Gallery Upload Issues

[420]

I'm very comfortable with the new software revision as I've been using it on a number of other forums. The only negative I am experiencing has to do with photo extensive pages which can take 2-3 minutes to fully load on a high speed internet connection.

I believe it has to do with the default resolution that is displayed on journal entries. Many sites have a default display resolution of 640x480 but if you click the image it will open to full resolution that was uploaded. Also a number of sites I've used the software on there is an option of resolution at time of upload.

Thanks 420Magazine for all the hard work you are doing to give us a great forum.

Thank you for your support, brother.

Any issues having to do with the gallery should be put on hold until the thumbnails for all of the photos finishes rebuilding. It's been processing for the last 4.20 days and still ongoing. We are hoping that is the reason for the slow page loads, however cannot be 420% sure, until it stops. Then we can start trouble shooting elsewhere, but if we try now, it could disrupt the rebuild and then weed have to start all over again. This is a time we can all come together and practice patience and remember, good things come to those who wait.

 

[Rider509]

@420, is restoring the photo thumbnails in the media folders an option? All of the older photos from before the change lost their thumbnails.

edit: disregard this question. I just saw the answer!

 

[420]

More fresh news on the gallery issue and page loads, please spread the word.

Most of the photos from your old member galleries, got imported into one gallery for everyone. This was obviously not supposed to happen, but it did. We are now making a script to convert these into new albums for each member. I'd guess about 80-90% of all images on the site are in that one category, so that is most likely what is creating the slow load times, along with the thumbnail rebuild process rebuilding million of thumbnail images. We hope to have this resolved early this week, thanks for everyone's patience and support.

 

[Amy Gardner]

More fresh news on the gallery issue and page loads, please spread the word.

Most of the photos from your old member galleries, got imported into one gallery for everyone. This was obviously not supposed to happen, but it did. We are now making a script to convert these into new albums for each member. I'd guess about 80-90% of all images on the site are in that one category, so that is most likely what is creating the slow load times, along with the thumbnail rebuild process rebuilding million of thumbnail images. We hope to have this resolved early this week, thanks for everyone's patience and support.

That’s a big fix job hey!?

But actually - all old images are loading well. It’s new ones that are having problems, for me anyway. SO do you mean that the ‘work’ the software is doin on that would be slowing down all image loading? (Only mentioning really - so you know there’s a difference between old and new images in th browsing exeperince...)

 

[Troy01]

More fresh news on the gallery issue and page loads, please spread the word.

Most of the photos from your old member galleries, got imported into one gallery for everyone. This was obviously not supposed to happen, but it did. We are now making a script to convert these into new albums for each member. I'd guess about 80-90% of all images on the site are in that one category, so that is most likely what is creating the slow load times, along with the thumbnail rebuild process rebuilding million of thumbnail images. We hope to have this resolved early this week, thanks for everyone's patience and support.

 

[AKgramma]

We've got our stylist on this issue now. It appears to be a conflict between the old copy of the forums we are saving until we make sure everything imported and works right, and the new copy of the forums, for some of you, pulling the old header. I was hoping it was a clearing cache issue, however Russ is on the task now and should have it resolved as soon as possible.

Thank you. The last reply to this topic that came via email was a few posts back, so just got caught up. Just in case, however, I just rebooted after clearing EVERYTHING out of my history and caches. Still no GALLERY menu.

OS: Windows 7 Premium 2009, Service pack 1 (no longer supported by Microsoft)
Browser: Google Chrome, latest version, automatically updated
PC: HP Touchsmart 300
Not using smartphone or any other connection devices.

 

[Old Salt]

Thank you. The last reply to this topic that came via email was a few posts back, so just got caught up. Just in case, however, I just rebooted after clearing EVERYTHING out of my history and caches. Still no GALLERY menu.

OS: Windows 7 Premium 2009, Service pack 1 (no longer supported by Microsoft)
Browser: Google Chrome, latest version, automatically updated
PC: HP Touchsmart 300
Not using smartphone or any other connection devices.

I'm running:
OS: Windows 7 Professional 64 bit, Service Pack 1
Browser1: Google Chrome, Version 63.0.3239.132 (Official Build) (64-bit)
Browser2: MS IE 11.0.9600.18920
PC: Lenovo M Series 4GB RAM

I'm seeing the Gallery in both browsers in the green bar near the top of the page between 'Entertainment' and the search icon. It is visible whether or not I'm signed in. To get the Chrome version, go to the three dots in the upper right, click 'Help,' click 'About Google Chrome' The exact version of your browser will help the debuggers.

I just updated Chrome to Version 64.0.3282.186 (Official Build) (64-bit). It works as well.

The crap never stops. Microsoft has been fighting for market share since the beginning. It's made writing HTML and other 'net code a real pain from day 1.

 

[Amy Gardner]

Is there anyone who voted no or undecided in the poll above, that might be ready now to change their vote to yes?
That would mean a lot to all of us working hard for you behind the scenes.

I went from undecided to love it a few days ago!

AT the risk of annoying some people and becoming unpopular... this:

Many folks are complaining about how the mobile app (420 or 420) used to let you ‘one click’ to your phone photos and put up a picture. Call me a nerd, but because I read and cared about the site guidelines for posting and uploading pictures, I never used that function on my phone because the site guidelines specifically requested that folks upload through the 420 gallery. There were (are) good reasons for that, including the security of members and their content (which it is now revealed was not being respected by the app servers ‘management’). It would also ensure the 420 Watermark was embedded, and, because half the reason I’m here and not on some other forum is because I believe in and support the work this site is dedicated to, there is, 1. a certain amount of pride in having my pics of my plants tagged with ‘420Magazine’ and 2. It’s good for the 420 cause to have their tag on photos, as well as having pics organised into their categorical structure, not to mention it keeps the images on their server. And saves the volunteer mod team working their collective asses off in the background trying keep the media ‘on site’.

SO that pic uploading ‘problem’ that many people are having conniptions over is IMHO somewhat moot, because it was never really a ‘sanctioned’ way to upload pics anyway. I don’t believe it constitutes a step backward. Others will disagree - i’m Just having a bugbear about it this week because it’s been the focus of many discussions without those finer points being understood or cared about. Convenience is not always everything!

I’ll shut up and have toke now - because we’re not supposed to be ranting here! So sorry Rob & crew!

And the rant is not directed at anyone in particular, I’ve had conversations wth many about it. My statements aren’t personal they’re general. And they’re just my opinion.





Edit: and I guess, seeing as a discussion about this doesn’t really belong here, if you want to have a go at me about it, please come over to my garden and drop your response there. Don’t do it here!

 

[420]

Gallery thumbnails should all be done generated now, can you all please double check for us and report back here, so I can take this off the list.

 

[Chris Scorpio]

Gallery thumbnails should all be done generated now, can you all please double check for us and report back here, so I can take this off the list.

I went back aways and all my pics/thumbnail seem to be there

 

[420]

@420
G’morning Rob - well it is morning for me anyway. Just wanting to check if some background gallery work is being done again. After things got nice and fast late yesterday, now pages with images are very very slow to load again. Don’t want to report it as a bug if there’s a temporary backend process that’s making it happen. But if there’s not... well, it’s a bug.

Page loads still having issues after the gallery stuff has been resolved?

Is this for everyone or just you?

We need to determine if it's our website or your internet, your ISP network, your router, your computer, your resources, etc. Please gather more clinical studies and record times and everything you can, so I can provide the data to the developers for investigation. Currently, I have nothing to give them though, so there is really nothing they can do.

 

[Old Salt]

I put together a quick tutorial on removing gallery data from a post. It's here. Feel free to move it to a more appropriate location.

Would a tutorial on how to add media to one of your albums be worthwhile?

 

[Old Salt]

Just for the halibut I took a look at Sue's page. The images are roughly 2.6MB each. They are marked as being served as 'full.' There are 74 images within the posts on the page, at a resolution of 4032 X 3024, for a total of 192MB. That would explain the slow loading of the page. The images are shown in an 883 X 662.25 container on my desktop. That size page loads would soon cost mobile users big time if they used a cellular network.

The level of detail is wonderful, and I think it's very much worth having them available on the site. Just something else for the team to think about.

 

[Oldbear]

Possibly it’s time to restrict picture sizes. Can the site automagically reduce them? Some do.

My old eyes can enjoy 300k picture. Especially on a iPhone 5

 

[overlord]

I won't touch that SuperSue

A good quality pic dosent need to mean it's 15mb in size


So I agree in shrinking can be a good thing

We were able to upload 15mb pics on the old site, without any issues.

On the old site, I believe the software resized them for the forum, now it seems to fit them for the post window.

I noticed on the last post I did with pics on my thread, that right clicking the pic and open in new tab will give you the full size original that can be zoomed in and see details.

We had a bit of a discussion about it, and it is nice to zoom in. However not at the sacrifice of data plan, slow loading and perhaps slowing the site down.

Is it possible to have the site resize them like we had on the old site?

 

[Rider509]

Loading photos is like watching slug races. Suggest to use thumbnails in the threads.

 

[overlord]

I just liked your post and it took over 30 seconds to respond. I feel like I'm on a 300 baud dial-up through AOL. This is unteneable.

In some cases I have liked a post multiple times without success.

According to @MagicJim 's webpage report most of the loading is the pics.

If I upload 8 X 13mb pics to my thread, and who knows how many are doing the same. Add in all the users who are visiting those threads and downloading all those MBs. I can see why the site might be slow.

We were able to do this on the previous software without a problem, because I think the software resized the pics, but as I was saying I can now visit any thread with pics that were currently uploaded.

Right click on the pic and open in new tab and get the full resolution, I assume that while we see a pic fit to the post the entire pic is loading in the background.

My last post with pics again averaged 13mb as they always have. But when I do the right click thing, I get a 4000 X 6000 picture in the new tab, instead of one that just fits my browser window as we had in the past.

 

[Rider509]

I think most of us would prefer thumbnail images in the threads that could be expanded in another tab. I hate having to scroll past numerous pics that take up tons of page space.

 

[overlord]

A pic I posted before the switch without me resizing at 633 X 1024 and loads quickly --> Feb Pic Contest

And one uploaded after the switch at 4000 X 6000 --> Current uploaded pic

I did nothing different when uploading, no resizing, or whatever.

 

[Amy Gardner]

Possibly it’s time to restrict picture sizes.

I can see why that is a tempting thought ‘bear, but that would be a big step backwards IMO! Esp on this new platform that renders imamgs so well. It’s only new images that have this issue - so clearly it’s some thing in the way the site is ‘handling’ them

We were able to upload 15mb pics on the old site, without any issues.

On the old site, I believe the software resized them for the forum, now it seems to fit them for the post window.

I noticed on the last post I did with pics on my thread, that right clicking the pic and open in new tab will give you the full size original that can be zoomed in and see details.

We had a bit of a discussion about it, and it is nice to zoom in. However not at the sacrifice of data plan, slow loading and perhaps slowing the site down.

Is it possible to have the site resize them like we had on the old site?

yes all this. ^^^
On the old site I could zoom in for detai too...

I think most of us would prefer thumbnail images in the threads that could be expanded in another tab. I hate having to scroll past numerous pics that take up tons of page space.

Some pages I’ve visited seem to have som like this going on - fast loading images that you can click on and they will load in fullscreen (not sure the resolutions tho). But the in page images are still nice and big to view, the pics are a huge part of the experience for many. we never talked about restricting them like this before, because we never had to. Moving technology forward shouldn result in winding media delivery back. But yes, they shou be delivered to us in an optimised fashion - with option to view full res images if we want.

A pic I posted before the switch without me resizing at 633 X 1024 and loads quickly --> Feb Pic Contest

And one uploaded after the switch at 4000 X 6000 --> Current uploaded pic

I did nothing different when uploading, no resizing, or whatever.

exactly - i don’t think we should be expecting the membership to change their practices. This is something the web team need to fix. If the old site could do it - the new site should too, and do it better even! The devs knew the kind of traffic and media loads they were desiging for. Let’s hope they can fix it! I don’t envy (@420) Rob’s job ATM.