This question got closed because it was judged as a question about a bug in GIMP. The question was about a 4.8 MB .jpg file that rendered correctly in GIMP, but not when it was uploaded to the author's website. The .jpg file opened correctly in my GIMP and several other image applications. When I made a demo website containing the .jpg image, it also rendered correctly. Then it occurred to me that the author's web hosting service might have a size limit on embedded images. Ask Ubuntu, for example has a 2 MB size limit on embedded images, and the image in the question was 4.8 MB.

I was disappointed to find that five reviewers considered this behavior to be caused by a bug in GIMP. There is no secret information here, all the relevant information was already transparently provided on the question's webpage at the time when the question was reviewed. Also the question was never edited by anyone. All the relevant information was out in the open in plain sight and freely available to anyone. Are we required to subscribe to the belief that there is now a bug in GIMP because of this strange behavior or would it be more appropriate to coldly reopen the question and move on?

IMG:  To be fair to the community I will accept a certain amount of criticism for the use of the semantically loaded word strange in this question. My example is the elephant. Is an elephant now a bug if five Ask Ubuntu reviewers declare it to be one? I consider it strange to persecute the notion that an elephant is a bug, because an elephant is not a bug, it is a mammal. What's strange about that? It could have been just a simple mistake. Also I don't know what the reviewers saw when they reviewed this question. Blind people for example might have difficulties distinguishing between an elephant and a variety of common objects.

  • It's not new that in review some things slip through (uh, that rhymes), I think you're totally right. I don't get the whole last paragraph though.
    – dessert
    Commented Feb 27, 2018 at 8:35
  • It's related to the question via the discussion tag that it is possibly regarded as not strange by some users to ignore the elephant in the room, so I shouldn't use a word like strange to describe that type of behavior. Because strange is a semantically loaded word.
    – karel
    Commented Feb 27, 2018 at 8:38
  • 1
    I approve of your sentiment and the decision to reopen, but I disapprove of your wording.
    – guntbert
    Commented Feb 27, 2018 at 18:08
  • 5
    I don't understand the elephant thing. Cute pic though. Commented Feb 27, 2018 at 23:34
  • 1
    My example is the elephant. - I initially read that as "My example is the elephant in the room." with the words "in the room" omitted for brevity, as we all know about the elephant in the room. Commented Mar 11, 2018 at 5:07

1 Answer 1


Not a bug. Question reopened.                    

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .