# Smilies vs Bandwidth

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smilies-vs-bandwidth/60947>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [April 5, 2001, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smilies-vs-bandwidth/60947 "2001-04-05T17:32:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![71-Hour\_Achmed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/7/57b2e6/32.png) [@71-Hour\_Achmed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/71-Hour_Achmed)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smilies-vs-bandwidth/60947/21 "2001-04-11T20:50:16Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Gunslinger \*  
> \*\*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by 71-Hour Achmed \*  
> > \*\*  
> > Why would that cause bandwidth concerns for the SD server? The images SHOULD be pulled directly from the ISP of whoever posted them, or from wherever else the user stored the images.  
> > \*\*
> 
> They’re the smilies that the SD owns, hosted, of course, on the SDMB server. That way we can only use “approved” smilies and not insert anything potentially insulting of our own. \*\*

Sorry, in rereading my comment I see that it was ambiguous. I was referring to the use of IMG tags, which **JimB** addressed later (thanks!).

I should have used the [hijack] and [/hijack] tags. Mea culpa. (Aside – how about a [hijacker] smiley?? 😃 )

The smilies of course take up a small amount of overhead, but only once per session (unless the user doesn’t cache anything, which would be a Bad Thing).

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smilies-vs-bandwidth/60947.md?page=1)