Quote Originally Posted by DivaVocals View Post
Ya lost me with that last part, but let me say this.. I have always thought that the MD5 hash made identification of images in the bmz_cache impossible.. It was virtually impossible to link anything with it's source image.. Also why why NOT give the cached images INTELLIGENT HUMAN SOUNDING names.. After all HUMANS need images names they can understand.. the machines don't care..
So it seemed to me that the md5 hash did two things. One it placed the image in a "wide" directory structure that would more than likely not result in two images having the same foldername (that's part of a hash' goal. But the second thing that I and. Many others don't agree with is that it renamed the file itself... So instead of shoes_205x205, it would be some mess of information pertinent to the "hash" and then the size... (That "mess" could have been one more directory path more with the actual filename left at the end, but that was not how it was implemented. I totally agree that the image itself should/could be provided in a sensical format (original filename plus perhaps some size indication). Further it would seem that the hash function would provide basically one unique directory path to the image and while not something sensical to us normal readers, wouldn't cause a problem with computer search tools.

Call it a balance between the two, again assuming that the hash provided a benefit beyond some computer science programmer showing that the possibility of applying a hash to a file structure. Beyond that, if the hash actually harmed the use of images (again I'm thinking of the filename remaining intact) for things of the internet, then let it be gone. But seems that there was a reason to employ it, one that may not be known any longer or perhaps is not as important as once thought.