I had to have a fiddle about with the appearance of the Forum - the calm baby blue of what colour there was in the default was beginning to get to me, and not inspiring.

Since the old grey was too, well, er, um, grey, I decided to lift some of the formatting from the Blog scheme. I quite like its cool (as in colour temperature NOT as in YoofSpeak 'kewl') appearance, and it seems to work without obscuring any text, or doing any real damage to readability (I don't pander to impaired activists, but I do care about anyone that may be impaired, and don't make anything intentionally awkward). There's also the small, but highly relevant aspect that I can tweak the Forum to match the Blog, but not vice versa.

I think it's largely acceptable, I don't want to do too much fiddling, with a view to future upgrades, so there's only likely to be minor pottering around any details that pop up with odd appearances later on.

If anything is problematic, unreadable, invisible or whatever, do drop a note to alert.

Sorry, but the old psycho  OOPS  psyghic chip not as good as it used to be, so not sure what you might be seeing that we're not.

Far as I can recall, nothing has changed since Christmas or before (and the Great Forum Disaster of 200 so...

Any chance of a screen dump of what you're seeing that's not causing the rest of the world (since there's no other hints and it all looks fine to me)?

Red X's means your browser is being barred from downloading images, but it must be something with your browser setting, firewall (if you have one) or even ISP - since we are all using the same, either IE or Firefox presumably.

Do make sure all caches are flushed clean since you haven't visited for a while, red X's can mean it is trying to use out of date page info from the cache.

Ctrl or Shift F5 should force that, or go into Options and look for the option to clear/delete the cache.

And another thing ...........       The clock (like the one in my car) on the site is still on GMT but thats awright with me, as I don't believe we should have to read 19 pages of a manual to put a clock an hour forward.



And a big welcome to the new members.

I should add that the forum won't go down to 800x600 if that is the video or window size your desktop works at.

I used to work to this smaller size, but the default formatting is now 1024x768 and it's just another 'fudge too far' to fiddle with the stuff in the box to go against the flow and change the styling. Every time the code is upgraded, it means going through all the same changes again.

It's a losing battle anyway, with all the LCD and widescreen monitors around now, and only a small number of visitors are reported to be using the size now. I didn't think anyone might still be using it, so didn't think of it when you first mentioned what you saw, but a screen dump would have showed it.

Clock's a pain in the butt, but I've altered the GMT offset to suit. I'm surprised, as I was sure it was correct. I probably forgot about it, as I only added the time to the top of the page around the time the clocks moved, I think.

The Forum isn't automatic, but it's in the ToDo list for future modifications.

I have actually programmed the Main Site to change over automatically, and it worked last year, but I see that the hour shift never appeared from last autumn to spring, so the function may not be 100% reliable.

I didn't bother looking into it, as the hour doesn't really make a difference for edits - it's obvious of you happen to look, and is more important that it be consistent.

If it is any help when the forum first loads it appears to be in wide screen format and quickly shuffles itself into 4 by 3.   I did have the problem you describe for about a day a few weeks ago but decided that work was going on with the oily bits so ignored it and it went  away.

My car clock stays on BST, I bought it in that time of the year and never bothered to learn how to change it. Life is so complicated these days.

The wide-to-normal is just the browser responding to the styling of the page.

First time it appears, it doesn't know how to display any page, then it reads (and more importantly, temporarily stores) the styling info that controls the appearance, so the jump won't happen again, unless you leave the page/site, after which the info gets replaced by that for the next one you visit, and so on.

If the Captain is getting Red Xs for images, I suspect the same setting or issue on the Desktop is causing this, as the style info has to be read from a similar source as those Forum images. If something's amiss, and the Desktop can't read or access them, then all the forum graphics will fail to appear, and show as Red Xs, and the styling could fail too.

Try visiting the following address, and let me know if you get a page of text/code, or if you get a warning message telling you can't access it or something similar...

http://www.secretscotland.org.uk//blahdocs/template/SSX2/template.css

Another question: posts can be edited for up to a week after they're made. Captain, if you hover your mouse over the Modify option that appears to the top right corner of posts you have made within the last week, does a little option box appear under it?

I know the feeling Fox. I'm also a radio ham, and we don't use anything else but GMT (or UTC these days) on air!

I get the page of text/code.

When I clicked on the discussion link on the Comet page I experienced the same symptoms as The Captain.  Script going off the screen and graphics becoming red Xs!  Having now entered the Forum through the front door as it were, all is well and the appearance and performance normal.

Trust the wily Fox to provide the solution

There are a few malformed links floating around from the early days, and these will cause the problems reported if you happen to come across them. The domain is configured to deliver you to the right place, but it can't do anything about addresses that depend on where you are to find information that lives below it, as it were.

In this case, the old problem links that you will come across look/begin like this:

http://secrertscotland.org.uk/

This will work fine, in that it will deliver the page, but not the related stuff that the browser should be able to find below it.

The proper links look/begin (not surprisingly) like this:

http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/

I haven't tripped over one of the old 'naughty' ones for ages, and had hoped they were all gone, so if you come across any, please to drop a note somewhere, so I can kill/fix them.

Sorry about that, I thought they had all been swept up.

If it's any consolation, I was as puzzled as you when this first kicked in at the end of last year, and only spotted the old links as the cause after some weeks of head scratching, as it appeared to appear at random.

There's probably a clever fix to handle it, and make it go away, but I'd rather have all the links properly formed, so probably wouldn't use it even if I knew how.

Glad to be of assistance.

All the offenders (that can be trapped by a search at least) have now been eliminated.

If you have any Shortcuts or Bookmarks to any SeSco pages, either from the Main Site or this Forum, you should check their Properties and ensure that they are formed with the full www url/address, rather than the shortform option which omits it, otherwise you will have the odd behaviour appear whenever you use the Bookmark rather than typing in the address, or clicking a site link.

This is most odd.

Can you feedback the result of the two tests given in Reply: 8 above please.

From what you describe, it sounds as if there may be some sort of image-blocking going on, suggested by the screenshot - what are you using to take the shot?

Are you able to report on what you see using both Firefox and IE7, as this would give some more clues.

Ah! "don't use firefox"... now we know what's wrong

Seriously though, if you're getting the text displayed on that link, then there's nothing wrong with your access.

What about the result of hovering over the 'Modify' button on one of your recent messages?

I should perhaps add, just in case anyone thinks I'm not checking, I am actually typing this reply in IE7, and all is well - to the server, there's (almost) no difference between me and any other punter having a browse around here, so the problem's very, very unlikely to be at that end of things, or everyone would be seeing the same.

At this stage, I have to say I've not really got any sensible suggestions or hints left in my box of goodies. I've even just tried mucking about with the more obscure image setting and similar in IE7, but they just produced the results I expected, and none of them show red Xs.

While it's not the cause, I recall the Desktop was acquired relatively recently. Can you remind me of the version of Windows and confirm IE7 is in use?

I'd personally now  suggest throwing in Firefox for comparison. SeSco also looks much neater in it because it handles the styling better than IE, which has too many flaws and ignores some of the rules altogether.

It's all very odd, and I'm wondering about any forgotten anti-virus software (now out of date and mis-behaving), or the same with some firewall or similar tucked away somewhere. It all very much as if something was getting in the way.

Does the same happen on other sites, or is it restricted only to SeSco?

You aren't using Vista by any chance?

Hmm.  I have just put up the site on Firefox and have to say the appearance is not as good as IE7!  The lettering looks a bit vague and rather as if it was done on a typewriter whereas on IE it is as clear as a bell.

That's the way it's supposed to look!

As well as nor rendering the font in the right size, or as desired, it also appends the external link graphic very poorly, then there's the various borders that are rendered in a different way than the styling requests, then there's the patch that has to be applied to make certain graphic function work at all, then...

Oh, alright. it's not that bad, but the important thing is that unlike Firefox, IE simply does not follow the standards set out by the World Wide Web Consortium, and we have to program fixes to make it work.

As for the Captain's wee test result...

The good news it confirms some code handling that might have been disabled in his browser is not disabled.

The bad news is another option is gone, and I can't really think of anything else sensible to suggest, so wish him luck in his hunt.

I get the impression when the cause is found it will be something fundamental and patently obvious, not seen because we're looking too hard

Is it just me ?



Every body of a post is like this........

Sorry Captain, it's just you and a side effect of your as yet undiscovered problem with your view

There's some fiddling going on at he moment, and the blue is used to show when we get the code wrong - for us. it appears in IE or Fx if we make a typo, but there's normally a shaded background - which you've probably never seen because it uses a graphic like the X'd images to the left in your clip.

I wish the cause of your odd behaviour was obvious - have you tried asking for help anywhere else?

It has to be some setting somewhere.

Have you got anything installed that could have automatically added this site to a blacklist that blocks images, because that's what's happening if you can see other images, which you clearly can since the pics of eg Dalmarnock, are not sourced from this url, but from a remote host, so have a different url.

I'll ditch the blue soon.

Dark blue should be gone now, and only the Captain will be seeing a pale blue-ish background now

I can't see it  having anything to do with the red Xs, which is a internet/web access problem somewhere, but the reminder about the width being ok in screenshot, but too wide on screen, hints at a possible driver problem.

If you know how and have the info, I'd try downloading the newest drivers for you video adapter - this applies for laptops or desktops, and should be straightforward. You only have to identify the card/adapter and then go the support section of the maker's web site. That should have the latest drivers available for download, and should have instructions provided too.

One other question sparked off by this...

In the screenshots which you mentioned above, obviously the width was ok, but you didn't mention if the graphics appeared in the screenshots as red Xs or as the proper images.

Can you remember this, or check again and let me know?

Yep, that's what I expected - right background too, but then again, it's just a colour and not a graphic, so no surprise there.

It might be worth working through the following notes - a few relate directly to IE and might be worth following through, just to be sure the options are set as needed to stop images being shows as Xs. Some of the others probably don't apply, but then again, I've learned not to dismiss anything to do with software problems out of hand, and I'd check them as well, just to be sure they weren't having an undocumented effect - it does happen!


Problem: The "Show Pictures" setting has been turned off in Internet Explorer.
Solution: In Internet Explorer's Tools menu, click Internet Options, then click the Advanced tab. Make sure the Show Pictures check box is selected under Multimedia, and click OK.

Problem: Your anti-virus or firewall is a little too uppity. Check to see if your anti-virus or firewall software has a privacy setting to "disable web bugs".
Solution: Uncheck or turn it off. (The term "web bug" is a misnomer. They are really just harmless tiny images on a web page or email, sometimes used for tracking purposes.)

Problem: Your Internet Explorer security settings are set too high, preventing you from accessing the web site which hosts the image.
Solution: Reset to the default security settings. In Internet Explorer, click on Tools -> Internet Options -> Security -> Default Level.

Problem: You've installed the Windows XP/SP2 updates and you're being bitten by the "Block images and other external content in HTML e-mail" security option. This is automatically turned ON in Outlook Express after you install Windows XP/SP2.
Solution: Click on Tools -> Options -> Security. Then UNCHECK the "Block images and other external content" check box, and click OK.

Well, it was worth a shot, and I did say not all might apply.

I've used the free version of AVG for years now, and have no complaints as it has done its job when required, and I just forget it's there and it all works completely automatically every day. It even downloads its own updates and new anti-virus files every day.

Apart from being free, the biggest recommendation for this is that it's home is Czechoslovakia - need I say more?

You're in luck, as the newest version AVG Anti-Virus Free 8.0 just hit the net a few days ago, and I'll be upgrading from 7.5 tonight.

Go get it from...

http://free.grisoft.com/

Where you'll also find a FAQ for instructions and information, and there also downloadable documentation.

While I may be a bit more savvy than most, I've never even looked at the documentation - just downloaded the file, ran it, and then played about with the setting until it worked the way I wanted and I could forget about it.

I know it's obvious, but just in case, Version 8 is the one to go for - 7.5 is history now.

AVG8 went in fine, and nothing naughty reported (yet).

The registration failed - whether that's because I already had version 7 registered I don't know, but it hasn't caused any problems. Maybe a clean install rather than upgrade will be different - obviously not something I can try!

One point worth making for a new user...

Once the initial install is complete, you will be advised to run the update option - do this.

It will immediately connect to the AVG site, download and install the newest version of the program and all the virus detection files after a few minutes.

Once you have played with it and found the 'Scheduler' you will find it defaults to a scan every day at 12:00 - providing the PC is on of course. I've never had any real problems, and eventually set this to happen only on one day per week. In reality, I finally set it to manual scan, and just run it if I think there is something amiss - never is though.

It's always running in the background and checking programs, downloads, email etc and will FLASH UP a bug on screen,  and alert as soon as you touch any of these that it thinks there is problem with, and let you decide what should be done next.

The Captain's not the only with oddities on his PC.

For over a year now, I've been driven up the wall at startup (or worse still, reboot) times, ever since my PC decided to spend somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes grinding and grating the hard drive every time this was done.

The thing is useless while this is going on, as anything started would have to be read from the hard drive, and that was busy doing its own thing, so if anything could be persuaded to start, it just crawled along, probably slowing things down even more.

Despite launching all sorts of investigative and reporting programs to see what was happening at startup, nothing odd was ever seen or reported, and I just gave up.

A chance posting on another forum provided the answer, and after months of pointless searching learned that I couldn't find anything wrong because... nothing was wrong.

Although I never use it, Windows has always had a scheduler built in. Usually I delete or disable it, but found that it had become configured to run a hard disk test at every startup - certainly not by me is all I can say. I can only guess it was called up as part of some some installation way back in the mists of time, and the code was either badly written, and didn't delete the task once it was completed, or more likely, the computer crashed, and that part of the process was never completed.

Either way, the scheduler has been killed now, and I now I get use my PC a few minutes after starting it, which is a new luxury

Maybe they'll put programs in memory some day, and we can go back to the good old bad old days of computing, when you turned on your primitive box with a few kb of memory, and started using it within a few seconds

I'm glad to hear it...

I think we'd all be gladder if we knew why...

But then again, we don't want to make fuss either, just in case...

I wonder if the Favourites route was the cause of your problem.  Did it contain and out of date or corrupted url?  I always type www.sec and click on the bar underneath with the full url I want.  

That's a distinct possibility - the earliest urls before the domain was fully established did not have www at the beginning. If that version is used, it will get you to the site, but bits will be broken.

In future, it might be worth mentioning the route used to get to the site if there are any more problems like this.

As far as I know, all the links have been revised over time, but that doesn't mean there are old ones I've forgotten about that are buried away in dark corner, and of course, I can't do anything about people's personal bookmarked links or favourites. They have to check them themselves every so often, in case there have been changes.