Am not seeing images on certain pages with Firefox

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Nomen Nescio, Aug 29, 2012.

  1. Nomen Nescio

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    I am using Firefox 3.6.24 with Win XP.

    Why am I not seeing the pics on this page?

    http://www.impactguns.com/used-guns-for-sale.aspx

    I see the writing, prices, etc., but not pics.

    I do see pics on normal pages such as Drudge, Yahoo, and other pages.

    I do see the pics on this page when I switch over to EI.

    I do have Load Images Automatically checked in FF.

    ?
    Nomen Nescio, Aug 29, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 2012-08-29 8:11, Nomen Nescio wrote:

    > I am using Firefox 3.6.24 with Win XP.


    Why? The current release is 14.0.1. Aren't you using automatic updates?
    (It seems that about 1% of people are still using Firefox 3.6 for some
    odd reason, though.)

    > Why am I not seeing the pics on this page?


    Hard to tell without installing such a dated version of Firefox, and it
    could still be a problem in just your installation, somehow.

    What happens if you right-click a place where an image should appear
    (and the alt text now appears instead) and select "Image information"?

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Aug 29, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. På Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:11:38 +0200, skrev Nomen Nescio <>:

    > I am using Firefox 3.6.24 with Win XP.
    >
    > Why am I not seeing the pics on this page?
    >
    > http://www.impactguns.com/used-guns-for-sale.aspx
    >
    > I see the writing, prices, etc., but not pics.
    >
    > I do see pics on normal pages such as Drudge, Yahoo, and other pages.
    >
    > I do see the pics on this page when I switch over to EI.
    >
    > I do have Load Images Automatically checked in FF.


    It looks fine to me in Opera 12.x, but as Jukka suggested, it's hard to
    tell what a way-old Firefox version might be triggering on.

    For all I know, your FF version may be triggering on the fact that the
    images do not have width and height set, but that's just a quick guess.

    Given the fact that Firefox 3.6.24 was released over two years ago, there
    have been many updates (including important security upates) since then
    (including end-of-life for the 3.6.x product line earlier this year), soI
    suggest you rather upgrade FF to the latest version (15.0 was officially
    released this week).

    --
    Kim André Akerø
    -
    (remove NOSPAM to contact me directly)
    Kim André Akerø, Aug 29, 2012
    #3
  4. Nomen Nescio wrote:
    > I am using Firefox 3.6.24 with Win XP.


    Time to update, the old 3.6.X version no longer supported. FireFox is
    now at 14.0.1 http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/

    >
    > Why am I not seeing the pics on this page?
    >
    > http://www.impactguns.com/used-guns-for-sale.aspx
    >
    > I see the writing, prices, etc., but not pics.
    >
    > I do see pics on normal pages such as Drudge, Yahoo, and other pages.
    >
    > I do see the pics on this page when I switch over to EI.
    >
    > I do have Load Images Automatically checked in FF.


    Do you have the AddBlock+ extension? That can be the cause. Because
    there is nothing wrong with the images on the page.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Aug 29, 2012
    #4
  5. 2012-08-29 15:23, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Do you have the AddBlock+ extension? That can be the cause. Because
    > there is nothing wrong with the images on the page.


    Testing with AdBlock Plus on Firefox 15, after clearing cache, the pages
    still show on the page. And AdBlock plus does not seem to to filter
    images very aggressive, at default settings. But some ad blocking
    software may well use criteria based on "typical" ad sizes and may
    therefore block e.g. all images of some specific sizes. However, the
    images appear to be of different sizes here.

    There's a remote possibility that lack of image information in markup
    (<img ... width=... height=...>) and in CSS might cause the issue on
    some browser with some extension. Adding such information is generally
    advisable, anyway, as it speeds up page rendering and avoids changes in
    page layout during loading. At least it would not hurt to try, first
    with one image, whether this helps.


    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Aug 29, 2012
    #5
  6. Nomen Nescio

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    In article <k1l1lj$eue$>
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:
    >
    > Nomen Nescio wrote:
    > > I am using Firefox 3.6.24 with Win XP.

    >
    > Time to update, the old 3.6.X version no longer supported. FireFox is
    > now at 14.0.1 http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/
    >
    > >
    > > Why am I not seeing the pics on this page?
    > >
    > > http://www.impactguns.com/used-guns-for-sale.aspx
    > >
    > > I see the writing, prices, etc., but not pics.
    > >
    > > I do see pics on normal pages such as Drudge, Yahoo, and other pages.
    > >
    > > I do see the pics on this page when I switch over to EI.
    > >
    > > I do have Load Images Automatically checked in FF.

    >
    > Do you have the AddBlock+ extension? That can be the cause. Because
    > there is nothing wrong with the images on the page.
    >
    > --
    > Take care,
    >
    > Jonathan
    > -------------------
    > LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    > http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com



    Bingo!!

    I've had AddBlock on for so long a time I totally forgot about it.

    That was the problem. Pics are there now. Somehow the page was set not
    to show them.

    As far as the fact of my using an older version of FF, it's because
    some of the add-on/plugins I use so much of the time will not work
    with the newer version. Plus I dislike some of what they've done with
    the later versions.

    Thanks!!
    Nomen Nescio, Aug 29, 2012
    #6
  7. Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

    > Testing with AdBlock Plus on Firefox 15, after clearing cache, the pages
    > still show on the page. And AdBlock plus does not seem to to filter
    > images very aggressive, at default settings. But some ad blocking
    > software may well use criteria based on "typical" ad sizes and may
    > therefore block e.g. all images of some specific sizes. However, the
    > images appear to be of different sizes here.


    It was a WAG. AdBlock Plus can sometimes block images when served from a
    different domain from the main page.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Aug 29, 2012
    #7
  8. On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:23:57 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
    <> wrote:

    >Nomen Nescio wrote:
    >> I am using Firefox 3.6.24 with Win XP.

    >
    >Time to update, the old 3.6.X version no longer supported. FireFox is
    >now at 14.0.1 http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/


    I installed 15.0 yesterday. There was no notification. I just
    check the site every week or so.

    [snip]

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
    Gene Wirchenko, Aug 29, 2012
    #8
  9. Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:23:57 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Nomen Nescio wrote:
    >>> I am using Firefox 3.6.24 with Win XP.

    >>
    >> Time to update, the old 3.6.X version no longer supported. FireFox is
    >> now at 14.0.1 http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/

    >
    > I installed 15.0 yesterday. There was no notification. I just
    > check the site every week or so.


    With the newer version Firefox offers to install an update service
    "Mozilla Maintenance Service". Once installed your FF will auto-update.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Aug 29, 2012
    #9
  10. On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:14:01 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
    <> wrote:

    >Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:23:57 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
    >>>> I am using Firefox 3.6.24 with Win XP.
    >>>
    >>> Time to update, the old 3.6.X version no longer supported. FireFox is
    >>> now at 14.0.1 http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/

    >>
    >> I installed 15.0 yesterday. There was no notification. I just
    >> check the site every week or so.

    >
    >With the newer version Firefox offers to install an update service
    >"Mozilla Maintenance Service". Once installed your FF will auto-update.


    I know. I prefer to know when my software is updated. If
    something breaks, I prefer to have an idea what has changed.

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
    Gene Wirchenko, Aug 29, 2012
    #10
  11. Gene Wirchenko wrote:

    > I know. I prefer to know when my software is updated. If
    > something breaks, I prefer to have an idea what has changed.


    Well the service announces when there is an update. Also the update is
    configurable, Tools|Edit > Options > Advance > Update


    ( ) Automatically install updates
    [x] Warn me if this will disable my of my add-ons
    (* ) Check for updates, but let me choose whether to install them
    ( ) Never check for updates
    [x] Use a background service to install updates.

    You might prefer the 2nd option like show above, where you will be
    alerted when there is an up but manually install. Plus there is a "Show
    Update History" button with a log.


    You might
    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Aug 29, 2012
    #11
  12. Nomen Nescio

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <k1kc17$qtp$>,
    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    > 2012-08-29 8:11, Nomen Nescio wrote:
    >
    > > I am using Firefox 3.6.24 with Win XP.

    >
    > Why? The current release is 14.0.1. Aren't you using automatic updates?
    > (It seems that about 1% of people are still using Firefox 3.6 for some
    > odd reason, though.)


    Mmmm no. It just downloaded 15.0 for me. Not that I can tell the
    difference between 15.0 and 14.0.1, 14, 13, 13, ...

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
    Tim Streater, Aug 29, 2012
    #12
  13. On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:02:21 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
    <> wrote:

    >Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    >
    >> I know. I prefer to know when my software is updated. If
    >> something breaks, I prefer to have an idea what has changed.

    >
    >Well the service announces when there is an update. Also the update is
    >configurable, Tools|Edit > Options > Advance > Update


    It did not do so this time.

    >( ) Automatically install updates
    > [x] Warn me if this will disable my of my add-ons
    >(* ) Check for updates, but let me choose whether to install them


    This is what I do.

    >( ) Never check for updates
    >[x] Use a background service to install updates.
    >
    >You might prefer the 2nd option like show above, where you will be
    >alerted when there is an up but manually install. Plus there is a "Show
    >Update History" button with a log.


    That is what I set.

    >You might


    Oh, definitely.

    But it is not as if version detection is bug-free. I have gone
    to the Mozilla site to be told that my Firefox is up-to-date when
    there was a new release. It happened so often that if I see it, I do
    not believe it.

    Would that they made it easy to report bugs.

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
    Gene Wirchenko, Aug 30, 2012
    #13
  14. On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 23:36:10 +0100, Tim Streater
    <> wrote:

    >In article <k1kc17$qtp$>,
    > "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    >
    >> 2012-08-29 8:11, Nomen Nescio wrote:
    >>
    >> > I am using Firefox 3.6.24 with Win XP.

    >>
    >> Why? The current release is 14.0.1. Aren't you using automatic updates?
    >> (It seems that about 1% of people are still using Firefox 3.6 for some
    >> odd reason, though.)

    >
    >Mmmm no. It just downloaded 15.0 for me. Not that I can tell the
    >difference between 15.0 and 14.0.1, 14, 13, 13, ...


    Somewhere along the line, it quit loading pages on startup. Now,
    it shows the tabs and titles, but it does not load a tab unless it is
    the current tab. I like that. It lowers the memory hit.

    There was a bug introduced in 13(?) that has been reverted in 15.

    The bug was that creating a new tab would have an empty entry in
    the history. Pull up a Web page, and you would see the back arrow
    highlighted because of that empty entry.

    But, yeah, I can not tell much difference. And that is the way
    that it ought to be.

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
    Gene Wirchenko, Aug 30, 2012
    #14
  15. Nomen Nescio

    Joy Beeson Guest

    On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:15:02 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
    <> wrote:

    > Aren't you using automatic updates?


    I've never figured out why anybody tolerates automatic updates.
    If I reached for my chef's knife and my fingers closed around an ulu
    it had been "updated" into, I'd be thoroughly put out no matter how
    fine an ulu it was.

    --
    Joy Beeson
    joy beeson at comcast dot net
    Joy Beeson, Aug 30, 2012
    #15
  16. On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:00:05 -0500, wayne <> wrote:

    >On 08/29/2012 11:14 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
    >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:15:02 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Aren't you using automatic updates?

    >>
    >> I've never figured out why anybody tolerates automatic updates.
    >> If I reached for my chef's knife and my fingers closed around an ulu
    >> it had been "updated" into, I'd be thoroughly put out no matter how
    >> fine an ulu it was.
    >>

    >With the number of new exploits discovered and the fixes applied to the
    >browsers, I believe it unwise to not upgrade/update.


    Since bugs can be introduced by the changes, I believe that it is
    not a good idea to automatically update. If something breaks, is it
    something you did, or was an update? (And how are you going to
    determine what got updated if it was automatic?)

    That stated, yes, knowingly update (unless you have a *very* good
    reason for it).

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wichenko
    Gene Wirchenko, Aug 30, 2012
    #16
  17. Nomen Nescio

    Neil Gould Guest

    wayne wrote:
    > On 08/30/2012 12:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
    >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:00:05 -0500, wayne <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 08/29/2012 11:14 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:15:02 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Aren't you using automatic updates?
    >>>>
    >>>> I've never figured out why anybody tolerates automatic updates.
    >>>> If I reached for my chef's knife and my fingers closed around an
    >>>> ulu it had been "updated" into, I'd be thoroughly put out no
    >>>> matter how fine an ulu it was.
    >>>>
    >>> With the number of new exploits discovered and the fixes applied to
    >>> the browsers, I believe it unwise to not upgrade/update.

    >>
    >> Since bugs can be introduced by the changes, I believe that it
    >> is not a good idea to automatically update. If something breaks, is
    >> it something you did, or was an update? (And how are you going to
    >> determine what got updated if it was automatic?)
    >>
    >> That stated, yes, knowingly update (unless you have a *very*
    >> good reason for it).
    >>
    >> Sincerely,
    >>
    >> Gene Wichenko
    >>

    > I believe that Firefox and other browsers have a list of what is
    > updated on their website.
    >
    > No one mentioned upgrading to a beta releases, so the releases should
    > have already been tested.
    >

    "Tested" does not mean "fixed", and with every final release there is a
    follow-up. The non-standard way that Mozilla assigns version numbers may
    leave one with the impression that there are major changes, but AFAICT,
    mostly they're bug fixes that almost any other organization would give a
    dot-release number.

    I'd go further and restate Gene's position as, "Don't upgrade *anything*
    unless you have a *very* good reason for it."

    --
    best regards,

    Neil
    Neil Gould, Aug 30, 2012
    #17
  18. On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:13:48 -0500, wayne <> wrote:

    >On 08/30/2012 12:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:


    [snip]

    >> Since bugs can be introduced by the changes, I believe that it is
    >> not a good idea to automatically update. If something breaks, is it
    >> something you did, or was an update? (And how are you going to
    >> determine what got updated if it was automatic?)
    >>
    >> That stated, yes, knowingly update (unless you have a *very* good
    >> reason for it).


    >I believe that Firefox and other browsers have a list of what is updated
    >on their website.


    That is not the point. How do you know that it was a Firefox
    update? If you have automatic updating enabled for more than one
    package, which one was it? It is easier to determine when you know
    which ones did get updated.

    >No one mentioned upgrading to a beta releases, so the releases should
    >have already been tested.


    "should" is a lovely word, but it does not always reflect
    reality.

    >Hopefully we don't find elusive bugs induced, but that is always a
    >possibility even when a product has been out for years.


    I just saw a bug that recently got introduced into Firefox get
    dealt with in version 15.

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
    Gene Wirchenko, Aug 30, 2012
    #18
  19. On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:30:46 -0400, "Neil Gould"
    <> wrote:

    >wayne wrote:
    >> On 08/30/2012 12:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:


    [snip]

    >>> That stated, yes, knowingly update (unless you have a *very*
    >>> good reason for it).


    >> I believe that Firefox and other browsers have a list of what is
    >> updated on their website.
    >>
    >> No one mentioned upgrading to a beta releases, so the releases should
    >> have already been tested.
    >>

    >"Tested" does not mean "fixed", and with every final release there is a
    >follow-up. The non-standard way that Mozilla assigns version numbers may
    >leave one with the impression that there are major changes, but AFAICT,
    >mostly they're bug fixes that almost any other organization would give a
    >dot-release number.
    >
    >I'd go further and restate Gene's position as, "Don't upgrade *anything*
    >unless you have a *very* good reason for it."


    That is not my position. I am fine with updates, but I want them
    to happen on my schedule.

    I had one bug in a Visual FoxPro program that I spent about two
    hours tracking down. I finally found the area of code that it had to
    be occurring in. On examining that code, to my consternation, I found
    that it was impossible for the bug to be there. It turned out that my
    test data had somehow gotten corrupted on some run that could not have
    (I thought) have written anything. I got into the habit of restoring
    my test data almost every run.

    I would hate to add a software update on someone else's schedule
    to the mix.

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
    Gene Wirchenko, Aug 30, 2012
    #19
  20. Nomen Nescio

    dorayme Guest

    In article <k1of13$d77$>,
    "Neil Gould" <> wrote:

    > "Don't upgrade *anything*
    > unless you have a *very* good reason for it."


    That is the attitude one should take to one's car if it is not
    important to experience how the most modern ones go. And it rarely is
    important if you are not a car dealer.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Aug 30, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. gh0st54
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    394
    gh0st54
    Jul 4, 2003
  2. =?Utf-8?B?QmlsbCBCb3Jn?=

    Netscape not seeing background image

    =?Utf-8?B?QmlsbCBCb3Jn?=, Sep 28, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    369
    =?Utf-8?B?QmlsbCBCb3Jn?=
    Sep 28, 2004
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    639
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    508
    bruce barker
    Mar 25, 2008
  5. SAN CAZIANO
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    166
    Dr John Stockton
    Oct 15, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page