Posted by: Tiw [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: January 31, 2005 07:49PM
Is there a problem with the site?
Posted by: Bob [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: January 31, 2005 09:34PM
i got that as well
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: January 31, 2005 10:03PM
Me too! Today the newest gallery thumbnail pages have been acting crazy. Pictures moving around. New and old links in a wild mix (if I didn't view the site with stylesheets off I'd be very confused).

Also, one reason I don't use the vote buttons to get to the next image is because when I get to the newest image I end up on a random "next" image (which I may not notice at first, and which may be the cause of some false "duplicate" classifications...). Instead, why not send me to a neutral "end of the line" page which I can then refresh until a new picture comes along?
Posted by: DarkKlown [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 01, 2005 12:18AM
If a image is deleted from the site, and your viewing a image before that, when you vote you will be sent to a random image, this is basically because the system see's you trying to load the 'deleted' image and will then send you to a random. I'll need to fix this so it puts u to the next image.

199228: also we used to have it setup so when u got past the newest image it would put you to the start of images, but that was causing people to either not vote or the first image to get way too many views. The idea behind being thrown to a random image is that it's doubtful users have seen all images on the site, so being thrown to a random just lets you maybe view images you haven't seen before (and would normally be too lazy to go far enough back into the gallery to see aswell). Also dont worry about duplicate classification votes, the system is setup to only allow 1 vote per user, if you vote again your old is deleted and your new vote lodged. If you login as a user the pulldown will already be highlighted with your previous vote.
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 01, 2005 08:21AM
I think you can count on regulars having seen all the images. (and you don't need to start counting "views" before an image is actually loaded...)

No, I did not mean 'duplicate classification'. I meant '"duplicate" classification', i.e. sorted into the class named "duplicate". That's one of the few things I bother to classify. If you send me to a random picture that I've seen before I might not notice that it has a lower number and instead use the classification thingy to flag that "this picture has been here before!"
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 01, 2005 09:32AM
[And as for classifying a picture more than once, this is something I think you should *allow*! :-D ]
Posted by: revert [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 01, 2005 11:31AM
To answer *Anonymous@199228*, without great difficulty we cannot count "views" once an image is “actually” loaded. So until we have implants in everyone to register an plus613 image hitting your retina you will have to just accept some views may not be 100% accurate.

Good point on the image classification and the confusion with the randomness of the site. Pulse is currently working on a FAQ to answer a lot of these questions but obviously a few people have an issue with random end rotation of images. Hopefully a user option would solve the issue.

Multiple voting classification would obviously be asking for issues. In the future we may start giving users greater power based on their =points= value.
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 01, 2005 12:24PM
"without great difficulty we cannot count "views" once an image is “actually” loaded"

What's that in English? Every page on your site has a little statistic on it saying it's been viewed X number of times, so each page must have it's own little "counter" somewhere. When an image is uploaded a part of the uploading processing can be to set the counter associated with its page to zero. Are you saying you aren't doing this already? Can I go and make 700 hits for a page that doesn't exist yet, e.g. image page number 12345 and then when you get to that number it will have been "already viewed" 700 times?!

The necessary code would look something like this:

counter[imgnum] = 0; // set image hit counter to zero
Posted by: Tiw [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 05, 2005 09:22PM
He meant it is much harder to only increment the image hit counter when the file has been fully loaded.
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 05, 2005 09:34PM
UP-loaded... This is done once for each image.
Posted by: DarkKlown [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 06, 2005 12:13AM
199228: when an image is uploaded of course it's view counter is set to 0. Of course you can't goto a non-existing image id and increase it's hits before it's created. and yes we know how to set an array's value to 0.
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 06, 2005 08:36AM
Why claim that it would take great effort to do what you already do?
Posted by: dub_kingdom [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 06, 2005 09:56AM
Allowing input from users is great but can we not just let the site owners/operators do what they want. It is their site after all. And it´s beginning to look more like a statisticians wet dream (not the porn, the myriad counts and classifications) and less user friendly.

The necessary code is suttin like this:

shut the [fuck up] = ;-) // and look at the [fucking pictures], 199228
Posted by: DarkKlown [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 06, 2005 02:35PM
199228: If you read reverts post i think u'll note a little sarcasm in his tone. We count a view if someone loads a image page (the html!), if they don't actully load the image (the jpg!) in the html (ie they click 'forum' before the image has a chance to display on the screen) it still is counted.
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 13, 2005 11:22PM
DarkKlown >> Yes. I know that. I never commented on that. I commented on these words by you:

"but that was causing people to either not vote or the first image to get way too many views."

i.e. that the newest image gets counted "before it exists" (i.e. that the page number is getting "views" counted before there is an image on the page). Solution: reset the counter when the image has actually been uploaded. I still don't see why this should be such a big problem.
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 13, 2005 11:25PM
[btw, I'm quite familiar with the idea that html pages can be loaded without images, in fact I view this site with image loading turned off (because it works better that way)]
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 14, 2005 06:48AM
As on Feb 14, 01:50 EST - all images appear to be broken - i.e. none will load.
Posted by: pulse [x] - (82.37.82.---)
Date: February 14, 2005 07:04AM
Fixed, the image web server had crashed for some reason.
Your Name: 
Your Email: