dajanas

@bueltge Hm, that sounds positive and negative at the same time. There are countless users who still use the classic editor and want to continue to use it, because their system and the entire website is built that way. I also use the Classic Editor plugin myself and know enough who use it. Gutenberg is terrible, in my opinion. Maybe nice for a small website where you change an image or text every now and then. But if you maintain a professional website with many posts, it sucks. I also don’t know how to incorporate the many “Quicktags” created so that I could use them without the AddQuicktag plugin. Much depends on the use of these Quicktags in my daily work.

Really, nobody?

No, because my htaccess file is complex. But that doesn’t mean now “Oooh, if it’s complex, it must be full of errors”. I don’t want to publish it here publicly.

@wpchefgadget My htaccess rules have worked fine for many, many years. When you press cancel, a 401 message comes up – in any browser. Your linked article was no help, unfortunately.

@hausaedown Hello, do you mean “Limit Login Attempts Reloaded”? I have been trying this out for two days. Looks nice, but I’m wondering that it says here that there have already been 350 blocks in total – even though my admin area is protected by Htaccess, so no one can get to the login form at all. And 1 try to login as “admin” om 01. January 1970, although I have – as I said – protected my login area via htaccess. When I read something like this, my trust in such a plugin dwindles.

@sterndata Do you mean Wordfence, which even in the free version requires registration on their website?! No way.

Yes, the 2FA is mandatory for all users (at the moment three of them). 2FA is set up for each user and works fine when logging in. But this messages still comes up every time (except when I am logged in as the user with admin rights). How can I upload a screenshot here?

Okay, Wordfence is fee-based. Not interested.

@sterndata Which free plugin for limiting login attempts and 2-factor authentication can you recommend?

Okay, if that’s the case, then my thread can be deleted completely. Too bad.

@sterndata That sentence makes no sense. Securing the login area protects against brute force attacks because the attacker cannot even enter the login area. If someone with lock picks wants to enter your house through the locked front door, but can’t find the door anywhere, the lock picks are of no use to him. Why is it necessary to discuss something so obvious?

If no one has access to the wp-login.php page, no one can try to log in via this page (brute force etc.). Is actually known.

@sterndata This is a normal protection of the login/admin area via Htaccess for protection via Htaccess. Why do you ask? This is a normal procedure. So that no unauthorized person can see the login area at all.

@sterndata Which users? I am the only one who has access to my website.

That sounds much too complicated ?? Isn’t it anyway saved which images have already been optimized and which not? Because otherwise there wouldn’t be the option “Ignore already optimized images”. So where would be the problem to specify for certain images that no WebP variants should be created from them? Because let’s put it this way: 99% of screenshots are of modern non-pixelated games. The retro games are rare, so I think it’s rather better around that generally optimized by WebP, but for these certain images then “secured” that they should not receive WebP versions. As written: Obviously some features are saved anyway (like that an image has already been optimized).

Yes, I have cleared the cache and also tried different browsers. If you compare the results you linked, you can already see a big difference. The wall of the house, for example, and especially the woman’s pants, which look totally washed out in one image. Overall, the structures at https://imgbb.com/PYQkjGr are clearly “smudged”. The hard and high-contrast contours like in the tree are similar, that’s true.

The problem: WebP is fine with smaller quality settings for normal photos, screenshots, etc. It makes little sense to increase the quality to 90% now, because this will make ALL WebP images larger in file size. It’s just important that such screenshots of pixelated games remain sharp at all costs. After all, they represent the hard work of the hardworking developers – and when I present screenshots this way, it looks like that’s the smeared game graphics.

So my suggestion was to deliberately exclude photos from WebP generation via click (bulk selection), so that there are ONLY JPG versions of these photos. This way you could select all the pixelated images and exclude them from WebP generation via bulk editing, have new thumbnails generated, done.