Help
FORUMS › Suggestions › Website › picture approval
TOPIC: picture_approval
« Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ... 22  Next »
46 to 55 of 220
User Details are only visible to members.
LOL-- now that's funny :)

Bensalem PA
Username hidden
(1282 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
All viable possibilities. Or perhaps the SysOp is just too busy writing code for Swing Club Tycoon.

Username hidden
(780 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
The apparent lag is a server side setting/configuration for how often to referesh a page (regenerate a page or some part of content within it).

Websites with a lot of traffic and/or a limited number of servers often utilize this to improve overall performance; usually by hitting the database less often and when there is only one database being used. It's a great idea on pages or partial pages where the content doesn't change that often, however, in this case it affects usability.

This technique [page caching or partial page cashing] is also utilized in the Who's On section and others where one sees a message like "it may take up to 5 minutes to see..." So there's probably a 5 minute page caching setting.

As for the grey X's where pictures should be, the page knows an image should be there [the reason it's putting a place holder [maybe it knows the number of pictures or even the file name]], however, if I had to bet a quarter on it the image isn't being found. That leads me to believe images are kept in multiple functional directories. For example one for pics in the approval process and another for pics that have been approved. When the page is generated to display an approved pic- perhaps, perhaps the image has not yet been copied to the production/approved directory. This too may be on a schedule and things are just not in synch.

The odds are good production images are on the web server and I've run sites where we kept 100,000+ images in a single, indexed folder with no problem. Given the disc usage of copying thousands of images on a site this busy it might seem logical to schedule a task like this for something like 2 am when the server isn't as busy. However, my new images were approved more than a day ago- so I cannot explain why those aren't visible. Maybe there was scheduled server maintenance that precluded certain jobs from running, maybe they are in the middle of an upgrade- who knows.

This is speculation, however, it's also what I do for a living- just not here :)

Bensalem PA
Username hidden
(1282 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
SSDD...here we go again...

Fairfield PA
Username hidden
(355 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
The X's are back! Nooooo...

Toms River NJ
Username hidden
(1069 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Forget the watermark --- the picture approval system is completely fucked up. All we get from the staff is bullshit and lies.

Fort Worth TX
Username hidden
(11 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"If you can't see something because the SLS watermark covers it, it's a better idea to deny the picture for approval and to let SLS sort it out."

Approve or disapprove makes no difference to me. I approve based on the content I can see (which so far, has been the entire pic). If the watermark obstructs something and I can't see it, oh well. Not my problem. Disapproving every pic would be funny in that it would overload the admins with pics to review. The downfall to that is it would either take away from their other, more important duties like keeping the site functional (lolz), or it would dramatically slow down the approval process to the point that it could take over a week for newly added pics to finally show up on your profile.

"Would you feel guilty if you allowed a child's picture in the background of the user submitted picture or a child physically in the background of the user submitted picture to be approved, because the imposed SLS watermark was laid out on top of said child?"

Nope. Why should I feel guilty because someone else isn't smart enough to edit their own pics before uploading them?

"All of this turmoil, all because someone came up with a brainy idea "help" in the software glitching for picture processing..."

Turmoil? Let's not get carried away. The watermark doesn't appear to interfere with the functionality of the approval process. And it's actually a good idea even if the execution might be a bit lacking in the eyes of other users. Me thinks there's bigger problems with the site besides a watermark.

T

Danville PA
Username hidden
(3270 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
No, it's not. And I don't think the browser matters. Chrome and Safari show the same, transparent watermark. I find it to be a little distracting, but not obstructive. Still, the point remains....if you can't see something because of the watermark, don't worry about it. Approve and move on.

T

Danville PA
Username hidden
(3270 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
This must be browser-dependent. I am in Firefox and the watermark isn't especially obstructive.

Los Angeles CA
Username hidden
(25006 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Approve or disapprove based on what you see. If the watermark happens to hide something that violates the rules then the admins will reject it since they can view the pic with no obstructions. No big deal.

T

Danville PA
Username hidden
(3270 posts)
« Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ... 22  Next »
46 to 55 of 220
TOPIC: picture approval
This site does not contain sexually explicit images as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2256.
Accordingly, neither this site nor the contents contained herein are covered by the record-keeping provisions of 18 USC 2257(a)-(c).
Disclaimer: This website contains adult material. You must be over 18 to enter or 21 where applicable by law.
All Members are over 18 years of age.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
 
Copyright © 1998-2016 DashBoardHosting, LLC. All Rights Reserved.