MissileTeatime
By the power of Vaporware!
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2017
- Messages
- 2,120
- Likes received
- 6,471
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The post you linked mentions the images in question being hosted on Imgur. Imgur has since deleted all NSFW content it once hosted. That CYOA was likely NSFW, judging by the title of it. Ergo, this is most likely not an issue with QQ's image proxying.Where do we go about image proxy issues? Is this an acceptable thread?
I've come across several posts where I know the images used to be proxied correctly, but don't appear to be now. Example.
To my recollection, historically, images that were proxied would still be available on QQ because of the image proxy. That's why I thought it was unintentional behavior. If those images should still be available through the image proxy but aren't, that's a bug.The post you linked mentions the images in question being hosted on Imgur. Imgur has since deleted all NSFW content it once hosted. That CYOA was likely NSFW, judging by the title of it. Ergo, this is most likely not an issue with QQ's image proxying.
The post you linked mentions the images in question being hosted on Imgur. Imgur has since deleted all NSFW content it once hosted. That CYOA was likely NSFW, judging by the title of it. Ergo, this is most likely not an issue with QQ's image proxying.
To my recollection, historically, images that were proxied would still be available on QQ because of the image proxy. That's why I thought it was unintentional behavior. If those images should still be available through the image proxy but aren't, that's a bug.
Is that no longer the expected behavior? Am I missing something else?
My guess would be that the proxy doesn't hold images forever, since that would mean holding a copy of every image anyone ever linked on QQ forever. I suspect the proxy only keeps a given image until a certain amount of time has passed without anyone looking at it, then discards it. So if you're looking at an old thread - one that you might well be the first person to read in weeks or months - then the images will no longer be in the proxy, and if the original source is also gone, you're SOL.To my recollection, historically, images that were proxied would still be available on QQ because of the image proxy. That's why I thought it was unintentional behavior. If those images should still be available through the image proxy but aren't, that's a bug.
Is that no longer the expected behavior? Am I missing something else?
As you can see, no. It may be a Brave thing, though? They're weird.Anyone else having issues leaving commenta on pc. I'm only able to comment via andriod right now.
Haven't tested apple but i dont have any apple devices either.
![]()
It was fine on brave before the update. Now I can't comment on pc's brave browser, open spoiler buttons, and something else I forgot..... Images?? Image spoiler buttons???? Ya that one of them. Were there more?? I'll remember at some point probably then I'll just edit this I think.As you can see, no. It may be a Brave thing, though? They're weird.
I mean, the update here was back in May. If you're talking about a Brave update, though, you might want to look there.It was fine on brave before the update. Now I can't comment on pc's brave browser, open spoiler buttons, and something else I forgot..... Images?? Image spoiler buttons???? Ya that one of them. Were there more?? I'll remember at some point probably then I'll just edit this I think.
Works fine on brave mobile for andriod though.
Just checked when the update for brave happened and it did happen right around when I started having issues. December 19th and it works fine on firefox posting from there now. So you were right the issue is with brave, it must been interacting weird with xenforo 2 due to braves latest update. No Idea how to fix it, only how to work around it with firefox.I mean, the update here was back in May. If you're talking about a Brave update, though, you might want to look there.
It's a side effect of Imgur's ban on NSFW content. Apparently QQ's notable enough to be on the list of known porn sites that Imgur is aware of, and as a result Imgur has decided to block QQ from embedding images from Imgur. Since the problem is on Imgur's side, not QQ's, there's not really anything that anyone on QQ can do about it, short of somehow getting the money to buy Imgur outright and revert their NSFW ban.So, do we know why imgur embeds don't work anymore? I mostly use imgchest these days, but it's still annoying. Did it break when we switched from XF1 to XF2, or was it something else?
It's a side effect of Imgur's ban on NSFW content. Apparently QQ's notable enough to be on the list of known porn sites that Imgur is aware of, and as a result Imgur has decided to block QQ from embedding images from Imgur. Since the problem is on Imgur's side, not QQ's, there's not really anything that anyone on QQ can do about it, short of somehow getting the money to buy Imgur outright and revert their NSFW ban.
Does the "imbed images hosted on Imgur as media" workaround still work?
Hi!
Am I the only here who's having a problem with several issues?
One is that embeded twitter (x) posts don't load and show up on mobile. Another is that I can't seem to search site members properly even when typing their full name! The names just doesn't show up in the search suggestion!
![]()
the search by members function works fine for me and the name is properly displayed in the search suggestion popup as far as I can tell.
It's a known bug, that's been happening for a couple months now. It appears to concern specific userhandles (a great many of them at this point), with little rhyme or reason otherwise.Am I the only here who's having a problem with several issues?
... Another is that I can't seem to search site members properly even when typing their full name! The names just doesn't show up in the search suggestion!
Uh, got a citation on that?It's a side effect of Imgur's ban on NSFW content. Apparently QQ's notable enough to be on the list of known porn sites that Imgur is aware of, and as a result Imgur has decided to block QQ from embedding images from Imgur. Since the problem is on Imgur's side, not QQ's, there's not really anything that anyone on QQ can do about it, short of somehow getting the money to buy Imgur outright and revert their NSFW ban.
Uh, got a citation on that?
My understanding was that the issue was with QQ's image proxy not working with Imgur's auto-redirect for image links. Basically, if you take a link to an Imgur image and try to open it in your browser, Imgur detects that, and automatically redirects you from the image itself to a page containing that image. For example:
The problem, then, is that when you try to post an image on QQ, instead of sourcing the image directly, the resulting image is sourced from QQ's image cache, which itself must fetch the image from Imgur to add to the cache. The problem is, Imgur thinks the request from the proxy is a request from a browser rather than an embedded image, and returns the HTML redirect instead. The proxy, which is expecting an actual image rather than an HTML page, can't handle that and gives up.
- This is a link to an Imgur post: https://imgur.com/gallery/new-original-concept-photo-series-cyber-android-unit-001-Wc5ERF7
- This is a link to the first image in that post: https://i.imgur.com/GS7QRaI.jpeg
- But if you try to follow that link (assuming the image isn't already in your browser cache), then you automatically get redirected to this HTML page, which displays the image in question, but also has things like the 'add favourite' and 'share' buttons: https://imgur.com/GS7QRaI
So, yes, the problem could be fixed on QQ's end: figure out what bit of metadata Imgur uses to tell the difference between embedded image requests and direct browser requests, and adjust the proxy to include that so Imgur stops trying to redirect it. Or, if that's too hard, just exempt Imgur images from the proxy entirely. But that haven't bothered.
Why is QQ uniquely unable to do direct imgur image embeds when the same issue should happen on all other XF2 forums?
Because neither of those sites use an image proxy, AFAIK.On SB, I can do direct imgur image embeds.
On the Paradox forums, I can do direct imgur image embeds.
Both of those are XF2.
Why is QQ uniquely unable to do direct imgur image embeds when the same issue should happen on all other XF2 forums?
Nope, image proxy is a standard XF feature. The only difference between QQ and SB is that QQ keeps the image proxied indefinitely whereas SB will dump it and reproxy it after a certain amount of time.
Yeah, my citation is the explanation that @alethiophile gave in this post. The problem is that Imgur has blocked QQ's server specifically, on their end, which is why image embeds work on say, SB and SV, but don't work over here.
Uh, try reading that again. Unless they happened to decide to start blocking QQ on the exact same day we happened to be doing a server move, it clearly isn't them targeting us specifically because we're a porn site.Yeah, my citation is the explanation that @alethiophile gave in this post. The problem is that Imgur has blocked QQ's server specifically, on their end, which is why image embeds work on say, SB and SV, but don't work over here.
That is exactly why they started blocking us, they started getting a bunch of traffic from a new IP address, so they looked at where it was from saw it was here and decided they didn't want us to be able to make use of them. They didn't notice it prior because it wasn't new traffic before then and so they didn't bother looking into it when they banned NSFW.Uh, try reading that again. Unless they happened to decide to start blocking QQ on the exact same day we happened to be doing a server move, it clearly isn't them targeting us specifically because we're a porn site.
Unlike SB, QQ neither requires nor creates the tags. You want a specific tag? Type it in the tag box on your thread, but don't expect anyone else to use it if they don't feel like it.With the changeover, would it be possible to add filter tags to the nsfw section for smut?
Eg, "no smut", "low smut", "infreq smut" "freq smut" "mostly smut".
Or heck, just three filters. "story focus" "story with smut" "smut focus"
Or other filters that could be used in conjunction with each other perhaps?
The main idea however is that it should be clear enough how much of the story would be detected as porn, how much would be questionable content but still sfw and how much is not smut at all.
If I wanted to read a story, I can immediately tell that although it has smut, I can stay for the plot. Or alternatively, that I won't be doing much skipping ahead to read something steamy.