|
 |
| | | Author: | mfav  | | Posted: | Jan 4, 2019 11:26 | | Subject: | Admin Russell, WTH images 2 | | Viewed: | 221 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Happy New Year.
This image discrepancy thing does appear throughout the catalog.
It looks like any time there was a condition where the large image contributor
and the small image contributor were not the same, the large image contributor's
large image has slotted into the small image contributor's small image gallery.
At least one of mine is in Randy's gallery, a number of other people's
images are in Jen's gallery...it goes on.
I have a suspicion there's some other related gremlin somewhere in the works,
but I can't fathom it other than to note that sometimes the large images
are also somehow awry.
Example:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=66490#T=C&C=10
The dbg image accessed via the popup is mine, and credited to me.
The gray image accessed via the popup is NOT mine, and credited to me...or at
least appears to be...or cannot be determined.
Sometimes
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page
(with no color specified for the part) on entering the page, the large image
space is empty, other times it's populated with (I guess) a default image.
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=41855#T=C
I see a default (medium blue?) image, and at the bottom of the page I get a credit
for a large image. The red image here is mine, this blue one is not.
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=30358#T=C&C=2
This one defaults with a small white straked image (no color selected), I get
credit for the large image.
I thought the attribution dynamically changed on this page when you changed the
selected color of the piece from the popdown, but right now I can't find
where that's happening...but it may be effected with some pieces and not
others. In any event, the behavior on this page is inconsistent and seems to
have something to do with whether or not there's a "default" small image...which
is probably a misnomer. For example, as far as I can tell there are no "small"
images for
* | | 650 Hinge Coupling Nylon - Two Connected 2 x 2 Plates
Parts: Hinge |
Can't figure out how to back-trace any of these pictures to their creators...
...hmm...guessing that the large image attribution is for whatever image occupies
that second vertical thumbnail position there...
Some of this might just be a UI problem where something isn't coded properly,
and with the 53588pb01 I doubt there is a gray version at all, just a dbg (this
was hashed about in the forum not too long ago).
Anyway, I've spent about as much time as I care to looking at this issue.
All I really know is something or things has gone wrong somewhere, and I suggest
you want to sort it out before any more images get put into the system and possibly
mispositioned.
Also, I don't want to be wrongly credited for someone else's contribution.
That's just not right.
You and the StormChaser may want to consider holding off adding any new images
until you can sort out what's going on.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 4, 2019 12:46 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, WTH images 2 | | Viewed: | 92 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I thought the attribution dynamically changed on this page when you changed the
selected color of the piece from the popdown, but right now I can't find
where that's happening...but it may be effected with some pieces and not
others. In any event, the behavior on this page is inconsistent and seems to
have something to do with whether or not there's a "default" small image...which
is probably a misnomer. For example, as far as I can tell there are no "small"
images for
* | | 650 Hinge Coupling Nylon - Two Connected 2 x 2 Plates
Parts: Hinge |
|
The attribution at the bottom of the catalog pages is not dynamic. Those attributions
go to whoever supplied the old small image and old large image for the default
image slot in the old system.
In the old system, the old small image slot was able to be chosen among all of
the available colors in all small image slots (one for each color). Whichever
color small image was chosen to be the default one was who the small image got
attributed to on the catalog page.
Also in the old system, only one large image slot was available. The image stored
in this slot was who the large image got attributed to on the catalog page.
These two images could have two different contributors in the old system, which
is why there are two different contributors listed on many catalog pages.
With the advent of the new system that was put in place a while ago, these attributions
at the bottom of the catalog pages are kind of meaningless, and I would not put
any weight in them since large images can be stored in each slot for every color
a part comes in and there is no longer a sole large image slot.
The current catalog page needs some reworking, but the only attributions that
truly matter now are the ones listed on pages such as the following
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp?itemType=P&itemNo=53588pb01&v=2
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp?itemType=P&itemNo=41855&v=2
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp?itemType=P&itemNo=30358&v=2
As long as you submit your images under the correct color slot, then you will
get the correct attribution on those pages.
- Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Jan 4, 2019 15:17 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, WTH images 2 | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | The attribution at the bottom of the catalog pages is not dynamic. Those attributions
go to whoever supplied the old small image and old large image for the default
image slot in the old system.
In the old system, the old small image slot was able to be chosen among all of
the available colors in all small image slots (one for each color). Whichever
color small image was chosen to be the default one was who the small image got
attributed to on the catalog page.
Also in the old system, only one large image slot was available. The image stored
in this slot was who the large image got attributed to on the catalog page.
These two images could have two different contributors in the old system, which
is why there are two different contributors listed on many catalog pages.
|
Yup. The old system. Which for all its inadequacies functioned consistently and
as expected.
| | With the advent of the new system that was put in place a while ago, these attributions
at the bottom of the catalog pages are kind of meaningless,
|
If they're meaningless, why are they included? I know you don't know,
but rhetorically...?
| | and I would not put any weight in them since large images can be stored in each slot for every color
a part comes in and there is no longer a sole large image slot.
|
Well, I'm not getting bent over the mechanics. Which I sort of understand.
I'm getting bent over the misrepresentation (which in this instance I see
as errors) and inconsistency.
| | The current catalog page needs some reworking, but the only attributions that truly matter now are the ones listed on pages such as the following
|
I think maybe you could choose a...uh...more accurate/less dismissive phrase
than "the only attributions that
truly matter". Perhaps you mean "the only attributions that are truly accurate."
| | As long as you submit your images under the correct color slot, then you will get the correct attribution on those pages.
|
Well, okay, as far as color images go. If you say so. And relative to the catalog
page. Sort of. Sometimes.
1. There's an image of mine sw269 which was submitted properly as far as
I can tell (granted, no color tagged with figs) and it's sitting in your
small images gallery.
I've contributed at least 36 starwars minifigs to the catalog. I'm represented
by 23 currently in the small images gallery, 26 in the large gallery. Where are
the others?
If you search for sw049 in the top search box, my sw049 shows in the auto-search-dropdown
thingy. Click through on that and you get somebody else's sw049.
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=8272#T=S&O={"rpp":"500","iconly":0}
Click through from that page to item consists of 3 Parts
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?M=sw049
There the sw049 thumbnail is mine. Click the thumbnail, you get the other image.
sw049 isn't in either my small or large gallery. But it's clearly in
the system somewhere. Where'd it go?
2. There's not 1:1 correlation between the set of images shown here
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp?itemType=P&itemNo=30358&v=2
and the corresponding (sort of) images shown via the popup here
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=30358&idColor=1#T=C&C=2
Check out the tan image. On catalogColors.asp it's my image. On the part
popup on catalogitem.asp it's a render.
Click through the tan from this page
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp?itemType=P&itemNo=30358&v=2
( When I click through, half the time the picture block comes up blank, half
the time it comes up with the render. So, YMMV.)
The non-corresponding tan images suggests that images are being called from different
sources. If there are multiple sources it suggests that something on the DB level
is out of sync. Or something feeding data into the db is not quite right. Or
there was some issue somewhere in the past when things got "combined" where things
got a bit out of sorts.
All I'm trying to do is let somebody know that there's something gone
awry. And I appreciate your time and explanation. But I'm not looking for
an explanation of how it's "working" or how it's supposed to work. I'm
looking for an explanation of what's gone wrong. Well. I'm hoping somebody
will look for an explanation of what's gone wrong and remedy it before it's
all FUBAR. Which it will be, if my experience of the last couple weeks is any
indication. Fixing things is more labor intensive than not creating a problem
in the first place, at least in my experience.
And, if it's helpful in any way, feel free to remove any images I've
submitted to the catalog altogether.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 4, 2019 17:49 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, WTH images 2 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Yup. The old system. Which for all its inadequacies functioned consistently and
as expected.
|
That it did. 
| | | | With the advent of the new system that was put in place a while ago, these attributions
at the bottom of the catalog pages are kind of meaningless,
|
If they're meaningless, why are they included? I know you don't know,
but rhetorically...?
|
My thoughts exactly.
| | Well, I'm not getting bent over the mechanics. Which I sort of understand.
I'm getting bent over the misrepresentation (which in this instance I see
as errors) and inconsistency.
|
They definitely *are* errors.
| | | | The current catalog page needs some reworking, but the only attributions that truly matter now are the ones listed on pages such as the following
|
I think maybe you could choose a...uh...more accurate/less dismissive phrase
than "the only attributions that
truly matter". Perhaps you mean "the only attributions that are truly accurate."
|
I am sorry, it wasn't meant to be dismissive. Your rewording is much more
in tune with what was meant.
| | All I'm trying to do is let somebody know that there's something gone
awry. And I appreciate your time and explanation.
|
I think Russell is aware that something has gone awry. I was just trying to provide
some insight into where the problems came from.
| | I'm looking for an explanation of what's gone wrong. Well. I'm hoping somebody
will look for an explanation of what's gone wrong and remedy it before it's
all FUBAR.
|
Hopefully Russell will be able to provide more information for you. Unfortunately,
my knowledge is limited to what I wrote above since I have never seen the admin
tools that are available to work with the images.
| | Fixing things is more labor intensive than not creating a problem in the first
place, at least in my experience.
|
I am a programmer, too, so I very much understand this.
| | And, if it's helpful in any way, feel free to remove any images I've
submitted to the catalog altogether.
|
I am sure that no one wants to do that. I think I speak for many when I say that
your contributions are amazing. Solving the problem is the end goal.
I wish I could have helped more, but I hope that you can get the help that you
are looking for.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jan 4, 2019 14:37 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, WTH images 2 | | Viewed: | 108 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| Happy New Year to you as well! I'll answer these questions and those in the
other post directly. I appreciate the detective work you have put into this so
far.
In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Happy New Year.
This image discrepancy thing does appear throughout the catalog.
It looks like any time there was a condition where the large image contributor
and the small image contributor were not the same, the large image contributor's
large image has slotted into the small image contributor's small image gallery.
At least one of mine is in Randy's gallery, a number of other people's
images are in Jen's gallery...it goes on.
|
The problem of attribution has been an issue for a long time. The site's
founder had attribution issues due to the credit system not being in place before
the site started accepting images. So we now have thousands of images credited
to "Admin" that really belong to someone else. Whenever people claim them we
tag the image with the username.
However, there are some new issues as well that stemmed from transferring large
banks of images to different slots for what is known broadly as the "image project",
the goal which was to unify the large and small image system to a single primary
image for each item (or color of each item) and use the additional image slot
for cases where more images were considered useful.
Like I said earlier, I wasn't here when most item types were transferred
over, so I don't know the exact procedure that was used. I only worked with
parts and I did them all manually.
But I have observed that for other item types like minifigs, the username was
not transfered when an image was copied to a new slot. So the old username is
paired with a "new" image. That is where the problem lies, and you are correct
- we need to do something about this.
| | I have a suspicion there's some other related gremlin somewhere in the works,
but I can't fathom it other than to note that sometimes the large images
are also somehow awry.
|
Regarding current manual functionality that admins use on a daily basis, we do
have some quirks backstage still that need to be ironed out. But none of these
involve attribution problems and overall it is very reliable when used in a specified
manner.
I can see where it appears to be credited to you, but actually it isn't.
See image 1. Image 2 shows the view from the admin page, and image 3 shows the
credits on the old colors page.
It depends where you navigate from. I personally do not like dynamic content
like this (I would rather it show the same view always, regardless of where someone
came from.) But this at some point was determined to be more helpful to new users,
so this is what we have.
Sometimes the large image space is empty depending on the device you are using.
I notice this when using my phone, and people have reported similar problems
with tablets. That is a bug and I'll write it up if I can reproduce it. I
suspect it is a cache issue.
I have added screenshots for this as well (see images 4 and 5). Medium Blue is
currently the default. Your red image is the Legacy image.
This is an excellent example of the catalog image system in flux. For this part
a decision needs to be made whether we consider it a "standard part" or an "early
variant". Because the variant differences can be seen so clearly from renders
and because the differences are great enough that this may not even qualify as
a "variant", I would consider this to be a borderline situation - hence why a
decision has not been made yet.
If we go with "standard part", then the preferred color images will be renders.
I would then trim the current images so they are optimized for showing in small
spaces (or accept replacement renders from someone who routinely makes these
sorts of adjustments) and I would move your image (red photo) to the additional
images section, which retains all credit and color info on the admin page. The
Legacy Image would then be replaced by the render in the default color to prepare
for the eventual deprecation of the Large/Legacy image slot.
If we go with "early variant" I would copy your image to the red color image
slot and select red as the default color. Then, as photos are submitted, they
would replace the renders that current occupy most color slots. The renders may
or may not be retained in the Additional Images section. When the Legacy Image
slot is retired, your red image in the Legacy slot would be removed (we never
actually delete things) but it would be retained in the color images section
at full size.
The Legacy image credit at the bottom of the page will be changed eventually
to Additional image credit, and additional image credits will also be shown on
other pages.
I have gone ahead and just changed the default color to Tan and copied your image
into the Tan slot. There is no reason to have the white image as default when
it is only 80 x 60 and has a non-white background.
You also have a Light Gray image for this part that is 80 x 60, but if you submitted
a larger size of that image, we would use that in place of the current default
color because it only shows one of the part.
In general, we want single item photos for the color slots to avoid any confusion
as to how many items the buyer will get. Multiple item / comparison images are
best suited as additional images where people can study them.
Another thing we could do is crop out one of the engines in your photo for the
color image and then use the full two-item image as an additional image.
But all of these adjustments take time and it's going to be a while before
we get all the images the way we want them. And a lot of it depends on the images
we receive in the meantime.
| | I thought the attribution dynamically changed on this page when you changed the
selected color of the piece from the popdown, but right now I can't find
where that's happening...
|
No, the credit information is static and a direct copy from the old catalog detail
page:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=30358&useold=Y
| | but it may be effected with some pieces and not
others. In any event, the behavior on this page is inconsistent and seems to
have something to do with whether or not there's a "default" small image...which
is probably a misnomer. For example, as far as I can tell there are no "small"
images for
* | | 650 Hinge Coupling Nylon - Two Connected 2 x 2 Plates
Parts: Hinge |
Can't figure out how to back-trace any of these pictures to their creators...
...hmm...guessing that the large image attribution is for whatever image occupies
that second vertical thumbnail position there...
|
Yes, the second thumbnail position shows the Legacy/Large Image. Image 6 shows
what is behind the scenes for this part. You can't see the additional image
credit yet from any public page, but we of course want that to change.
| | Some of this might just be a UI problem where something isn't coded properly,
and with the 53588pb01 I doubt there is a gray version at all, just a dbg (this
was hashed about in the forum not too long ago).
|
We have left the other image in the Dark Gray slot until the inventories get
corrected. One way to accelerate action on an issue like this is to submit inventory
changes for the part - DG to DBG. Then it will be in a queue somewhere.
| | Anyway, I've spent about as much time as I care to looking at this issue.
All I really know is something or things has gone wrong somewhere, and I suggest
you want to sort it out before any more images get put into the system and possibly
mispositioned.
Also, I don't want to be wrongly credited for someone else's contribution.
That's just not right.
You and the StormChaser may want to consider holding off adding any new images
until you can sort out what's going on.
|
So there are two elements here. First, the general everyday work that is being
done to transform the system from the old version to the new version. This work
is going along fine and there is no reason to believe that ultimately credits
will accidentally be given to the wrong person.
The second issue is the large-scale imports/transfers/overwrites (whatever you
wish to call them) that were done between June of 2016 and May of 2017. These
were one-time actions and will not be repeated. So whatever went wrong with the
credit tranfer will not happen again. All that is left at this point is for someone
to go back and clean up the issue.
Now that this second issue has surfaced as a problem, I will need to add it to
the list of things to accomplish in the larger image project. I'll let you
know when I have fixed the images related to your username and hopefully we'll
see how to do a clean sweep to fix those for other users as well.
Again, thanks for your time spent finding what was wrong and writing it up. It
makes a big difference to have people actively working with us to solve stuff
that needs to be fixed.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Jan 4, 2019 15:30 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, WTH images 2 | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thanks for the input.
I don't envy you the task of manually addressing every image in the catalog,
but suspect that's what it's going to take in the long run to remedy
this.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 4, 2019 17:50 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, WTH images 2 | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | Thanks for the input.
I don't envy you the task of manually addressing every image in the catalog,
but suspect that's what it's going to take in the long run to remedy
this.
|
And now I see that Russell had already chimed in! D'oh! 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2019 09:45 | | Subject: | Re: Admin Russell, WTH images 2 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | Sometimes the large image space is empty depending on the device you are using.
I notice this when using my phone, and people have reported similar problems
with tablets. That is a bug and I'll write it up if I can reproduce it. I
suspect it is a cache issue.
|
I think some value is not being consistently passed to the javascript controlling
that display, especially when the page loads. The image shows up more consistently
if it HAS been cached.
|
|
|
|
|
)
)
)
)
)
)