][ IMG ][ /IMG ][ /URL ] ... like this:
If you were to strip the URL tags and just leave [ IMG ][ /IMG ] tags, it would look like this (non-linked):
The second image is the same way:
The file name is "04bt86796sb2.th.jpg" ... obviously the thumbnail version.
If you right click the larger image (at the imageshack site) and get the properties/location info ... you can see the full size filename (04bt86796sb2.jpg). IMG tagging this location results in the full size image in the post ... like this.
You can also link straight to the Bontrager site and show the image there too. Interestingly enough, the poster didn't even bother to change the filename from what the Bontrager site calls it (right click each image and show properties to see location (URL) of each image. "Borrowing" the image, storing it on imageshack and then linking to imageshack was totally unnecessary.
Whenever I post an image linked to a business site ( like Bontrager ), I always mention that the image is from their site and give the URL to the site ... http://bontrager.com
BTW, I have no idea how to adjust the seat. Sorry.