RMweb - Change of hosting, missing images - April 2022

[Miss Prism]

45 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

I'm no longer getting any bottom of page popups for notifications.

 

They are starting to appear again!

 

[AY Mod]

6 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

They are starting to appear again!

 

I've not done anything at this end but it is something that can depend on connection speed and if other elements are still building..

[john new]

Just screen grabbed this example of the grey on black text issue from the last couple of minutes. Not something that bothers me but posted as a confirmation of the occurrence. Apologies I have not cropped/compressed it.

[Gwiwer]

53 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

This is what I see. Gold Theme.

Always gold here

[Gwiwer]

1 minute ago, john new said:

the grey on black text issue from the last couple of minutes. Not something that bothers me

Ditto. Always shows like that. Doesn’t trouble me

[PhilJ W]

Although I pointed it out it doesn't bother me too much but if someone is colour blind it could make the notice invisible.

 

[ISW]

If you've ever wondered what's on that RMWeb 'privacy' page, attached it a PDF capture of the long list of advertisers that scroll by, seemingly, forever. I would have attached a JPG, but RMWeb limits the length to 1500 pixels, which made it only 15 pixels wide. Not a good resolution. Even so, the capture software 'glitched' a few times as the list scrolled by, as my computer memory, browser, or internet connection, struggled.

2022-05-27_155649.pdf

 

If you scroll down the PDF (zooming out is recommended!), the alphabet list reaches 'z' only for it to restart again at 'a' with the Google partners.

 

I have to give credit to RMWeb for making the 'opt out' process relatively easy with only a few clicks necessary to op-out of everything, including the dreaded 'legitimate interest'. By comparison, the Daily Mail and Daily Express Apps (on Android), and many others, force you to opt-out of each advertiser individually, resulting in over 260-clicks being required!

 

Ian

 

 

[PhilJ W]

27 minutes ago, ISW said:

If you've ever wondered what's on that RMWeb 'privacy' page, attached it a PDF capture of the long list of advertisers that scroll by, seemingly, forever. I would have attached a JPG, but RMWeb limits the length to 1500 pixels, which made it only 15 pixels wide. Not a good resolution. Even so, the capture software 'glitched' a few times as the list scrolled by, as my computer memory, browser, or internet connection, struggled.

2022-05-27_155649.pdf 912.79 kB · 2 downloads

 

If you scroll down the PDF (zooming out is recommended!), the alphabet list reaches 'z' only for it to restart again at 'a' with the Google partners.

 

I have to give credit to RMWeb for making the 'opt out' process relatively easy with only a few clicks necessary to op-out of everything, including the dreaded 'legitimate interest'. By comparison, the Daily Mail and Daily Express Apps (on Android), and many others, force you to opt-out of each advertiser individually, resulting in over 260-clicks being required!

 

Ian

I have my ad blocker on, if the Daily Wail or the Daily Excess want me to switch it off I just leave their pages. 

[melmerby]

13 hours ago, ISW said:

, the Daily Mail and Daily Express Apps (on Android), and many others, force you to opt-out of each advertiser individually, resulting in over 260-clicks being required!

 

Ian

 

 

I believe that is illegal.

AFAIK we still have the EU privacy laws in place and cookies should be easily disabled, which that isn't.

AS Phil  above says, if that's how they want to operate, I wont use their websites.

Edited June 10, 2022 by melmerby

[MrWolf]

All of the "accept cookies" on privacy pages have a "reject all" button.

The ones that annoy me are the newspaper websites that try to force you to take out a trial subscription to continue reading an article from the web. The Telegraph and The Guardian are two that spring to mind.

Thirty days free trial, then we're never going to stop bombarding you with emails and targeted pop ups.

 

No thanks.

[sharris]

53 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

The Telegraph and The Guardian are two that spring to mind.

Thirty days free trial, then we're never going to stop bombarding you with emails and targeted pop ups.

 

No thanks.

I can’t say what The Telegraph does, but I’ve had a subscription to The Guardian for years and don’t think I’ve had a single email from them.

[MrWolf]

Maybe not if you took out a subscription, but any "free trial" always opens the flood gates until you either subscribe or block. Clicking unsubscribe from mailing list is often only a temporary fix, because you end up still being mailed by partner companies.

[sharris]

4 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

Maybe not if you took out a subscription, but any "free trial" always opens the flood gates until you either subscribe or block. Clicking unsubscribe from mailing list is often only a temporary fix, because you end up still being mailed by partner companies.

The Guardian don’t ever make you pay for a subscription, so your ‘free trial’ just is your subscription there - you can get the content for free, or pay in which case the inline suggestions that you might want to pay are supposed to disappear.

[boxbrownie]

6 hours ago, sharris said:

The Guardian don’t ever make you pay for a subscription, so your ‘free trial’ just is your subscription there - you can get the content for free, or pay in which case the inline suggestions that you might want to pay are supposed to disappear.

So does the free trial last forever?

[sharris]

29 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

So does the free trial last forever?

Yes - unless they ever change their philosophy.

[Colin_McLeod]

On 10/06/2022 at 10:28, ISW said:

By comparison, the Daily Mail and Daily Express Apps (on Android), and many others, force you to opt-out of each advertiser individually, resulting in over 260-clicks being required!

 

I suspect that is the newspapers' clever way of bringing the names of all 260 advertisers to your individual attention.  A form of advertising in itself. 

[ISW]

10 hours ago, MrWolf said:

All of the "accept cookies" on privacy pages have a "reject all" button.

Indeed they do, but it does not reject 'legitimate interest' cookies, which includes a lot of the advertising 'preferences'.

 

Ian

[ISW]

11 hours ago, melmerby said:

I believe that is illegal.

AFAIK we still have the EU privacy laws in place and cookies should be easily disabled, which that isn't.

And I totally agree with you. I don't know how the major UK newspapers manage to simply ignore that requirement. My guess is that their 'Lawyers' would argue that 260+ clicks still counts as "... it can be disabled ...".

 

Ian

[MrWolf]

That all went off topic rather quickly. 😃

What with the falling sales of paper copies, free subscription and the ability to opt out of advertising from the companies supporting the online versions, I'm not surprised that some of the papers are struggling.

I did get an awful telling off from a couple of schoolteachers that I know for having the temerity and ignorance to criticise an opinion piece from The Guardian (despite pointing out that I take all newspapers with a pinch of salt.) 

It may not have helped when I said something along the lines of "Stick your fingers in your ears otherwise the NUT will confiscate your membership and steal yer badge..."

They're still my close friends  and fellow artists though and we have always routinely tormented each other. 

[RedgateModels]

14 hours ago, sharris said:

I can’t say what The Telegraph does, but I’ve had a subscription to The Guardian for years and don’t think I’ve had a single email from them.

They probably misspelled your email address ……..

[Gwiwer]

1 minute ago, RedgateModels said:

They probably misspelled your email address ……..

Only the Grauniad has a database of imeal addresses - probably on an Apple device 🤣

[SimonDCC]

On 24/05/2022 at 11:45, Barnaby said:

I agree Colin and would like to know how far we are down the route of replenishment of all the missing photos, PDF's etc.

 

On the 21st April I printed out my spreadsheet showing where I had made attachments.  Checking this again this morning show me that I have not had one photo added in that time, this is beginning to look more like NEVER than indefinite time period for any re-load of photos.

 

What else have I done.

Well I can see from the WayBack Machine [google it] all my missing photos are logged in there.  Is there a way for me to move them from there directly into my forum posts?  I suspect they are from before the crash and will be Dediserve based.

I am presently waiting for Invision to respond to me about the length of time they expect it will take for them to re-populate the data after a crash like this.  After all this is their business and they do this sort of thing frequently.  I've always found that some guidance is always given be it in % completed or time to go so I'm sure they must have some idea.

 

The way I used the forum was more as a reference and inform, update source but many of my stored info posts as PDF's or photos are missing making the forum use useless.

 

I don't know if there is a best practice for self help in restoring my photos but just waiting is not it either.

 

Back to knocking on Invisions door. 

 

 

The Wayback machine takes copies of everything it sees online so if the original website goes offline then it has one.

As rmweb is compressing & processing images for display then the wayback machine copy won’t be what you uploaded, it will be what rmweb offered browsers at the time.  
For some purposes, especially for uploading back to rmweb, this difference won’t matter much, but you *might* see a small drop in quality when it redisplays on rmweb*
Best try one & see.

 

you won’t be able to ‘move’ the images - wayback is a completely different thing.
even though rmweb supports external links I would not rely on wayback for that content - you should download those & add what you want back to rmweb. If you have both open in a pair of browsers it might be easy enough to follow each thread in parallel, picking up each image from the browser status bar as it competes download.

 

And if (as Andy hints) the image backup wasn’t complete, then that might be your best option.

*if rmweb server expectations for images don’t match the image pulled from the wayback archive it may undergo a second compression attempt - depending on the settings this might result in the image being re compressed a second time. Usually this results in no change, but if the settings are slightly different it could reduce the quality a little (loss of fine image detail mostly).

 

 Simon

Edited June 12, 2022 by SimonDCC

[john new]

Wayback doesn’t always copy images. I take your word that for RMWeb it has, as I haven’t checked, but in the past I have tried to reload images from other sites and the text is all there but with gaps where the images were.

[steve howe]

When this site first went down and then came back up again, I spent a considerable amount of time re-loading all the images to my current layout thread https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/137565-sandsifters/ thinking all was well.

 

I have just looked again and am "disappointed" to find that virtually all the images all but a few on the last page have once again disappeared. This is so frustrating as non-modelling friends frequently like to check in on what I've been doing, and the thread is the only record I have of the project from start to finish. My other long-standing construction thread https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/95206-lower-rose-goods/#comment-1755373

has also suffered the same fate. 

 

I don't suppose it matters to Warner's or RMWeb management that hours of people's work has been lost here, but it leaves me saddened that several years' worth of carefully documented work can no longer be accessed.

[Wheatley]

On 11/06/2022 at 00:39, MrWolf said:

The ones that annoy me are the newspaper websites that try to force you to take out a trial subscription to continue reading an article from the web. The Telegraph and The Guardian are two that spring to mind.

The Guardian seem quite content for you to click "Not now" or whatever it says, ad infinitum. It pops up every couple of weeks or so for me.