gsdesign

Hey Dave,

Thanks for the quick and informative response!

Regards.

Greetings,

A nice plugin, got me up to 100 Lighthouse rating at one point. Thanks for the hard work.

Short story: I disabled the JS and the site went from mobile unfriendly to mobile friendly.

Long story: A routine server side security scan showed potentially malicious code in the autoptimize JS cache. I ran a scan from Google’s Search Admin and it showed that it was clear. Anyway, I manually deleted the cache file. And re-ran the scan. There was apparently no malicious code on the server that it found. As a precaution, thinking that maybe something unknown was injecting into the autoptomize JS cache, I disabled just the JS. Ran the Google search admin scan again and checked for any security flags and once again, it didn’t find anything. But oddly enough the page changed from mobile unfriendly to mobile friendly. Anyway, it’s a shame to lose the speed gain from the optimized JS, but the boost to google ranking is hard to give up as well.

Anyway, just thought I’d let you know.

Thanks for he plugin.

Regards.

Hey Jacob,

Thanks again for the quick response and the work you are doing. It is saving the Source Files, both IX-H1 and IX-H2 are checked.

Hopefully that new system will work. Looking forward to the next release!

Regards.

Thanks for the suggestions.

In answer to your question about the logfile, here is a copy and pasted sample (the user name has been starred out):

Dbg: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 318 and 313 are identical. Flags = 0x7000
Dbg: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 390 and 352 are identical. Flags = 0x7000
Dbg: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 496 and 495 are identical. Flags = 0x5100
War: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 669 and 557 have the same name, filename and description but score only 0 out of 6 possible matches. Flags = 0x040
Dbg: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 671 and 558 are identical. Flags = 0x7000
War: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 672 and 363 have the same name, filename and description but score only 2 out of 6 possible matches. Flags = 0x041100
War: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 674 and 366 have the same name, filename and description but score only 2 out of 6 possible matches. Flags = 0x041100
Dbg: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 677 and 362 are identical. Flags = 0x7000
Dbg: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 679 and 595 are identical. Flags = 0x3100
Dbg: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 679 and 597 are identical. Flags = 0x3100
War: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 690 and 495 have the same name, filename and description but score only 2 out of 6 possible matches. Flags = 0x041100
War: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 690 and 496 have the same name, filename and description but score only 2 out of 6 possible matches. Flags = 0x041100
Dbg: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 748 and 740 are identical. Flags = 0x7000
Dbg: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 747 and 742 are identical. Flags = 0x5100
Dbg: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 793 and 792 are identical. Flags = 0x5100
War: on:15.07.2019 11:13:10: ******: Items 839 and 838 have the same name, filename and description but score only 0 out of 6 possible matches. Flags = 0x040
Dbg: on:15.07.2019 11:13:09: ******: Items 931 and 862 are identical. Flags = 0x7000
Dbg: on:15.07.2019 11:13:09: ******: Items 931 and 930 are identical. Flags = 0x7000

In regards to what you mean by “Saving the Source Files” I’m not sure what you mean … can you clarify? At some point I manually reuploaded all the images via SFTP, both thumbnails and maybe what you mean as the source files, because I had to basically adjust every single file in the gallery (several hundred) and that seemed like the quickest solution to get them up. There’s the possibility that some of the “identitcal files”, since some were adjusted from the “source file” and some from a copy of the source file (it gets complicated because there were some errors and adjustments and distant duplicates along the way) don’t look exactly identical to your feature, so they show up as non duplicates except in title, filename and description. It’s a mess, but we’ve been using that gallery software now for over a couple of years, and there have been a lot of revisions to make everything work, along with changes to the materials.

If you can loosen the parameters based on what I’ve written and what’s in the log files, that would be great. If not… well it’s understandable. It seems like an adjustment to the algorithm would be the most efficient way to solve the problem.

Thanks so much for taking to the time to respond and assist with this feature and issue.

Regards.

Greetings Jacob,

You’re doing a great job with the plug-in. I’m noticing even still fewer duplicates.

A couple of weeks ago I tried to manually install the development package but it wouldn’t install for some reason. I followed the directions and everything and the development package just wouldn’t install. I tried 3 times on the staging server doing an manual install through WordPress and it just wouldn’t go (I tried a few different things each time, but still, it would not go). I didn’t have the time to get over to the forums … sorry. So I waited for the release to come out to use WP Update function and that seemed to work. My apologies for not being able to work on a pre-release and give you feedback.

From the current update, I’m getting fewer duplicates, but still getting some duplicates, for some reason.

I checked the log and did find the some of the new debug warnings you mentioned earlier in the thread (for some reason Microsoft’s Edge has a hard time with the Log overlay, so I’ll just retype what some of the output is): All the warnings start with: “… have the same name, filename and description” then they differ, a couple have “2 out of 6 possible matches. Flags = 0x04110” and one has “0 out of 6 possible matches. Flags = 0x040”

You’re probably tired of working on this. It’s working much better than before. If you are still working on this, it’s much appreciated. If your done with this function, it’s understandable. Just thought I’d give you some feedback. Your work is tremendous and much appreciated. If you can iron out the kinks, it seems like you’re in the homestretch with this new debug data.

Many thanks.

Regards.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 8 months ago by gsdesign.

Hey Jacob,

Thanks for the response, I’m in a bit of a rush today, but I did log in to the server and here’s the output for those files on in the wppa directory (the source files, I believe):

-rw-r–r– 1 ********** inetuser 180361 Mar 5 15:37 495.jpg
-rw-r–r– 1 ********** inetuser 180083 Mar 5 15:37 496.jpg

I forgot to look at the thumbnails before remaking them, but here was the output from that folder after remaking them:

-rw-r–r– 1 ********** inetuser 101710 Jun 19 11:05 495.jpg
-rw-r–r– 1 ********** inetuser 101710 Jun 19 11:05 496.jpg

As you can see the source files are slightly different in size for some reason. But the thumbnails are the same size. Despite the thumbnails being the same size, the problem with the duplicates is still there.

Like I wrote, I’m a little busy today, but hopefully that gives you some info to work from.

Thanks so much.

Regards.

Hey Jacob,

I went through debugging (the checkbox for enabling debugging is actually under settings IXA9.5 not XIA9.5). Anyway. It says that I have some files that have the same name and description but are different files. I checked out one of those (I believe they were copies as they were sequential 495 and 496 (we often copy the same image to multiple albums after upload)) and they indeed showed up multiple times in the search results … just as an example. I’m not sure how in that case, why they are being identified as different files, since they seem (I know we have some that aren’t) direct copies from one album to another. Is there a way to have an option to loosen the criteria even more, just go by name and description?

You’ve done some amazing work so far, I don’t mean to add to the load of all that you have going on, but such a feature would good, because it would allow the duplicate matching to be user controlled, instead of based partially on something that can get complicated in systems such as ours.

Thanks again for developing and supporting this plugin.

Regards.

Hey Jacob,

It’s amazing that you did all that work. I’m sorry I couldn’t do much beta testing on our site and I’m so late getting back to you. Your work has cut down the number of duplicates significantly, but we are still experiencing duplicates in our search results … not as many, but one or two here or there. I know you may be racking your brain, so maybe you can explain what properties exactly you are using to sift through the photos and remove duplicates. I want to make sure that all that matches up before/if you start diving into the code again.

Anyway, the work you’ve done is amazing. Thanks for supporting and developing this plugin.

Regards.

Hey Jacob,

It’s incredible that you were willing and able to do that so quickly! I installed the development version. (BTW it seems to be compatible with WordPress 5.2.1 in case it hasn’t been tested on that yet).

I ran into one snag though. It seems that, everything being the same, if the tags are different, they get picked up as two separate files and duplicates occur in the search results (that’s the only explanation I can find for what I’m seeing on the staging server). We have some images that have different tags depending on the gallery. So this is a little bit of a problem. Just thought I’d make you aware of that.

Also can you clarify, is the Filename compared? It may be better to use the Photo name, because that is alterable, and photos could lumped together intentionally (also, don’t ask how, but there were issues where we have the same photo name and the same file, but uploaded under a different filename because of some sort of intermittent upload error that was worked around).

Sorry if that complicates things a bit. Its just exciting to work with such an engaged developer.

Someone here was so encouraged by your response to this issue that he may want to make requests for future improvements/additions. Is there a place to make such suggestions?

Thank you so much.

Regards.

Wow Jacob, that would be great if you could implement something like that! I understand that each image is given a unique identifier, maybe if there was some way to link the identifiers for the files that should only appear in the search results once, in the interface somewhere, then the search function could look at them as a single item, maybe that would cut down on some of the overhead for the search engine and prevent problems with files being mistakenly taken out of the search results. Your the expert though, just a thought.

Thank you so much for the response and for putting the effort into thinking of a way to handle this.

Regards.

Thanks Jacob! You provide great support for this plugin.

There’s one typo in your response that if others trying to do this may stumble upon, like I did (I figured it out though). Where you write “Make sure ‘wppa_list_photo_by’ is included…” that should be wppa_list_photos_by. You may want to edit the post so if others are trying to do the same thing, they don’t get tripped up.

Thanks again for the response, and the great work on the plugin.

I’ll email you a link.

Okay so this is happening in Edge and apparently not in Chrome. Basically, when you search for one term (say “door hanger” (without the quotes)) then from the resulting photo-search-results page, search for something else (say “11×17” without the quotes), the results for 11×17 show up. But if you press the browsers back button from those results, to theoretically go back to the search results for “door hanger”, Edge is showing an error page: “This Page Was Just Here a Second Ago”. If you hit refresh it asks if you would like to resubmit the form. Then if you click retry the page shows up okay. But this doesn’t happen in Chrome, apparently. I don’t know if it’s a difference in coding on your end, or a browser issue.

Anyway, thanks again for getting back to me.

I found the simple drop-box that you handily placed next to the setting (facepalm) to open it in a new tab. But the search function may still need some looking into.

Regards,

Greetings Jacob … I just got back to emails and really appreciate your emails. You are doing a great job. I deactivated the version I was using, deleted it, then installed the version available today, (it had a higher version number than the development version you linked to in your email) and it WORKS PROPERLY!

Thank you so much …

Regards,

Greetings Jacob,

Thank you so much for maintaining support and this plugin.

The mobile mode isn’t the problem. We are experiencing it on the desktop version of Chrome. I’m using Chrome version: 71.0.3578.98. Can I email you the link to the staging server I am using? (I’ve been troubleshooting it on there, but will clean it up and leave it alone so you can take a look at the “bug”). I have altered the CSS for Chrome on our production site to accommodate this problem, but it doesn’t maintain the resizing of the images and lightbox like it normally should, it’s a little ugly, until I can get some more assistance.

Thank you so much. You definitely have one of the most full featured gallery plug-ins out there.

Regards.