Am not seeing images on certain pages with Firefox

[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.

?

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

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"?

 

[Kim André Akerø]

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).

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

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.

 

[Nomen Nescio]

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/


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

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!!

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

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

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

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

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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

 

[Tim Streater]

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, ...

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

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]

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

 

[Joy Beeson]

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.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

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

 

[Neil Gould]

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."

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

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]

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

[snip]

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

 

[dorayme]

"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.