Timeline for Roadmap to HTTPS: serving and uploading HTTPS-images only
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2017 at 17:11 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | Yes, it is, but probably could end up in tons of legal problems if SE edits the images themselves. @MichaelMrozek I don't know if, and so why, was responsible for saying HTTP images are dead. Not sure how to read that too. | |
| Mar 12, 2017 at 16:55 | comment | added | Michael Mrozek | Who came up with "most HTTP images are dead"? Was that actually based on a check, or just an assumption? All of my older images are hosted on my domain because SE didn't have imgur support back then, and I don't have SSL configured, but all the images work just fine over HTTP. I've been seeing people manually edit my old posts to upload the images to imgur; is that not automatable? | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 7:14 | comment | added | m0sa Mod | @AdamKatz not really, since IMHO the steps listed above already get rid of mixed content... the crowdsourcing thing is just an afterthought, a replacement for editing lists of post ids in a markdown post (see footnote 1). It's basically my attempt of putting lipstick on a pig. Anyone from the community could've done it, even on SO, since the lists of changed post IDs are public there as well. So I apologize if the execution isn't ideal, but it's much better than what we did till now IMO. | |
| Mar 8, 2017 at 3:10 | comment | added | Adam Katz | @m0sa – Why does this have to be externally crowdsourced? Why not add extra JS into SE sites that ping a central server when an image fails to load, then after a minimum threshold of pings from unique ~CIDR/24s, crawl it yourself? That'd at least identify the broken images. I assume most of them can be formulaically corrected. The rest would be ranked by popularity to prioritize human vetting. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 16:45 | comment | added | mbomb007 | @ShadowWizard The dead link can often be found using the Wayback Machine, or possibly cached by Google. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 11:34 | comment | added | Knossos | After 10 deleted posts, I stopped running through the system. Better to exclude them if you do it again. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 11:01 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | @m0sa Can you make a new list for us containing only visible posts? We are now spending tons of time on deleted posts. I haven't actually seen a visible post in the queue yet. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 9:17 | comment | added | user152859 | @Raphael of course, but many times there's no such URL, and searching for similar image will just take tons of time better spent on other things. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 9:16 | history | edited | user152859 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 5 characters in body |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 9:14 | comment | added | Raphael | Dead images can be fixed by providing a working URL, if it's clear what was supposed to be there. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 8:08 | comment | added | m0sa Mod | It's a one off process, so they get processed as well, in case they ever get undeleted... But I guess in that case we're OK with a broken link? You're right though, I could've skipped the deleted ones when adding them to the queue. I'm totally planing to reuse the queue for other sites as well, so I'll exclude deleted posts next time | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 8:00 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | @m0sa: The CC project also shows deleted posts: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3194. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 7:51 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | Sure it is, but it would mean some users would have a dozen notifications in their inbox, with almost certainly no result. @SQB | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 7:22 | comment | added | SQB | Is it possible to notify the user that added the image that it can't be converted to https? If I added one, I may be able to find a replacement. Also, is there a way to check if I have ever added one in the first place (to the Bat-Mob... ehr, SEDE!) | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 6:32 | history | edited | Patrick Hofman | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 215 characters in body |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 3:14 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | @PatrickHofman with the information, somebody who cares can find a different image or dig through the Wayback Machine to get it. Without the information, and (as in most cases) without meaningful alt text or sufficient description in the post body, we've got no idea. | |
| Mar 7, 2017 at 1:59 | comment | added | m0sa Mod | @PatrickHofman see update, TL;DR -> crowdcrafting.org/project/sehttpimagescleanup | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 16:15 | comment | added | Andy | Related analysis of dead links of SO (disclaimer...it's my post) | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 15:54 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | That is true, but will it ever come so far? I would usually just remove the dead link. Usually there is no way to get it back anyway, unless you knew what was there before. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 15:54 | comment | added | m0sa Mod | if we edit it out, the next person editing the post won't get the HTTPS only images warning, which might prod them into finding a replacement image | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 15:51 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | Well, generally there is no use in a dead link, so we edit them out. If you have to test if an image supports HTTPS, and if that fails also checks if there is still a HTTP image, and that fails too, you could just remove it entirely. Maybe leaving a boilerplate text like the ALT in place. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 15:50 | comment | added | m0sa Mod | would you rather dig through revision history than have it right there? | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 15:49 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | But why keep the link if the image is dead? | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 15:49 | comment | added | m0sa Mod | we do put the alt text in the link text | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 15:44 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | Then replace then with some useful text, the alt, put them in review or something else. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 15:43 | comment | added | m0sa Mod | they have an alt text or something describing what is mean to be there | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 15:42 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | Oh yes you can :) . Why not? | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 15:42 | comment | added | m0sa Mod | we can't just remove them | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 15:40 | comment | added | Patrick Hofman | But with 4 you say you convert the non-HTTPS images to links, not remove them. | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 15:39 | comment | added | m0sa Mod | we do check, note point 3. - old posts that have HTTP images, accessible via HTTPS, will be edited accordingly, 4. is just cleaning up what's left | |
| Mar 6, 2017 at 15:37 | history | answered | Patrick Hofman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |