🎉 Happy 19th Birthday to Danbooru! 🎉
Danbooru

Pixiv redirect in source field

Posted under General

piespy

Log said:
http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=8805118 appears to be the same image to me and would be the image you got if you removed ?1266234503.

No, that image DOES have the ?1266234503, check the image link.

Both http://img05.pixiv.net/img/shirow/8805118.jpg?1266234503 and http://img05.pixiv.net/img/shirow/8805118.jpg have the exact same MD5.

I can't say for sure why pixiv adds the query argument, but it's probably to force caches to re-get the image that had the old image, maybe that old image was broken?

Either way, it appears to be safe to just remove it when generating the PHP URL.

Reply
Log

I can't actually get http://img05.pixiv.net/img/shirow/8805118.jpg to load I just get a 403 but that doesn't matter. If you click the source link for any pixiv image it will take the image name (8805118 in this case) and add that to the end of http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id= so regardless of the image itself ss different it will link to the exact same page which will display whatever the active version of the image is.

piespy said:
No, that image DOES have the ?1266234503, check the image link.

I mean if you removed it here.

Reply
Ars

This is actually an old thing. I first noticed it with post #509385 and it's child, post #510159. They both have the same exact source link, but the images have noticeable differences between them.

I'm guessing this is a pixiv feature that allows an artist to update an image without having to delete it, but it seems that it's not actually widely used, seeing as most artists just prefer to delete the old version and replace it with the updated one.

Reply
EB

Ars said:
This is actually an old thing. I first noticed it with post #509385 and it's child, post #510159. They both have the same exact source link, but the images have noticeable differences between them.

That may be the case of someone incorrectly updating a source entry on a bad_id image, though. Without being able to track source changes, it's hard to tell.

Reply
Ars

EB said:
That may be the case of someone incorrectly updating a source entry on a bad_id image, though. Without being able to track source changes, it's hard to tell.

I am very certain that post #509385's source link has not been changed. Changing the source does count as an edit and shows up in the history, just it isn't specified. Both posts were put up hours between each other and no-one had touched post #509385's source link since then.

Reply
EB

Ah, looks like you're right. It has that ? thing in the URL too. If it's been there for months, I guess it some kind of option rarely used or not known by many Pixiv artists. I've only seen artists start a completely new image ID (and usually deleting the old) when "updating" an image.

Reply
RaisingK

RaisingK said:
http://img05.pixiv.net/img/shirow/8805118.jpg?1266234503 - 285.49 KB (292346 bytes)
http://img05.pixiv.net/img/shirow/8805118.jpg - 285.49 KB (292346 bytes)

Old thread, yes, but I just wanted to make a clarification for myself:

I mislabeled post #746168 as md5 mismatch because the Danbooru MD5 didn't match that of http://img04.pixiv.net/img/patepattey/13227458.jpg ... but it did match that of what the source actually was ( http://img04.pixiv.net/img/patepattey/13227458.jpg?1284391122 ). Several hours later, though, the MD5 hashes are the same. The hashes were all gotten through a separate program I wrote, with no cache. Apparently there's a few hour delay before the latest ?###### version overwrites the non-?####### version. I just checked 10x month-old posts with that ?#### source: 9 matched with the non-?####### version, and the 10th didn't match with anything (the pixiv page right now has a different ?####### than the one given in that post and matches what is now the non-?###### version).

So that's why EB and I were getting different filesize results between the two. Basically what piespy said.

Reply
1