Blogger/Blogspot permitted image extensions

[apologist]

Sorry in advance – rather a niche query/request.

 

Sometime between 2nd December and 6th December last year, Blogger changed the image extension that they use. As a result, I'm now unable to post images by copying and pasting the addresses into [ img] tags.

 

I'm aware there are other ways of uploading images, but wondered if anyone is able to suggest how I can easily upload images hosted on Blogger to the site? 

 

The old style appeared like this:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lizbjWNXO2w/YaiFp91h17I/AAAAAAAAjJo/U1908QVkfGoE9z3YL0LNV9eM1OtkOBjgQCNcBGAsYHQ/w640-h360/4671B212-A08B-40C5-8821-7D56780B667F.jpeg

... which could be copied and pasted into [ img] tags with a couple of clicks. The new style, however, seems to include additional formatting that prevents this:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgleYEHNBQ4gKkVZZ-Buenn8_VQOiAZmrVcpBUEU_MnTpoTByMD1DqiFzXwtY6voetVNzii5lwMCgOZq_hOZK8lavD6BNryp9fJ2Rz-gn3xQo_QTaiWATfIC7J7pFv1CKTNqza6xb-iPPaE_bTHZmXrYB_H_sSOUN-9i2GXYo4FJqsL3WpPeFzmPyPtaw=w640-h640

If I put the latter style in [ img] tags I get a 'You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community.' note.

 

Is there a simple fix to allow images hosted on Blogger to be copied and pasted across? (If someone can identify for me part of the string that I can copy or edit to go back to the old approach, that'd be great.)

 

Happy to hear any suggestions – and if there's anything relatively simple that I can do to work within the B&C coding, I'm happy to learn. Otherwise, any chance the B&C can expand its frontiers on which extensions are allowed? It does seem to be unique to B&C, as I can copy to other boards, such as Dakkadakka.

Edited February 4, 2022 by apologist

[sibomots]

[ ... snip .. snip .. ]

Happy to hear any suggestions – and if there's anything relatively simple that I can do to work within the B&C coding, I'm happy to learn. Otherwise, any chance the B&C can expand its frontiers on which extensions are allowed? It does seem to be unique to B&C, as I can copy to other boards, such as Dakkadakka.

 

The error is a dialog box after trying to post.  I can repro the error.

 

I did some digging.  https://too-clever-by-half.blogspot.com/2022/01/blogger-images-problems-mount.html

 

The site software here at B&C is not quite as current as we'd like.   And given that the tag handling for images doesn't seem to be as flexible as other BBCode engines.

 

For example, I went to a BBcode test site and your 2nd URL worked fine.

https://codebeautify.org/bbcode-viewer

 

Original hypothesis was that Blogger was playing games with deep-linking to images on Blogger from sites outside.

 

I used your 2nd Blogger URL and it worked...   But in my B&C Profile....  

 

Code to use in your Profile:

[spoiler]
[img=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgleYEHNBQ4gKkVZZ-Buenn8_VQOiAZmrVcpBUEU_MnTpoTByMD1DqiFzXwtY6voetVNzii5lwMCgOZq_hOZK8lavD6BNryp9fJ2Rz-gn3xQo_QTaiWATfIC7J7pFv1CKTNqza6xb-iPPaE_bTHZmXrYB_H_sSOUN-9i2GXYo4FJqsL3WpPeFzmPyPtaw=w640-h640]
[/spoiler]

In our (B&C) Profile editor (which should be the same as this editor) the criteria for acceptance should be the same.

However, the process to save a post may be different set of processes than mere Profile editing. 

This points to a configuration of the IP.Board software here (B&C) is involved.

 

Interesting.....

 

In the mean time -- all I can suggest is pasting the URL to the image, without the img-tag aid.   I cannot think of a way (yet) to get around it if the image has to be hosted on blogger.

Edited February 5, 2022 by sibomots

[WarriorFish]

The software bits are somewhat dated yes, and have an explicit rule of requiring image extensions (e.g. .png) so without this will be rejected by the validation filters for the forum. It's not really "smart" enough to work with more modern and flexible things like this. Directly or not the update will provide a solution (as in if it doesn't add it, we should be able to).

[apologist]

Thanks both; glad to know it’s something Blogger/Blogspot/Google have done, rather than me going mad(!)

 

For the moment then, just a case of waiting? Not a problem if so (though frustrating, it’s hardly anything worth getting grumpy about with the B&C team!)

 

You mention an update, WarriorFish; is that something that’s already planned? Afraid I hadn’t kept up with announcements on that front.

[sibomots]

Thanks both; glad to know it’s something Blogger/Blogspot/Google have done, rather than me going mad(!)

 

[ snip ... ]

 

Correction.  It's not a Blogger issue,  The issue is the Forum on B&C handling image files that do not have canonical extensions as WarriorFish alluded to.

 

If you were to add your test URL as an Image in your Profile here, it works as expected.   It's the Forum software here (on B&C) that would affect the success of being able to post images as you indicated.

Edited February 7, 2022 by sibomots

[Brother Tyler]

You mention an update, WarriorFish; is that something that’s already planned? Afraid I hadn’t kept up with announcements on that front.

Yes, an update is in the works. While we've been promising this and not delivering for a few years, we're making concrete steps this time. We hope to have the update completed (including testing) and fully operational by October.

 

In the meantime, we can expand the extensions, but we wouldn't be able to include those of the type you've shown (which points to an image, but also includes coding for how the image is displayed).

 

Out of curiosity, why not upload the images that you want to post at the B&C to your free B&C gallery? I know there's the element of having to upload the images to two different sites for hosting at those sites, but it gives you the freedom to post your images in ways that work with your text, especially when combined with other BBCode.

[apologist]

Cool, good to know; thanks Brother Tyler.

 

In answer to your question, it’s a case of speed and familiarity. I appreciate the fact that we have access to an image storage gallery here, but I’ve never quite worked out how to get it to work – largely because I got familiar with Photobucket (back when it was free), then switched over to blogger when I set that up.

 

I’m not averse to using the B&C gallery; though I’d prefer to keep everything in one place, and I assumed it’d be better for the B&C not to use up the space here unnecessarily.

 

Secondly, copying the link from the blog had the advantage that it automatically set it to a size that’s both consistent, allowed within the B&C rules, and didn’t permanently resize the image, so I could use it larger elsewhere.

 

Finally – and this is quite a pathetic reason! – looking over the instructions on the pinned post in B&C101, is there a way to use the gallery from mobile? I can’t seem to find the mentioned elements. (I’ll give it another go switching over to Full Version from mobile.)

 

+Edit+

Couple of additional queries – The tutorial mentions the user gallery is only to be used to host ‘power armour related’ images. I assume that’s a holdover from before the B&C started allowing other 40k content, but thought I’d check what is okay. Would it be okay to host (say) a gaming board picture; images of Gates of Antares (or other non-GW sci-fi); or general hobby pictures like a report of a gaming meet-up?

 

On a related note, does the file size suggestion still stand?

Please try and keep your images to under 800pixels wide. While there is an autoresizer it doesn't change the file size, it simply creates a 60% thumbnail. So again, no 2meg, 2400x1600 pics please.

To give an example of why that makes the gallery less attractive to use, I take my photos on my phone (a fairly old iPhone) and upload directly to my blog – as far as I can see, there’s no quick way of changing the file size of a photo I’ve taken from my phone beyond crudely cropping it. Even then, I won’t know whether that works in the confines of the rules.

 

Basically, I appreciate the fact the gallery’s there, but since I mostly post from mobile in between other tasks, I don’t want to inadvertently break the rules in trying to get images up and useable quickly. Since my blog doesn’t seem to be a viable way of doing that any more, I’ll try to get my head round the gallery and use that until the software update (hopefully) allows me to go back to using the blog.

Edited February 8, 2022 by apologist

[apologist]

Test image:

Okay, cool; that seems to work.

Couple of questions:

I) Is there a way to force the images to be a default standard width? I had options to post as thumbnail; 480 x 480 or 1200 x 1200. Is that determined by the file dimensions as uploaded, or are those B&C defaults?

II) I’m looking at this through the ‘full site’ option on mobile, so can’t judge whether this is an obnoxious size – is it causing horrible horizontal scrolling, or is it a decent, clear size?

Edited February 8, 2022 by apologist

[Brother Tyler]

You can get to the galleries via the Mobile theme, but it’s a royal PITA. The whole point of the Mobile theme (which is an off-the-shelf skin, not one that we’ve customized for the site) is to limit image use in viewing, keeping data usage to a minimum. It’s far better to use the Default/Carbon (or Full) theme, which can be done on mobile devices, but generally involves a lot of scrolling. One of the things we’re hoping to do with the upgrade, or possibly later, is develop mobile-friendly skins/themes that have more functionality. So there would be a mobile theme that is minimalist (like the one we have now) as well as one or more other mobile themes that provide increased functionality.
 
When you upload an image to the gallery, the software will automatically shrink it down so that it fits within the following dimensions, in pixels (preserving proportions):
 
Full Size: width 1,600 and height 1,200
Medium Size: width 640 and height 480
Small Size: width 240 and height 240
Thumbnail: width 100 and height 100
 
If an image fits within one of those sets of dimensions above, all larger sizes will match those dimensions (so an image that is 240x240 will have full, medium, and small size versions that are the same). The software is supposed to shrink an image down fit in a post, but sometimes that doesn’t work out correctly, throwing board formatting off. The 800 pixel size that we recommended previously was based on web standard screen sizes at that time. At this point, it should be somewhere around 900 pixels. This can generally be checked by previewing a post before submitting it, then using a smaller size version if the image is too large.
 
The only way to force a standard width is to edit the images before uploading them. The sizing in the gallery and in posting is based on the actual image sizes and is not controlled by the software (not counting the initial sizing and thumbnails).
 
The image you posted works fine on a computer screen. It probably requires scrolling when viewed on a mobile device. You can see that it is quite large in the gallery (here – 1200x1200 pixels), but the software automatically shrinks it down when displaying it in posts.
 
The tutorial is woefully out of date. We’ve discussed updating it, which we really need to do, but have held off in anticipation of the software update (which we kept thinking was going to happen, but didn’t). Even though we’re much more confident this time around, there’s a chance that we’ll update the tutorial (and have to update it again once the software update is done, because the new software improves things quite a bit). As far as content goes, anything in the Warhammer 40,000 setting is permissible. Images from other games are allowed if they’re painted/converted to work in the Warhammer 40,000 setting. So pictures from an event that includes Warhammer 40,000 are okay, but we don’t need to see dioramas or battle reports from Beyond the Gates of Antares or Frostgrave. You might convert and paint some Ghar models, for example, to look like an allied T’au race, but there would have to be clear indicators that the Ghar models are set in the Warhammer 40,000 setting.