I've been noticing recently that some threads, mainly but not exclusively pre c.2010, have images missing and marked "image removed". In one nearly all of the images were "removed" even though from a variety of different contributors. This is quite annoying if the reason for searching was to check details which would only be visible in photos. Is there some special reason why this will have been done?
My 'history' list doesn't go back quite far enough to pull any up immediately. I'll wrack my brains and/or let you know next time I run into one; wasn't keeping records, it just dawned on me that had stumbled over a few over last month or so.
I still have access to the old site in text (including image paths) & have the images downloaded so should be able to restore if they are brought to my attention. Every post has a 'Report' option which flags up for me & the mod team. That's the easiest option to bring these to our attention as you come across them.
@Spiritburner Thanks for pointing out the 'report' mechanism - I've re-found one of those posts with "imgRemoved" where there would have been 2 thumbnails and flagged it with the report button (In this thread). The missing images there just happen to have been mine, but none of the other similar instances I'd stumbled on were. But I now find that searching for 'imgRemoved' produces loads more!!!. Ian.
Hi @igh371 . I have had a look at your link and can't see the photos you are referring to. I can only see one. Underneath where the other 2 would have been, it says "Last edited by a moderator: Jun 27, 2015". Cheers, John
3 posts in search here. https://classiccampstoves.com/search/1094110/?q=imgRemoved&o=relevance&c[node]=145
Thanks Ian. There will be a lot of random posts like that but very small compared to the total posts. I'm probably going to have a nightmare about this tonight as the reason was the cause of a lot of stress when we upgraded the site! Here's a brief explanation! @Christer Carlsson @shagratork The images were also missing on the old site & as a result I don't have a backup of them. Because they were missing on CCSv3 when we moved they obviously couldn't be transferred over. Original Post below. No images show on the screenshot below because they have now all been backed up offline & removed to save server space. CCSv3 used to show a list of attachments if the green 'plus' was clicked at the bottom of the post. You can see only one attachment listed here. There are image placeholders however for the missing thumbnails - marked with the cross. Looking at the post in edit view the code is there for three images: I have the all the folders on my PC- this one is gallery/7811. The missing thumbnails & associated image are not there. I believe this was down to human error when creating the post but can't say 100%. On the old forum a file uploader was in pop-up form. Image code for thumbnail or full was placed in the post by clicking those options & the uploader had to be closed once images were posted by clicking finished. If not it would remain open in it's own mini window, minimised in the pc's taskbar & maybe not noticed until later if at all. The danger with this uploader was, once the image was placed in the post & maybe even successfully previewed there was a chance if the uploader was left open, that a user may click the remove button after the event. That would delete the image but leave the code for the image path in the post. The fact such images were missing was the major cause of the delay when transitioning from CCSv3 to CCSv4. A script was used to run through the old site, identify images paths & then copy that image to a new location on CCSv4 & then rewrite the image path & code the thumbnail/full image relationship where it applied. After hours of frustration (weeks in delay) it was discovered the script was stalling when it came across an image path but no subsequent image could be found. It took a long time altering the script etc before it was decided the only was forward was to compile a list of image paths with missing images & remove them so that the image import script ignored them. That is what we are seeing here. Once a file of such links was compiled a query was ran that changed them all to |imgRemoved|. They will show 'thumb' or 'full' depending on the form in which they were placed. This allowed the image import script to ignore the missing images & run to a successful conclusion. It even brought inhouse images posted on 3rd party sites such as Photobucket & Flikr So, bottom lime - in these instances where it states imgRemoved there's nothing I can do. Another instance where images are missing as a result of the upgrade is as follows. Back to the image uploader on the old site. It was not a requirement for a user to use the full or thumb options to add an image. They could upload an image & hit finish to close the uploader. In these cases the image would not show within the post. Instead there was a link a user had to click to view the image. Some of you may remember such posts. In some cases a long list of image links would be at the bottom of a post which were accessed by hitting the small green plus icon. As here: In those cases the mod team would edit the post to show the images inline but we didn't catch all of them. Those posts we missed haven't had their images transferred to CCSv4. The reason being the unusual code that was used by the software for the image path in these instances. The import script just ignored it. These I can fix. The only evidence of the missing image is the missing image! So if a posts states eg 'Here's a picture of my 96' & there's nothing there, please report it. I can see the image path on the old site & use that to find the image in my backup. That's a result of the attempts to fix the issue when we were moving the site There's many more - at least 200.
Good grief, mein gott etc etc!!!! Sincere apologies for re-opening such a can of worms Ross. Your explanation alone sounds an absolute nightmare. Substantially reinforces my conviction that serious computer science is absolutely not for ordinary mortals and definitely something to stay well clear of. Those alchemists who understand the black arts, hats off to you In awe, Ian @Spiritburner
Aye! Hats off to the guy I employed. I only know enough to understand the basics of what he was doing - not how to do it myself on that scale. I can do very little in comparison
