Good to know that there hasn't been a change.

I was fiddling around with a couple of old custom objects (working on the draft of a new page), and the problem was present in both. The good news is that I just checked again, and the problem has gone away . I hope it stays away, in which case a new mountain page will be ready soon. Otherwise I'll report the problem again.

Mind you, I didn't even restart my computer since the problem happened. Perhaps it was something strange in my browser cache at the time. If the problem returns, I'll clean the cache again and check if that solves it before reporting it again.

YouTube videos now break because they swapped to a https: prefix. Here's an example:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNt0anp7WK8[/youtube]

SummitPost's forums should support both http: and https: as well as other variables added on to the url. This is why many folks have given up using the youtube tag. Also note the swap to https: seems to be very recent.

I was trying to attach my new "Round Mountain" page to Scott's "La Sal Mountains" range. When I searched for "La sal Mountains" (while trying to attach or just looking for the range) I got the message: No names match your query.

I contacted Scott and he said anything that has "La", "El" etc in its name, will not come up. You must search for "Sal" not "La Sal". He said he has posted this problem before but seemingly nothing has been done to fix it, so I am posting it again.

Thanks.

The delete profile image feature is broken. It gives the message "update_user_image() failed: DB Error: constraint violation". Someone reported this to me which I am able to confirm this issue.

Thanks Matt, that fixed the issue.

What am I doing wrong? I have been unable to post images.

lisae wrote:What am I doing wrong? I have been unable to post images.

It still works fine on my end. I just posted two images, in two different ways: first as a new image for an existing page, then simply by starting with Create Page (the leftmost item on the menu at the very top) and selecting Image as the page type. Both images got uploaded quickly, so that proves that there isn't anything wrong with SP itself.

If you still have problems, perhaps you can describe what exactly happens on your end when you try posting an image, especially any error message that you might get, and by which way you're trying to post it?

lisae wrote:What am I doing wrong? I have been unable to post images.

How large is the file? Do you have a new camera with lots of MP?

Yesterday I was trying to upload photos from an 18 MP camera, and I kept getting a blank screen. Then I remembered the maximum upload size on SP is 8 MB, so I downsized the photos and they uploaded just fine.

Bob Sihler wrote:
How large is the file? Do you have a new camera with lots of MP?

Yesterday I was trying to upload photos from an 18 MP camera, and I kept getting a blank screen. Then I remembered the maximum upload size on SP is 8 MB, so I downsized the photos and they uploaded just fine.

Thanks so much! I didn't think about the size of the file. I'll check that.

Perhaps I'm remiss in not trying to use the new editor. Well, truth is when it first came out I tried, and there was nothing to edit. I couldn't place my cursor somewhere and type to make the simple changes I needed to make, so I decided I wasn't interested in it--working the HTML or whatever was just easier. I could place my cursor somewhere and type and what I typed appeared on the screen. But, I now see that the table on the U.S. National Parks list for the parks has lost all of its white space. Yes, the code is still there, but it makes it very difficult to find what I need to edit when everything is just all smooshed together. Anyway, is this permanent? Should I just resign myself to using something that which some find "easier"? Thanks, guys. I know you're doing your best to improve SP and I do appreciate that.

Mark Doiron wrote:I now see that the table on the U.S. National Parks list for the parks has lost all of its white space. Yes, the code is still there, but it makes it very difficult to find what I need to edit when everything is just all smooshed together. Anyway, is this permanent? Should I just resign myself to using something that which some find "easier"?

The new editor has a certain features that some might call bugs, and one of those is that it removes what it deems to be unnecessary white space in the HTML code. I like the new editor but don't like that feature either, but that's what happens. I don't consider this particular case a bug though, because HTML is all about tags, and in a lot of cases white space in HTML is meaningless. Consequently, if an editor that renders HTML removes meaningless white space, it doesn't change the meaning of the HTML. I mean, unless you look at the underlying HTML, your list still looks the same, right?

Perhaps it's possible for Matt to tweak the editor somehow so that this doesn't happen anymore in the future, but now that it's gone, it's gone. The only way to avoid this feature is to use only the old editor - but obviously that's too late for your list now.

If it's not too inconvenient, in the future you could just edit the table in the new editor and don't look at the underlying HTML. Alternatively, when updating the list, you could copy and paste the HTML code into an HTML editor that displays the table as a bunch of tags and their content, but with a readable layout (a so-called "html object editor" can do that), make your changes in there and copy and paste the result back. A third option might be to keep a backup on your own computer with the HTML of your table, including all the white space just the way you want it, and whenever you want to edit your page, edit it off line and only then copy the new version into the SP page. In fact, apart for albums, I make backups of all my pages. You never know what might happen to a page in the future.

Thanks, rgg. I was editing in the old editor only when the white space was lost. I'll make do. Appreciate the suggestions.

I was trying to add an image but kept getting an obscure error message. It turns out that I had a space at the end of the lat field. So, for instance if I enter "38.41935" everything is fine, but if I enter "38.41935 " it can't handle it. Same thing with the long field. Please either strip spaces at the end of these fields or put up a useful error message.

Searching for mountains by distance to a city has recently started giving errors along the lines of "Could not geocode eugene, or", e.g.
http://www.summitpost.org/object_list.p ... bject_name