The Instant View Editor uses a three-column layout, so you really want to use it on a desktop screen that's wide enough. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Back to the main page »



Link Preview

Issue #2

Yes, I do this to comply with . Certain images are quite small and we should do this if reliably possible. This method is sound and reliable IMO: I've checked 100s of pages on this domain and never encountered an image which couldn't be fetched in higher res (well done!).
It seems like a server error though: for these problematic images, if you curl the original URL and the one ending with /2560, they return exactly the same HTTP response: 200(OK) and Content-Type:image/png, only for the /2560 there is no body to the response. The fact it returns 200/png but no body (shouldn't happen for an image request), and only very rarely, indicates a server error to me. Maybe it's temporary (would explain why I never saw it). In any case, I think the logic of querying /2560 res. images is sound and valid on this domain, justified as per the checklist requirements, and this random server glitch on a couple of images doesn't justify fetching low res images IMO
Accepted by admin
I accept the issue since it's caused by unsafe src modifications resulted in broken IV. Trying to obtain better resolution note that your solution must be stable, universal and safe with predicable outcome. You checked 100 pages, but there's always a chance that future 100 pages won't work.
I've resubmitted because appeals may take very long to be processed, but ultimately I think this appeal is justified.

The thing is we have to choose a trade-off here, between:
1. showing only low res images to IV users for 1000 articles
2. showing high res images to users for 997 articles, and no IV for 3 of them
(I said previously "hundreds" not "a hundred", I'm sure I checked at the very least 300 pages, plus all other participants => roughly 3/1000 ; I admit it's very arbitrary but I think the ratio remains a conservative estimate)

I'm of the opinion our templates should provide the best viewing experience possible for TG users, so I agree with the rejection if choice #2 doesn't do that. However given the countless number of valid (and recognized as such) other issues I've seen being rejected because "it's a problem on the website" or "it doesn't happen very often, it's OK", I'm sincerely quite surprised you think choice #1 is the preferable compromise.

PS:can you settle issue wrt preview desc?
Accepted by admin
Type of issue
IV page is missing essential content
Apr 12, 2019