| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Laundry
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 28 Mar 2005
Location: YOUR IMAGNITNITNATION |
120.  Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Good job posting about a topic that was already settled in January. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Shen
Trick Member
Joined: 04 May 2002
Location: TN |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RBCF retunes
Trick Member
Joined: 23 Feb 2006
Location: 2P side |
| 122. Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.ddrfreak.com/phpBB2/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=59240
_________________
QWERTYkid911: If someone posts porn, then this thread will perfectly represent the internet.
Slowpoke: Ah, so that's how He created the universe so quickly... He was hopped up on caffeine. Thanks for clearing up that philosophical mystery...
PooingCavy: (About difficulty levels) If I could make it up, it would be: Water, Soda, Coffee, Red Bull, ADHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ghettobarney
Trick Member
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Location: Failing Pandy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shen
Trick Member
Joined: 04 May 2002
Location: TN |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zonic
Trick Member
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Location: & you want to know WHHHYYYY?? |
| 125. Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, I just saw someone w/ a triple-sized avatar. Also, we need an auto-size thing, for pic that are JUST over sided (I want one that's 120x120), & for those who say either A.) "Just resize it", I don't know how, & B.) 'Ask someone", noone ever does these days.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tekkie
Trick Member
Joined: 19 Dec 2003
Location: Albuquerque |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HumanBeing
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2007
|
| 127. Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wouldn't it be better just to automatically check within the server-side code whether an image is outside of either of those bounds (filesize or dimensions) and, if it is, automatically delete it (or don't accept it in the first place) and automatically PM the offending party with a message explaining things?
It just seems like it would be a whole lot easier to fix it once than to fix it for each individual case.
That and/or maybe warning points should be given for huge avatars/signatures.
_________________
I'm a human being! :-O |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VxJasonxV
Maniac Member
Joined: 08 Feb 2002
Location: Castle Rock, CO |
| 128. Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HumanBeing wrote: | | Wouldn't it be better just to automatically check within the server-side code whether an image is outside of either of those bounds (filesize or dimensions) and, if it is, automatically delete it (or don't accept it in the first place) and automatically PM the offending party with a message explaining things? |
IIRC, we do check. I could be wrong, it's been a while.
And I doubt it works with multiple images within the signature.
Not to mention that image sizes can be 'spoofed' (essentially) very easily given 2 minutes and some basic scripting knowledge.
| HumanBeing wrote: | | It just seems like it would be a whole lot easier to fix it once than to fix it for each individual case. |
Outside of when we made the limit adjustment for avatars, this thread hasn't been "high traffic" to be such a horrible issue to deal with.
| HumanBeing wrote: | | That and/or maybe warning points should be given for huge avatars/signatures. |
(This is just IMO, not an official rule.) Repeat offenders, sure. But first time? That's a little overboard.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HumanBeing
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2007
|
| 129. Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VxJasonxV wrote: | IIRC, we do check. I could be wrong, it's been a while.
And I doubt it works with multiple images within the signature.
|
If the server scripts check it then why do any too large images get through? You're not just allowing anyone to hotlink images from any URL are you? If so then that's the problem. If everything (avatars and signatures) is hosted on your server I don't see why it's a problem.
| VxJasonxV wrote: |
Not to mention that image sizes can be 'spoofed' (essentially) very easily given 2 minutes and some basic scripting knowledge.
|
Really? That sounds like a bug in the server-side code to me then. As far as filesize, that is easily checked since the file is hosted on your server (and if it's not hosted on your server, filesize shouldn't matter  ). I don't see how it is possible to spoof filesize at all unless someone had low-level access to the filesystem itself, which, if that's the case, you've got a lot bigger problems than image sizes to deal with.
If you mean the dimensions can be spoofed but not the filesizes, I don't know if they can or not but if they can, it would be the result of malformed image files. A validator routine could reject all malformed image files and inform the user as to why the image was rejected via PM but ...
| VxJasonxV wrote: | | Outside of when we made the limit adjustment for avatars, this thread hasn't been "high traffic" to be such a horrible issue to deal with. |
...I think you're saying that because of the infrequency of the problem, the solution would take more time to implement than it's worth. 
| VxJasonxV wrote: |
| HumanBeing wrote: | | That and/or maybe warning points should be given for huge avatars/signatures. |
(This is just IMO, not an official rule.) Repeat offenders, sure. But first time? That's a little overboard. |
Maybe. Hence the "and/or" rather than simply "and". Also hence the "maybe".
_________________
I'm a human being! :-O |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VxJasonxV
Maniac Member
Joined: 08 Feb 2002
Location: Castle Rock, CO |
| 130. Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HumanBeing wrote: | | VxJasonxV wrote: | IIRC, we do check. I could be wrong, it's been a while.
And I doubt it works with multiple images within the signature.
|
If the server scripts check it then why do any too large images get through? You're not just allowing anyone to hotlink images from any URL are you? If so then that's the problem. If everything (avatars and signatures) is hosted on your server I don't see why it's a problem. |
Go take a look at your profile edit page. There is only an option to hotlink.
We do not use the Avatar Gallery, nor do we allow people to upload images.
Like I said, I *thought* Cutriss wrote some kind of image size validation, but I may be confusing it with something else, not to mention that only goes so far.
Take a look at my signature, it overflows, but no single image is too large. (Side note: yes, I intend to fix it.)
It's "valid" because no single image is too large, but analyzing everything would take way too many resources.
| HumanBeing wrote: | | VxJasonxV wrote: |
Not to mention that image sizes can be 'spoofed' (essentially) very easily given 2 minutes and some basic scripting knowledge.
|
Really? That sounds like a bug in the server-side code to me then. As far as filesize, that is easily checked since the file is hosted on your server (and if it's not hosted on your server, filesize shouldn't matter ). I don't see how it is possible to spoof filesize at all unless someone had low-level access to the filesystem itself, which, if that's the case, you've got a lot bigger problems than image sizes to deal with. |
1) Just for clarification, let's call it "file size" for physical storage units, and "file dimensions" for the width and height.
2) Again, we do not store images on the server! Everything (avatars, signatures, etc.) is hotlinked. Your entire point here is moot.
When I refered to image size, I meant image dimensions, not to even mention that this thread/"petition" was to increase the limit of DIMENSIONS from 64x64 to 100x100...
| HumanBeing wrote: | | If you mean the dimensions can be spoofed but not the filesizes, I don't know if they can or not but if they can, it would be the result of malformed image files. A validator routine could reject all malformed image files and inform the user as to why the image was rejected via PM but ... |
Do you realize how much CPU time would be wasted validating every image, on every change?
| HumanBeing wrote: | | VxJasonxV wrote: | | Outside of when we made the limit adjustment for avatars, this thread hasn't been "high traffic" to be such a horrible issue to deal with. |
...I think you're saying that because of the infrequency of the problem, the solution would take more time to implement than it's worth. |
Essentially, yes. This thread was busy when we instituted the avatar change, but has been quite few and far between for a while.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|Karma|
Trick Member
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: in ur srvr, eatin ur dataz |
| 131. Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HumanBeing wrote: | | bickering |
OK so theres a few problems on some 2 to 4 year old threads noone should bother to read anymore. can you just stop arguing about it now since everything is working well for the relevant posts?
_________________
| (T-GOMP)Gackt wrote: | I totally passed PSMO on heavy. So I can do FAXX.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HumanBeing
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2007
|
| 132. Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 808 retunes wrote: | | HumanBeing wrote: | | bickering |
OK so theres a few problems on some 2 to 4 year old threads noone should bother to read anymore. can you just stop arguing about it now since everything is working well for the relevant posts? |
I saw a thread recently where someone had an avatar that caused a massive horizontal scrolling effect. At least one person posted in the thread complaining about it even. If that was a 2 to 4 year old thread, someone bumped it.
I don't remember which thread it was but then I saw this thread and found it relevant. I just thought it'd be easier to deal with it once instead of every time but VxJasonxV informed me that it's not really a problem because it doesn't happen often.
Anything else you want to say?
_________________
I'm a human being! :-O |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mtwieg
Trick Member
Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Location: Ù
٠اÙÙØ§Ø¶Ø Ø§ÙÙ Ùا اعب اÙجÙÙÙ |
| 133. Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm pretty sure there is some automatic check on avatar size and on sigs too. I'm positive that in the past I've been prevented from loading avatars that were a tad too big.
It must be something weird with the image that tricks the size check. It would probably be easiest to just warn people when it happens.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HumanBeing
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GackTMN
Trick Member
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Super kawaii desu ne! ^o^ |
| 135. Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
My only problem is my current sig gets cut off at the bottom a bit because of the line of text I like having above it as well. So I could either have no text to get the entire image to show, since the size of the picture is the sig size limit already, or just be happy with it being cut off.
It's sort of odd, since the image itself is the size limit, but you can't have any text at all above or below it because the actual signature size limit was made to those dimensions instead of just the image itself. 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VxJasonxV
Maniac Member
Joined: 08 Feb 2002
Location: Castle Rock, CO |
| 136. Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HumanBeing wrote: | | Okay, since everything is externally hosted and since it seems what needs to be constrained is moreso the image dimensions rather than the filesize, that is an easy fix. And here is a proof of concept fix for it! Feel free to use this or modify it to suit the forum's needs. |
Yes. Let's just throw out the fact that we impose limits to be nice to (1) dialup and (2) low resolution users.
#2 also encompasses mobile users. Xbox's forums and many others with absurdly large avatar/signature sizes look freaking UGLY on mobile screens.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AA Bob
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Alllll right! |
| 137. Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wait...are you guys wondering whether it checks to see if your avatar is too big, and why some of the old ones are bigger than the limit? The answer is in this very thread:
| Cutriss wrote: | It's because in order to set things up for the selectable resizing code, I had to release the locks on images that might have been specified before I wrote the code to check for image dimensions first.
In other words, if someone had a huge avatar two years ago that they've never changed, then they specified it before I wrote the code that checks the dimensions before accepting it as an avatar, and now that I've disabled the IMG tag restrictions, they're ballooning out again.
If you guys see any others, lemme know so that I can pull them down. |
So basically...yes, it does check to make sure your avatar isn't too big, but if an avatar has been there since before Cutriss changed the max size to 100x100, it won't be sqeezed down to size.
_________________
My Recall (home scores)
DDR/ITG videos
| Emptyeye wrote: | | So um, is it bad that awhile ago I was watching Family Guy, and when Quagmire came on, I thought something to the effect of "Whoa, It's AA Bob!" (I don't remember if the exact thought was "It's AA Bob" or "It's AA Bob's avatar", but I don't think it matters in this case)? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HumanBeing
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2007
|
| 138. Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VxJasonxV wrote: | Yes. Let's just throw out the fact that we impose limits to be nice to (1) dialup and (2) low resolution users.
#2 also encompasses mobile users. Xbox's forums and many others with absurdly large avatar/signature sizes look freaking UGLY on mobile screens. |
???
1) If the limits were actually enforced in code, this wouldn't be an issue.
2) The solution I posted, while insufficient for checking against filesize, is sufficient in constraining the image dimensions. As such it is better than nothing. If this has already been fixed in some other or better way then it's no longer a problem but I did see a post with a user with a huge (dimension-wise) avatar fairly recently so obviously it still can happen unless it was fixed since then.
3) If you constrain users' images down like that, if the dimension is off just a little it may not be noticable to them but if it is off a whole lot, it will look ugly and the offending user will probably change avatars because of it.
Hence in no way does implementing this solution increase the filesizes of the images. It doesn't touch that one way or the other. You'd need something else for that. I'm not "throwing out" any facts here.
It does perfectly constrain the dimensions, however.
I offered a solution for imposing the limit of image dimension. Some other solution would be needed for imposing the limit of image filesize.
Yes, too large of images look ugly and this is a solution for that.
Just try the example and see that it works.
Again, if it has already been fixed, this isn't needed but, if it hasn't, it is better than nothing. I'm trying to help here.
AA Bob, yeah, you're right, basically. But why would the old images still be allowed to be too large? This would fix that even. Instead of fixing each individually, just throw that in there and bam...fixed for everything. Need something else to fix filesize limit enforcement though.
_________________
I'm a human being! :-O |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|Karma|
Trick Member
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: in ur srvr, eatin ur dataz |
| 139. Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HumanBeing wrote: | | 808 retunes wrote: | | HumanBeing wrote: | | bickering |
OK so theres a few problems on some 2 to 4 year old threads noone should bother to read anymore. can you just stop arguing about it now since everything is working well for the relevant posts? |
If that was a 2 to 4 year old thread, someone bumped it.
I don't remember which thread it was but then I saw this thread and found it relevant. I just thought it'd be easier to deal with it once instead of every time but VxJasonxV informed me that it's not really a problem because it doesn't happen often.
Anything else you want to say? |
it was a 4 yr bump. Tekkie linked it up on post #126. also, as someone else already mentioned, the don't check old sigs/avatars as they were 'grandfathered in' when the update was made, as they should have been (no sense knocking out someone's sig/etc. just because a new policy is added, however courtesy would tend towards replacing it anyways).
i'd also like to reinforce that this isn't a problem for threads that shouldn't be read, ie the 4 yr bump.
_________________
| (T-GOMP)Gackt wrote: | | I totally passed PSMO on heavy. So I can do FAXX. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
Forums FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
