Need help? Check out our Support site, then


Why are images tagged "size-medium" in CSS displaying at full size?

  1. @musicdoc1, ok, I have a tool that will let me remove all the size-thumbnail, size-medium, and size-large classes from a site in one go. Could we try it out on one of your smaller blogs first? Could you let me know which one?

  2. Great. You may test it on this small site of mine:

    http://sbfiesta.wordpress.com/

  3. And please try it on this one as well:

    http://olias.wordpress.com/

  4. Okay! I've put in a request. It will remove CSS classes size-thumbnail, size-medium, and size-large from http://sbfiesta.wordpress.com/ and http://olias.wordpress.com/

    It may take a little time for the tool to run (I'm not sure how long) or it might be really quick, so keep an eye on the blogs. I'm traveling today, so I will be in and out. I'll check back in later tonight.

  5. Thanks,

    Checked both sites at c. 3:00-3:15 PM today, using the general search "size-" and other more specific searches.

    * Viva La Fiesta:
    All posts are clear, but three pages are still affected.

    * Olias of Sunhillow:
    The posts appear to be clear, except that four of the five published posts contain the class name "size-full". This doesn't appear to be being applied by WP presently, but might it be someday?

    A few pages are still affected variously by the "size-thumbnail" (1 page), and "size-medium" (2 pages) class names, as well as by "size-full" (2 pages).

  6. Checking again at 7:25 PM

    * Viva La Fiesta:
    The same three pages noted at 3:38 PM today are still affected. However, one page is a draft and the other two are pending which might be why your tool missed them. There are only four images involved, with four class names: three "size-medium", and one "size-full".

    * Olias of Sunhillow:
    Same posts and pages affected as reported at 3:38 PM today.

  7. I know that some of the class names were removed from http://sbfiesta.wordpress.com/ with the tool, because I noticed that a couple of images on the front page had been fixed after you ran it, but I forgot to check how many posts, pages, and images were affected before you used the tool.

    In 8 days I've corrected about 7% of the incorrectly published images, and about 5% of all of the images containing an unwanted class name.

    Here's a note to my visitors affixed above the header image, i.e. in the General Settings > tagline area:

    Due to an unexpected design modification by the server, WordPress, on 20 September several thousand images on the site suddenly began displaying too large, often double or more the set size. Unless WP fixes the problem, it will likely take me months to individually correct the size of each altered image. Update, 28 Sep: I've corrected roughly 5% of the errors in the past 8 days

  8. I've recalculated the estimates given above. It looks like I've fixed approximately 6-7% of all the unwanted class names in 8 days. Without searching the HTML code of every image on the site, it impossible for me to get a precise count of the number of images affected. But assuming that my estimate is reasonably accurate, at the present rate it would take me close to 4 months to remove all of the unwanted class names from the affected images.

  9. In my last post, instead of "Without searching the HTML code of every image on the site...", I meant to say and should have said "Without searching the HTML code of every image on an affected page or post, etc." An affected page or post is one that has at least one unwanted "size-(value)" class name in the image codes.

  10. In my Sep 28, 11:07 PM post and others in this thread, the percentages of images re-sized (fixed) are for images on Songbook only, not the smaller sites.

    I don't even know the number of sites of mine that are affected by the recent media settings-blog interaction modification, because most of the sites I've created are relatively inactive. That doesn't mean I might not want to revive them some day.

    I was most active from 2008 to 2010 in creating new blogs, and have multiple accounts (two of them with dozens of blogs each, though some are co-administered). The number of affected blogs is certainly more than 70, so a tool which could remove the unwanted class names such as "size-medium" from the image codes throughout each site would be hugely helpful. It is urgently desired on at least a few of the more active sites, and especially on my biggest site, Songbook.

  11. Apologies for the delay. I thought I would be able to get back to this sooner. It's taking longer than expected.

    * Viva La Fiesta:
    The same three pages noted at 3:38 PM today are still affected. However, one page is a draft and the other two are pending which might be why your tool missed them.

    It seems reasonable that drafts and pending posts would be excluded. I will look into it and confirm.

    * Olias of Sunhillow:
    The posts appear to be clear, except that four of the five published posts contain the class name "size-full". This doesn't appear to be being applied by WP presently, but might it be someday?

    The tool let's me select which classes to remove, and I didn't remove size-full because I didn't think those would be affected by the recent update (and it seems like images with that class name would want to be the full size).

    Would you like me to re-run the tool on http://olias.wordpress.com/ and take out size-full classes as well?

  12. Yes, please run it with "size-full" added on Olias. Not necessary on the other site because I think there are only four errors remaining.

    But as I mentioned above regarding http://olias.wordpress.com/ :

    A few pages are still affected variously by the "size-thumbnail" (1 page), and "size-medium" (2 pages) class names, as well as by "size-full" (2 pages).

    I haven't counted the number of images yet, just the pages. That's a least three different class names undetected by your tool on the first run, including some with values (thumbnail, medium) which it was designed to detect and remove.

  13. I didn't think those would be affected by the recent update (and it seems like images with that class name would want to be the full size).

    1. I would say that most of the images on my various sites bearing the class name "size-full" are not intended, and not set by me, to display at full size and do not need that class name. On this page of my Olias site, for example, I just removed "size-full" from three images not displaying at full size which were never meant to be displayed at full size. They do display at full size if you click on them once. Other images take two or three clicks. But they don't need a class name to do so.

    2. My full size images are not presently affected, but I wonder if they might some day suddenly become so just as the other values did recently. That's why I say let's go ahead and remove those too.

  14. They do display at full size if you click on them once. Other images take two or three clicks [to display at full size]. But they don't need a class name to do so.

    That's what I'm finding at least. Am I correct?

  15. Yes, please run it with "size-full" added on Olias.

    Done.

    That's a least three different class names undetected by your tool on the first run, including some with values (thumbnail, medium) which it was designed to detect and remove.

    Can you point me to just one example link for one that was missed so I can take a closer look?

    > They do display at full size if you click on them once. Other images take two or three clicks [to display at full size]. But they don't need a class name to do so.

    That's what I'm finding at least. Am I correct?

    Separate setting and issue. How many clicks it takes to get to the full sized image depends on what settings you used when you inserted the image.

  16. How many clicks it takes to get to the full sized image depends on what settings you used when you inserted the image.

    Perhaps I'll start another thread on this, because it's never been clear to me why this is so. But what settings used when inserting the image do you refer to? How is it that the number of clicks to get to full size appears to be independent of both:

    1. The display size set either automatically or manually?
    2. The presence or absence of a "size-(value)" class name?

  17. Can you point me to just one example link for one that was missed so I can take a closer look?

    Sure. In the draft page at Olias of Sunhillow titled On the Olias symbol there are still multiple images containing a class name. In fact, all of the images still have class names.

    1. http://olias.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/olias-trinitysymbol-24.png contains the class name "size-thumbnail".

    2. http://olias.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/olias-welcomehome4.jpg contains "size-medium".

    3. http://olias.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/olias-trinity-symbol-on-gravestone-1.jpg contains "size-full".

    4. http://olias.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/greek_medicinewheel.jpg has a "size-medium" class name.

    5. http://olias.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/pentacles1.jpg?w=300&h=232 has a"size-medium" class name.

    And so on. There are five more images. Every image on the page has a class name in its HTML code, and in the CSS Class line of Image Editor > Advanced Settings.

  18. Perhaps I'll start another thread on this, because it's never been clear to me why this is so. But what settings used when inserting the image do you refer to?

    The number of clicks to get to a full sized image are independent of the size settings, so a separate thread about that topic would be ideal.

    The "Link To" setting is the one that determines what happens when an image is clicked.

    In the draft page at Olias of Sunhillow titled On the Olias symbol there are still multiple images containing a class name.

    Sorry I wasn't more clear. Draft pages are not included in the tool. The pages must be public. You can either publish the drafts and I can run the tool again or you can opt to fix the drafts by hand.

  19. Sorry I wasn't more clear. Draft pages are not included in the tool. The pages must be public.

    Yes, it wasn't clear. I believe the last word I got from you on this was on October 4 when you said,

    It seems reasonable that drafts and pending posts would be excluded. I will look into it and confirm.

    *

    You can either publish the drafts and I can run the tool again or you can opt to fix the drafts by hand.

    The tool cannot be modified to include drafts? If so, then I guess I'll skip the drafts on Olias for now. These can probably be deleted. Some times I might save a draft because the images that are uploaded to it might not be on the published post or page derived from it.

    Retaining of drafts has been particularly common on my site Songbook for a number of reasons. The number of draft posts and pages on Songbook is large (about 150), but the number which are affected by the image sizing is probably considerably smaller than that. When and if we use the tool on Songbook, I might publish some of the drafts temporarily so you can include them in a sweep with the tool.

  20. Private posts, however, are included if you would like to set some posts as private before moving forward.

  21. Oh, good. I've changed the status and visibility of the three affected pages on Olias to private. You may proceed there. But I'll need some time to prepare Songbook. Let me know when your ready to run the tool there.

  22. Btw, is this a tool that I could run? I've got so many sites that need fixing.

  23. Done for olias.wordpress.com.

    Ready any time for others.

    Btw, is this a tool that I could run? I've got so many sites that need fixing.

    Afraid not. Sorry about that!

  24. Alright, designsimply

    I've changed all of the affected draft pages (41) and posts (18) on Songbook to privately published status. If possible, could you save an XML file of the blog before you can go ahead and run the tool on all posts and pages (excluding the drafts as discussed above)? My recent attempts to save an XML file have failed. See:

    Why are attempts to save an XML file of my site failing, again?

  25. Ready any time for others.

    How many others? I've just made a list of 21 which need the treatment on this account alone. All are much smaller than Songbook. There might be another 10-20 on a couple of other accounts. Those in other accounts are presently inactive, but in some cases may lend images to sites in this account.

  26. I replied to your export thread separately.

    Of the 40 blogs on your musicdoc1 WordPress.com account, 4 contain "songbook" in the name. I think you mean http://songbook1.wordpress.com/ can you confirm for me though?

    How many others? I've just made a list of 21 which need the treatment on this account alone. All are much smaller than Songbook. There might be another 10-20 on a couple of other accounts.

    As many as you need is fine.

  27. Yes, Songbook1.wordpress.com. That's by far the biggest site and the one which prompted me to begin this thread. It has several thousand images in posts and pages incorrectly re-sized by the recent WP modification. In 15 days I've corrected about 9% of them.

    I'll give you a list of others in the musicdoc1 account needing the treatment later today.

  28. I've put in a request for songbook1.wordpress.com to have the size-thumbnail, size-medium, size-large, and size-full class names stripped out. It may take a little time to complete, so check back in on it in a few hours just to make sure to give it enough time.

  29. I checked Songbook at about 1:00 PM and found it clear of all "size-(value)" class names. I was going to remove my message to visitors regarding the issue, but after consideration and a bit a checking I realized that caches at Google, Internet Archive Wayback Machine, and elsewhere could retain the incorrectly displayed images indefinitely, in some case perhaps forever (Wayback Machine). So I modified the message to read as follows:

    6 October: Due to an unexpected design modification by the server, on 20 September several thousand images on the site suddenly began displaying too large, often double or more the set size. In 16 days, to October 6, I'd corrected roughly 9% of the size errors caused by the modification. A tool used today by a member of the WordPress support staff rapidly removed all of the troublesome "class names" which had caused the size distortions of images in my posts and pages. Note, however, that caches at Google, Wayback Machine, and elsewhere will retain the sizing errors indefinitely.

  30. I don't think Google re-crawls old pages on established sites terribly often, so Google may not have even cached anything with the changed image sizes. In my experience, The Wayback Machine is better at keeping track of text and doesn't always grab images or CSS even at times.

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

About this Topic