Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Again, the underlying software is declaring my latest posts "Unapproved"

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Again, the underlying software is declaring my latest posts "Unapproved"

    Once I post them, I can no longer edit them. I already forgot if anyone else has reported the "unapproved" issue happening to them, but it's bugging me.

  • #2
    Not sure what's going on, I just approved both posts I got notice for. This last update has been … problematic.
    The image file limits have been reset. We have over-limit warnings for the past 3 months and I've had to lower the image file limits. Upper limits now are 100,000 when we have some images that exceed 5,000,000. I know I've mentioned many times before, but it is very important to downsize images - doesn't matter if they are hosted elsewhere or here. I've set the pixels for no more than 1000 across the longest side, so if you resize to that all should be well. (The new limits are larger than what I typically use, and my images turn out just fine, so I know it shouldn't be a problem)

    Thank you for your understanding.

    Comment


    • #3
      The two posts were identified as spam by the site i suppose. I got a notification of that.
      It's happened to some other posts by different members, Wes included.
      We can't do much besides approving the posts and report to vbulletin support about the issue.

      Comment


      • #4
        Just happened to me. Usually, this only happens when I do my first posts to a new forum, but typically goes away. Not my eight-hundredth-and-something post.

        Comment


        • #5
          Just saw that and cleared it.
          The image file limits have been reset. We have over-limit warnings for the past 3 months and I've had to lower the image file limits. Upper limits now are 100,000 when we have some images that exceed 5,000,000. I know I've mentioned many times before, but it is very important to downsize images - doesn't matter if they are hosted elsewhere or here. I've set the pixels for no more than 1000 across the longest side, so if you resize to that all should be well. (The new limits are larger than what I typically use, and my images turn out just fine, so I know it shouldn't be a problem)

          Thank you for your understanding.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jt3 View Post
            Just saw that and cleared it.
            Which makes me wonder if Flickr has got something to do with it. Both b2young and I use Flickr. I just switched back to it this week, and this is also the first time it has happened with me.

            Comment


            • #7
              If that is the common denominator, then that would be the best guess I've heard so far.
              The image file limits have been reset. We have over-limit warnings for the past 3 months and I've had to lower the image file limits. Upper limits now are 100,000 when we have some images that exceed 5,000,000. I know I've mentioned many times before, but it is very important to downsize images - doesn't matter if they are hosted elsewhere or here. I've set the pixels for no more than 1000 across the longest side, so if you resize to that all should be well. (The new limits are larger than what I typically use, and my images turn out just fine, so I know it shouldn't be a problem)

              Thank you for your understanding.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by cody6268 View Post

                Which makes me wonder if Flickr has got something to do with it. Both b2young and I use Flickr.
                Created a Flickr account just to check if I would get the same issue/problem.


                HotWheels Mini van by Frans Nelissen
                Apparently not

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think I posted my theory about this once before, but as far as I can tell it has to do with the way flickr provides the photo links. One photo will contain several URLs - one for the photo displayed, and two in the accompanying text. So that's 3 urls for one picture. The forum software has a limit as to how many urls can be in a post without requiring moderation approval. It's a sort of SPAM control. At least I think that's what I figured out some time ago.
                  Michael "Toyotageek"
                  Japanese Minicar Garage https://japaneseminicargarage.weebly.com/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by toyotageek View Post
                    I think I posted my theory about this once before, but as far as I can tell it has to do with the way flickr provides the photo links. One photo will contain several URLs - one for the photo displayed, and two in the accompanying text. So that's 3 urls for one picture. The forum software has a limit as to how many urls can be in a post without requiring moderation approval. It's a sort of SPAM control. At least I think that's what I figured out some time ago.
                    That would be my guess too, the flag notice is for "potential spam"
                    The image file limits have been reset. We have over-limit warnings for the past 3 months and I've had to lower the image file limits. Upper limits now are 100,000 when we have some images that exceed 5,000,000. I know I've mentioned many times before, but it is very important to downsize images - doesn't matter if they are hosted elsewhere or here. I've set the pixels for no more than 1000 across the longest side, so if you resize to that all should be well. (The new limits are larger than what I typically use, and my images turn out just fine, so I know it shouldn't be a problem)

                    Thank you for your understanding.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X