Jump to content

Images in Chrome - - NOT -

Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Has no one else noticed that Waymark images are not rendering properly (or, for that matter, at all) in Chrome?

I had to resort to EDGE to obtain working versions of a couple of Waymarks for demonstration purposes here. 

What should render as this:

The church


Renders in Chrome as this:


Bad Church

And what should look like this:


GOOD Tashme


Looks like this:




Bit of a difference and a REAL PITA.

Now, who should I be pleading to in search of a fix, Google or Bootron?

BTW, I checked with another Chrome user and they experienced exactly the same results: sometimes only frames are missing, as in the second example here; sometimes both frame and images are missing, as in the first example above. Both render normally with Edge. We didn't bother checking Firefox.



Edited by ScroogieII
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I use Chrome and just checked it out and I don't see any issues with the waymark photos. Yet! ?


Well, I guess that's both a good or a bad thing, depending on one's paradigm, IE depending on whether one is in OK or BC. :)


BTW, gallery pix are as one would expect, it's only pix on the page that have me flummoxed.

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment

I just clicked on the second of the four images above. Result - NO change. The images still refuse to appear.


I'm appealing to the community of Waymarkers presently using Chrome - Will you please click on one of the images above and report what you see?


BTW I'm currently using Chrome 86.0.4240.75 (Official Build) (32-bit)

Wait a sec - I should be using a 64 bit version. Let me go check and see what's up with that... ...





... ...Installing 64 bit Chrome did the trick.

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment

Actually, installing 64 bit Chrome didn't do the trick.

After giving up and reverting to Firefox, I went back and played with Chrome again, finally discovering that in Privacy and security/Site Settings/Permissions/Additional permissions/Pop-ups and redirects, if I allowed "popups and redirects" for the Waymarking domain (https://www.Waymarking.com) all the images were presented normally.


BTW, Firefox also began refusing to include pix on the page. It turned out that was caused by Ghostery, an ad blocker extension I had added.

Link to comment

Maybe I have some further information on that matter. Lately I noticed the same behaviour on some of my own waymarks. Usually I don't include photos in the long description, but I do it in Lucky 7 waymarks. I learned, that in the older waymarks I used f.e. http://img.Groundspeak.com/Waymarking/5fa95c9c-7b6e-49d2-89dc-7eb0f417c5ac.jpg, which doesn't work with https, while I used https://img.geocaching.com/Waymarking/29cb57ce-a971-4776-9de6-1255c98cc7e6.jpg (which will also work with http) on the newer ones.


So my guess is, that some browsers don't allow the page of the waymark to include images of an "unsecure" source. The problem with changing settings of your browser is that you only solve the problem on this one browser, but don't solve the problem for the rest of the world. A really good solution would be to replace "http://img.Groundspeak.com" with "https://img.geocaching.com" in all your waymarks. But with the many waymarks we have, we either have to spend LOTS of time on this or hope that Groundspeak will make a script, that will Search/Replace this on all the waymarks. I wonder, if any of these two solutions will come true.

Edited by PISA-caching
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

I'm hereby voting for the Groundspeak script avenue.


We have yet another image issue, this one self inflicted. :( When I started adding flourishes to my Waymarks many moons ago I had the bright (NOT) idea of storing them on Photobucket. BAD, Bad idea. Photobucket eventually initiated a policy whereby they refused to be a party to third party hosting of images on the net within a FREE account, at which time all the flourishes became busted.

For a year now both Barb and I have been either deleting them (her) or replacing them (me) in our "spare time". I doubt we'll get them all done in this decade at the rate we're going.



Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Followers 1
  • Create New...