Bug in stats for custom-size images
DeVerm
Registered Users Posts: 405 Major grins
Hi,
I'm sorry to report so much here, but it's just because I'm getting up to speed using my SmugMug site and so are discovering them now. Regardless of these bugs, I love the service!
So, I recently posted a new blog entry with custom-size links to a SmugMug gallery. I need the photo's on the blog for an exact width, like 250 pixels wide. To do this, I use the -250x9999 suffix to the link as described in the manual. This works great and I get 250x270 or whatever height is the result for a picture exactly 250 pix wide with correct aspect ratio.
However, as people start reading my blog post, I see that these are counted as "original" size hits in the stats, resulting in wildly wrong bandwidth math. The manual states that the "next larger standard size" is taken for the stats and observing the behavior, I conclude that the "9999" pix high in the link is used for that decision, not the dimensions of the picture that gets transmitted. In another post I used custom size like -250x999 and I get X-Large stats for that one. The math must be done after the smart calculation of the precise dimensions to correct this bug.
This becomes important when these bandwidth stats are actually used for decisions on infrastructure or account usage.
thanks,
Nick.
I'm sorry to report so much here, but it's just because I'm getting up to speed using my SmugMug site and so are discovering them now. Regardless of these bugs, I love the service!
So, I recently posted a new blog entry with custom-size links to a SmugMug gallery. I need the photo's on the blog for an exact width, like 250 pixels wide. To do this, I use the -250x9999 suffix to the link as described in the manual. This works great and I get 250x270 or whatever height is the result for a picture exactly 250 pix wide with correct aspect ratio.
However, as people start reading my blog post, I see that these are counted as "original" size hits in the stats, resulting in wildly wrong bandwidth math. The manual states that the "next larger standard size" is taken for the stats and observing the behavior, I conclude that the "9999" pix high in the link is used for that decision, not the dimensions of the picture that gets transmitted. In another post I used custom size like -250x999 and I get X-Large stats for that one. The math must be done after the smart calculation of the precise dimensions to correct this bug.
This becomes important when these bandwidth stats are actually used for decisions on infrastructure or account usage.
thanks,
Nick.
0