Some people see thumbnails

[Dave Humphries]

After conducting a hard reboot of my computer, I am still experiencing the same issue. Apparently my solution is to move at least to a different state if not to a different country. I'm sure Steaphany's photo is worth it.

Ah yes, given the now partially diagnosed cause of the problem, that was likely to be the outcome, but as I say, eventually it will likely correct itself.

I'd be interested for someone in Virginia (experiencing the thumbnail problem) to try George's link to the image directly and let us know what happens - and also, if they see the image full size; whether a subsequent Ctrl-F5 refresh of the web page improves the image there too.


Isn't Texas warmer than Virginia at this time of year Mike?

[IzzieK]

I don't have a problem viewing Step's image here in the Midwest.

[Mike Buckley]

Copying the URL into the browser displays the image at 800 x 582 without having to use Ctrl+F5 on my system.

Further I've noticed that the new versions of FF have some blocking issues to protect your privacy. Some warning shows up. It took me a while to see it.

Trying a diferent browser.

What's left are the settings of the PC\firewall\ad blocker.

I haven't seen any warnings displayed by Firefox.

Considering that this issue has consistently appeared on only one thread, does it make sense that a particular setting could cause the problem?

As for the possibility of trying a different browser, I'll only use Firefox because of its excellent color-management capabilities until such time that I conclude that it is consistently causing other problems.

[Sam W]

I now get the same results as Mike (using George's link) but am using MS Edge; same problem & results using Google Chrome.

[Dave Humphries]

Copying the URL into the browser displays the image at 800 x 582 without having to use Ctrl+F5 on my system.

This time, the use of Ctrl+F5 was meant for the forum web page - after you had successfully viewed the same image larger directly from url, to see if this prompted a different result. I can't decide/predict; it may or may not.

Or it may have 'fixed itself' by now.

Anyway, the effects are so limited, that I'll understand if you lose interest

Cheers, Dave

[Mike Buckley]

Dave,

Are you certain that using Ctrl+F5 refreshes the page? I ask because I have always used F5 to make that happen. Regardless, neither one of them has any effect on this thread on my system.

[Dave Humphries]

Are you certain that using Ctrl+F5 refreshes the page?

Yes; Wikipedia confirmation

Regardless, neither one of them has any effect on this thread on my system.

If you are still seeing the thumbnail sized image in this thread, that confirms that the Virginia area's internet server for this content has not been refreshed - in other words, they need to clear their (image) cache. Because things like this happen from time-to-time, I believe such servers usually (slowly) completely refresh their entire content at times of low demand over a period of time (days), hence my comments it will likely fix itself (eventually).

The only way I suspect 'we' could affect it might be if the original image were replaced with a newly uploaded one.
Either Steaphany or I could do that, to (perhaps) help prove a point.
Or perhaps add a second copy of the image to the first post by editing post and see what happens. (e.g. Does one or both become bigger?)

I'd do this now, but have domestic stuff to do while weather dry and bright and shops open (since I walk to them).

More later, Dave

[Mike Buckley]

Ahhhhhhh. I see from that Wikipedia article that using Ctrl+F5 is pertinent only to browsers, whereas I have always used F5 to refresh displays of software applications.

Now that I understand everything thanks to Dave's explanations, it does seem as if this issue cannot be solved by CiC or its users; it's all in the hands of whoever is controlling the pertinent server that is causing the problem.

However, I don't understand why the problem seems to be occurring only with this one photo.

[mknittle]

Ahhhhhhh. I see from that Wikipedia article that using Ctrl+F5 is pertinent only to browsers, whereas I have always used F5 to refresh displays of software applications.

Now that I understand everything thanks to Dave's explanations, it does seem as if this issue cannot be solved by CiC or its users; it's all in the hands of whoever is controlling the pertinent server that is causing the problem.

However, I don't understand why the problem seems to be occurring only with this one photo.

It happens to me intermittently over the past month or so.

[Dave Humphries]

However, I don't understand why the problem seems to be occurring only with this one photo.

Me either - unless...

When Steaphany first uploaded the image and postimg.org first displayed it to someone in Virginia, that at that very moment, due to a glitch/quirk, it was hosted at 180 x 131px on that same image url.

Thereafter, the source server was corrected to the full size (800px × 640px) version, but because the Virginia internet server thinks it already has that image, it doesn't bother to fetch it again, even when the thread or original post is updated.

To 'force' a change, it occurred to me (while out walking), that I could edit the image url in the first post to be something else, even just break the link, then have any one of you Virginia folks refresh the thread, note that the image is disappeared, thus proving the Virginia server has 'noticed' the change, then I could re-instate the existing image url and hope that the server fetches it again, rather than refer back to its image cache (which still contains the tiny one). Of course, while we're doing that, no-one else can see it either.

Or, as I proposed above in post 27, we just upload the same image to a different image url and replace the IMG link in first post (of both threads) to ensure no break in service. This course of action is more likely to succeed, but is wasteful of resources. Also; I'm reluctant to re-host Steaphany's picture on say, TinyPic without seeking permission first.

What shall I do?
(given that the 'url corruption/restore' technique needs good co-ordination in timing between us to minimise disruption to others)

Any action is, to an extent, optional, really the only reason to do anything is for us to learn. If we do nothing, at least 3 members in Virginia will continue to see the little image for a day or so more, after which, I'm pretty certain it will fix itself.

[george013]

Ahhhhhhh. I see from that Wikipedia article that using Ctrl+F5 is pertinent only to browsers, whereas I have always used F5 to refresh displays of software applications.

Now that I understand everything thanks to Dave's explanations, it does seem as if this issue cannot be solved by CiC or its users; it's all in the hands of whoever is controlling the pertinent server that is causing the problem.

However, I don't understand why the problem seems to be occurring only with this one photo.

On the server there's only one picture, normally. When using Picasa or Flickr, there are more examples of that one picture, in different sizes. You can see that on the URL.

If you get a thumbnail in stead of a bigger picture, then that is due to something on your pc. To find out if it is your browser you should use an other browser. If you run windows, than IE is installed. Use it and see what happens.
Concerning the cache, just empty it. It's good to empty that once a while.

Can you've a look at this picture?


George

[Mike Buckley]

George,

Your photo is displayed reasonably large as usual.

When using either Firefox (my normal browser) or Microsoft Edge (the Windows 10 browser), the first photo of the thread is displayed as a thumbnail. I still don't understand why you think this issue is caused by a setting on my computer considering that only one image is affected.

[george013]

Me either - unless...

When Steaphany first uploaded the image and postimg.org first displayed it to someone in Virginia, that at that very moment, due to a glitch/quirk, it was hosted at 180 x 131px on that same image url.

Thereafter, the source server was corrected to the full size (800px × 640px) version, but because the Virginia internet server thinks it already has that image, it doesn't bother to fetch it again, even when the thread or original post is updated.

To 'force' a change, it occurred to me (while out walking), that I could edit the image url in the first post to be something else, even just break the link, then have any one of you Virginia folks refresh the thread, note that the image is disappeared, thus proving the Virginia server has 'noticed' the change, then I could re-instate the existing image url and hope that the server fetches it again, rather than refer back to its image cache (which still contains the tiny one). Of course, while we're doing that, no-one else can see it either.

Or, as I proposed above in post 27, we just upload the same image to a different image url and replace the IMG link in first post (of both threads) to ensure no break in service. This course of action is more likely to succeed, but is wasteful of resources. Also; I'm reluctant to re-host Steaphany's picture on say, TinyPic without seeking permission first.

What shall I do?
(given that the 'url corruption/restore' technique needs good co-ordination in timing between us to minimise disruption to others)

Any action is, to an extent, optional, really the only reason to do anything is for us to learn. If we do nothing, at least 3 members in Virginia will continue to see the little image for a day or so more, after which, I'm pretty certain it will fix itself.

I don't think the server is working with a cache in this way. It's the browser that looks if an image is in the pc-cache and then decides for a request to the server or get the data from the cache. Your assumption of a posted thumbnail before with the same name looks logical. But only looking at the client side, the pc. On the server there is the right image, Mike and anybody can address it by putting the url direct in the address bar.

The image I posted on the same server is exactly the same size as Stephany's, 800x582. Just to be sure that there is no problem.

Mike,
I just saw you post. You can get a normal sized picture using the url directly in the address bar. I don't know if you did allready, but compare the address of the thumbnail with the link I gave you. Are those the same?


George

[flashback]

Ok now this is getting crazy, now I'm seeing thumbnails too

[Mike Buckley]

Yes, George, the two addresses are the same.

[Mike Buckley]

Ok now this is getting crazy, now I'm seeing thumbnails too

You're right that it's getting crazy. Your seeing multiple thumbnails in your image and I'm seeing only one.

[flashback]

You're right that it's getting crazy. Your seeing multiple thumbnails in your image and I'm seeing only one.

Only seeing the one, plus the copy you posted. Let's hope for everyone's sake no toenails start to appear......

[Dave Humphries]

I don't think the server is working with a cache in this way. It's the browser that looks if an image is in the pc-cache and then decides for a request to the server or get the data from the cache. Your assumption of a posted thumbnail before with the same name looks logical. But only looking at the client side, the pc. On the server there is the right image, Mike and anybody can address it by putting the url direct in the address bar.

The image I posted on the same server is exactly the same size as Stephany's, 800x582. Just to be sure that there is no problem.

I believe the internet doesn't work like that, if you and I both type the same url in to our browsers, even if all other things were equal (PC OpSys, browser, etc.), the fact that you are in Holland, I am in England and Mike is in Virginia US, we do not get our content directly from wherever the image is originally hosted, we'll each see a different 'copy' of it likely hosted in our own country's internet proxy servers that replicate internet content more local to us so that we don't all ask for the same image from Texas multiple times, wasting 'oceanic' bandwidth.

Simplifying a bit; direct content transfer happens the first time someone accesses it, thereafter, the geographically local ('replicated') copy is served to others in our respective countries. What we see here is when one of the local copies isn't accurate for some reason. How did it get different? I proposed a scenario, but we'll never know for sure.

IOW there's a second layer of caching happening on the internet, it is not limited to PCs and browsers.

When Mike put the direct url in to his browser, that caused another, separate fetch of the image to the proxy server from the hosting server, which brought back the correct size image. However, this is not tied to the web page url, which (I assume) is still using the smaller image cached in Virginia's internet proxy server.

[Mike Buckley]

Jack's posts are the only posts in this thread that I understand, and that includes my own posts.

[Dave Humphries]

Jack - you be careful with that hammer mentioned in your signature - you wouldn't want a black thumbnail