Page 1 of 1

invisible images --why?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2003 7:59 pm
by p0gue
can anyone please tell me why the first 50 or so of the photos in one of my galleries (mexico) went invisible for no reason? i did not uncheck the 'publicly viewable' boxes, now they are unchecked. also, the 'camera body' value has appeared, when it was blank before.

this is a real pain, because i now realize that people i have invited to my gallery have been missing most of the photos i though they had seen! i didnt realize the difference until someone complained about missings photos and i viewed my gallery while not logged in.

whatever the problem is here, i want it fixed. i've noticed that there is a public_flag value in the mass update function. what do i set it to to make all of my images viewable again? i dont want to spend the hours necessary to individually check each publicly viewable box.

this is really frustrating me. thanks for any help.

PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2003 1:16 am
by canyonlu
I am having the same problem. The thumbnails are okay, but nothing else. Just get a pretty lavender box where the image ought to be.

Anyone else? Any ideas?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2003 1:35 am
by slug
hi.
p0gue,
if you want to batch update the public flag, set it to capital Y or N
that is why they aren't showing up.
do you know how they got set to non-public?
was it using the poorly documented batch update (i know it needs to be fixed, sorry) or do you think there might be some other problem that caused that?
if you want i could quickly set All of your images to being public. but if you need to choose which ones, i'll leave it to you.

canyonlu,
the few i checked of yours loaded the full size just fine.
unaware of any server problems. could you tell me the image_id of one that isn't loading for you?

-slug

PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2003 4:12 am
by p0gue
hi slug,

thanks for the reply. i dont know why they changed. i havent done anything with the batch update function, so i doubt thats it.

reagards,
sean

PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2003 5:47 pm
by canyonlu
[
canyonlu,
the few i checked of yours loaded the full size just fine.
unaware of any server problems. could you tell me the image_id of one that isn't loading for you?

-slug[/quote]

Hi Slug,
I believe it is due to recently upgraded ZoneAlarm Pro. It is happening to me on ALL galleries, not just mine. The "privacy features" comes up telling me it is blocking ads, and headers. If you can tell me which "company" (if that's the right choice of words) I can allow (i.e. tribalfusion, etc) then I will set it to allow from pbase. I already have ALL settings to allow for pbase, but I believe there is something else I need to do. Thanks for the reply, so much.

PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2003 6:29 pm
by slug
i don't know anything about Zone Alarm except that many people complain that it blocks certain photos.
why not disable it?

unsure what kind of settings it has or what criteria it's looking at to determine what to block.

i've sent email to them asking what the issue might be.
if anybody knows why exactly it blocks certain images, maybe there's something i can do on this end.
maybe i can find a windows machine to use and test it.

seems like the simplest solution is to not use zone alarm or disable any image blocking settings it has.

-slug

PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2003 6:55 pm
by slug
ok. found a windows machine and installed zone alarm pro on it.
it is blocking the original size photos, because it thinks they are ads.

instead of ranting about how windows and zonealarm should be destroyed, i'll go try to figure out how to modify pbase to not trigger zonealarms "ad" detection methods.

for now, just change your ad security options to anything but High and images will load i think.

-slug

PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:16 pm
by srijith
slug wrote:it is blocking the original size photos, because it thinks they are ads.

I think the size triggers it. Haven't used it for some time now, especially since the free version itself had a security problem, but I do remember there being some size settings that could be modified.
slug wrote:instead of ranting about how windows and zonealarm should be destroyed,
I think destroying Windows will have the same effect. No host, no parasite :)