1. 6
  1.  

  2. 3

    I’m sure you can figure out ways to break it, but it’s a waste of your time (and you need to get a life).

    I’m sure it was meant innocently but this really doesn’t read well. Never attack your readers.

    1. 2

      Indeed, and I think learning how to break this would be a very rewarding and educational experience. That - to me - is a life.

      1. 2

        yep that definitely came across too harsh.

      2. 1

        It seems fairly easy to fake by making automatic requests for the .gif (I can’t see how hitcount.me can check for the uniqueness of the requestor). This makes it dubious as a ranking that other people use. It does remind me of the one pixel gif trick that some mail clients used as a consent-less way to read receipt to inform the sender.

        1. 1

          Doesn’t Chrome optimize to not request images that are “display: none”?

          1. 1

            Is that possible without static analysis of the Javascript which would be able to flip that display: none to show it? I guess it could make the request if that were to happen…