Microsoft Publisher - Publisher file pages missing ... corrupted?

Author

Publisher file pages missing ... corrupted?

The Kat

2007-04-05, 3:18 am

Something 'interesting' happened to the pub files for the sit I'm working on.
The htm files are there for the pages - from several different saved versions
of the file, but when I open the pub files, I am missing 5 pages from the
site and two pages have merged - right text, wrong images.

Yes, I had two copies of the files in two places. Had saved both when I quit
for the night. After an overnight round MS updates, the files have mutated.
Any ideas?

The Frazzled Kat

DavidF

2007-04-05, 3:18 am

Quickly, go back...use system restore to a point before the files "mutated".

DavidF

"The Kat" <TheKat@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:929B6006-3014-4FD9-A766-CD8B021394C8@microsoft.com...
> Something 'interesting' happened to the pub files for the sit I'm working
> on.
> The htm files are there for the pages - from several different saved
> versions
> of the file, but when I open the pub files, I am missing 5 pages from the
> site and two pages have merged - right text, wrong images.
>
> Yes, I had two copies of the files in two places. Had saved both when I
> quit
> for the night. After an overnight round MS updates, the files have
> mutated.
> Any ideas?
>
> The Frazzled Kat

The Kat

2007-04-05, 3:18 am

I'll try - keep your fingers crossed .. I've been working on it all
afternoon (including trying to redo from a source read).

Be back in a minute (or TEN the way the system is running today!)

I'm glad you were on line!

Kat

"DavidF" wrote:

> Quickly, go back...use system restore to a point before the files "mutated".
>
> DavidF
>
> "The Kat" <TheKat@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:929B6006-3014-4FD9-A766-CD8B021394C8@microsoft.com...
>
>
>

The Kat

2007-04-05, 3:18 am

No luck. The htmls are there, but not the pub files. (The good news is that
the security update last night is gone, too, and my system is running much
more smoothly. Bad sign)

Now what do I do. I have a cobbled file that I assembled today, but the
pages are laid out like a publication - it comes up like a web page, but
there are two pages together.

What file is the key between the pub files and the htmls? I always brought
it up by clicking on the file: pdesgal. At least the images are still here
(several times over). That was what took so long. I just don't want to lose
all the links and formatting in there!

"DavidF" wrote:

> Quickly, go back...use system restore to a point before the files "mutated".
>
> DavidF
>
> "The Kat" <TheKat@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:929B6006-3014-4FD9-A766-CD8B021394C8@microsoft.com...
>
>
>

The Kat

2007-04-05, 6:15 am

David - your trick worked after all!! I located the files from one of my
saves very early yesterday AM (told you I had multiple copies). They were
closed early enough that they were only a few edits behind on the restore.
(Why the files were not on the list before the restore is anybody's guess...)

Look for the site this week!

By the way: Publisher hasn't crashed since the restore either. All that is
missing is the latest security update.

Happy Kat

"The Kat" wrote:

> Something 'interesting' happened to the pub files for the sit I'm working on.
> The htm files are there for the pages - from several different saved versions
> of the file, but when I open the pub files, I am missing 5 pages from the
> site and two pages have merged - right text, wrong images.
>
> Yes, I had two copies of the files in two places. Had saved both when I quit
> for the night. After an overnight round MS updates, the files have mutated.
> Any ideas?
>
> The Frazzled Kat

DavidF

2007-04-05, 6:17 pm

So glad it worked for you. Do you happen to know the patch number?

While I would never recommend to someone that they not automatically install
all of MSFT's patches, I don't, just for this reason. It seems that too many
times patches designed to fix one thing, just breaks something else. Right
now it is my understanding that IE7 is one of those "patches", and even it
has created a lot of problems for a lot of people. I think I would suggest
that people consider changing the update function on their computers to at
least ask before the patches are installed. That way you can at least make
note of the patch, perhaps take the time to read about it, and then decide
whether to install it. In most cases you will probably have no problems by
installing the patch, but it sure helps to have made note of the patches
installed in case something does go wrong. Some patches can be
uninstalled....some can't, and then your "easy" options are to try system
restore, or wait for more information or another patch to fix the first,
from MSFT.

I also congratulate you on having backup files. Every user will eventually
come to a day where their hard drive fails, or something else happens, and
they will loose their primary file. If you work from that assumption, then
you should have copies of your important files, and they should be off your
computer. It may be a pain, and inconvenient to have a backup strategy, but
it will probably be far less painful than loosing some files, that perhaps
you can't recreate. David Bartosik discusses this whole issue, and a way to
recreate Pub 2002 and 2003 (and 2007) web files in the following article.
FWIW I use a flash stick for short term back up of files that I am working
on, a separate data partition on my hard drive, maintain copies of important
files on two computers, maintain backups on an external hard drive, and
eventually burn two sets of backup disks, and keep one set at my office.
David Bartosik has some other suggestions here: Common Sense Computing 101
aka "Why in the world would you lose your publisher file?":
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/a...1/19/81461.aspx

Perhaps this will be a good time to review your backup procedures, and
improve upon them. Sometime we need a good scare to motivate us to make
changes...

DavidF

"The Kat" <TheKat@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8BD42C7F-0186-4D64-873B-868C5DF73EF6@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
> David - your trick worked after all!! I located the files from one of my
> saves very early yesterday AM (told you I had multiple copies). They were
> closed early enough that they were only a few edits behind on the restore.
> (Why the files were not on the list before the restore is anybody's
> guess...)
>
> Look for the site this week!
>
> By the way: Publisher hasn't crashed since the restore either. All that is
> missing is the latest security update.
>
> Happy Kat
>
> "The Kat" wrote:
>

The Kat

2007-04-05, 6:17 pm

I'm on a network, so one backup was on another computer - but it was also a
couple of days old. I've been doing lots of "little" final edits and making
links that I HOPE will work when it's loaded (linke the page to page links).

As usual, I've got more questions, for you though.

1. The graphics manager now tells me that all my pix are embeded. Is this
the way it's supposed to be?!
2. I have not yet optimized the pictures, either - was waiting until the end
- which is now. Can they be optimized if they are embedded or do I need to
get a pole of bits and pry them out of the document 0's & 1's?
3. Every time I do a web page view of the file, PUB(?) makes html files of
each page and every image. The pix obviously transmogrigy into GIF files with
descriptive names like "image00nnn.gif". Are those the files I lupload or do
I optimize my JPEG thumbnails (and their associated expanded files) and
upload those?

At least the jewelry order I had to complete went out on time (barely). It
was a custom order, so I was really hopping for a while.

Back to work on the site. I really want it up NOW! Then I can work on the
fine tuning, rewriting in whatever web system is new, and updating what I
have. MS has a FrontPage replacement out - have you heard anythhing on it?

Thanks again - I'm really thankful you were around last night!

The Kat

"DavidF" wrote:

> So glad it worked for you. Do you happen to know the patch number?
>
> While I would never recommend to someone that they not automatically install
> all of MSFT's patches, I don't, just for this reason. It seems that too many
> times patches designed to fix one thing, just breaks something else. Right
> now it is my understanding that IE7 is one of those "patches", and even it
> has created a lot of problems for a lot of people. I think I would suggest
> that people consider changing the update function on their computers to at
> least ask before the patches are installed. That way you can at least make
> note of the patch, perhaps take the time to read about it, and then decide
> whether to install it. In most cases you will probably have no problems by
> installing the patch, but it sure helps to have made note of the patches
> installed in case something does go wrong. Some patches can be
> uninstalled....some can't, and then your "easy" options are to try system
> restore, or wait for more information or another patch to fix the first,
> from MSFT.
>
> I also congratulate you on having backup files. Every user will eventually
> come to a day where their hard drive fails, or something else happens, and
> they will loose their primary file. If you work from that assumption, then
> you should have copies of your important files, and they should be off your
> computer. It may be a pain, and inconvenient to have a backup strategy, but
> it will probably be far less painful than loosing some files, that perhaps
> you can't recreate. David Bartosik discusses this whole issue, and a way to
> recreate Pub 2002 and 2003 (and 2007) web files in the following article.
> FWIW I use a flash stick for short term back up of files that I am working
> on, a separate data partition on my hard drive, maintain copies of important
> files on two computers, maintain backups on an external hard drive, and
> eventually burn two sets of backup disks, and keep one set at my office.
> David Bartosik has some other suggestions here: Common Sense Computing 101
> aka "Why in the world would you lose your publisher file?":
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/a...1/19/81461.aspx
>
> Perhaps this will be a good time to review your backup procedures, and
> improve upon them. Sometime we need a good scare to motivate us to make
> changes...
>
> DavidF
>
> "The Kat" <TheKat@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8BD42C7F-0186-4D64-873B-868C5DF73EF6@microsoft.com...
>
>
>

DavidF

2007-04-05, 6:17 pm

1. Yes.

2. You have the option of "compressing" the images that are embedded in your
Publisher pages, using the compress images tool, and you can do them all at
once. That is assuming that you are using Pub 2003. Reference: Compress
graphics file sizes to create smaller Publisher Web pages:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/p...1266301033.aspx
You can also optimize and resize the images before you insert them into your
document, using a third party image editing program. This can be the best
way, but the first is acceptable.

3. Once again, I would quibble with your word choice. If you do a web page
preview from Publisher, it generates a look at your site in your browser.
When you Publish to the Web, Publisher produces html files including an
index.htm file (your home page) and an index_files folder that contains your
other pages and the supporting graphics. You will upload both the index.htm
file and the index_files folder.

Publisher makes copies of the inserted images in various formats. You may
insert a JPG and get a copy in GIF or PNG format. The goal of the process is
to serve up the "best" image depending on which browser views your site,
with mixed results. Be sure to go to Tools > Options > Web tab and uncheck
the options to "Rely on VML..." and "Allow PNG...", before your produce the
html to upload. Not to confuse you at this stage, but if you optimize the
images before they are inserted into the document, and are at full scale,
then Publisher will sometimes not make a copy of that image in a different
format, and sometimes you will get a better looking image. At this point,
just use your "compress images" tool, and if you are satisfied with the
quality and loading time of the images, then that should be enough. You can
always go back later and work on getting better quality images.

MSFT is actually bringing out a number of programs to replace FrontPage. One
of which is Web Expression. I haven't played with it much, but perhaps if
Rob reads this message he could comment. I seem to remember that he is using
it now. I can safely say that it is better at web design than Publisher, but
then Publisher is a DTP.

I am glad my suggestion worked. Using System Restore is not a foolproof
cure. The longer you go without doing a restore, the longer the odds that it
won't help and that you will loose other data that you generated. Its a nice
tool to have, but not one that will bail you out every time.

DavidF

"The Kat" <TheKat@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C29121A-9262-4571-8E85-21A7888C68CB@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
> I'm on a network, so one backup was on another computer - but it was also
> a
> couple of days old. I've been doing lots of "little" final edits and
> making
> links that I HOPE will work when it's loaded (linke the page to page
> links).
>
> As usual, I've got more questions, for you though.
>
> 1. The graphics manager now tells me that all my pix are embeded. Is this
> the way it's supposed to be?!
> 2. I have not yet optimized the pictures, either - was waiting until the
> end
> - which is now. Can they be optimized if they are embedded or do I need to
> get a pole of bits and pry them out of the document 0's & 1's?
> 3. Every time I do a web page view of the file, PUB(?) makes html files of
> each page and every image. The pix obviously transmogrigy into GIF files
> with
> descriptive names like "image00nnn.gif". Are those the files I lupload or
> do
> I optimize my JPEG thumbnails (and their associated expanded files) and
> upload those?
>
> At least the jewelry order I had to complete went out on time (barely). It
> was a custom order, so I was really hopping for a while.
>
> Back to work on the site. I really want it up NOW! Then I can work on the
> fine tuning, rewriting in whatever web system is new, and updating what I
> have. MS has a FrontPage replacement out - have you heard anythhing on it?
>
> Thanks again - I'm really thankful you were around last night!
>
> The Kat
>
> "DavidF" wrote:
>

The Kat

2007-04-05, 10:15 pm

So ALL images should be embeded? Pub made that sound like it was a bad thing.

You clued me on the "Rely on VML..." and "Allow PNG..." earlier. It was one
thing I checked when I restored - didn't want that creeping back on.
(Unfortunately my auto-update seitched back on and those $^%$ security
updates were installed again last night. My system is at half speed and I'm
saving early and often today...

[The final straw on the updates was that spyware MS wanted installed to
ensure we all have "real" MS software. The whole thing is getting way too
intrusive to suit me; I don't WANT some monster corporation telling me that
the Snopes newsletter is a dangerous phishing email and not to open it.
Snopes is in my contact list, but I still gert that MS hogwash every week! ]

I edited my pix on Paint Shop Pro and reduced the thumbnails to ~ 3x3" at 96
on the assumption that the optimizer would have a decent original to work
with. The files displayed in the web view look fine; the images were changed
to GIFs mostly and reduced to 75 dpi.

My plan was to optimize all the pix when I finished the site, "change" the
pix in PUB while I did the final proofing (no tweaking allowed) and made
certain that all the graphics images had alt labels. Extra work maybe, but
I've changed out several photos and added others just recently to get what I
wanted.

I am really close to the proofreading now. Finally!

The Kat

"DavidF" wrote:

> 1. Yes.
>
> 2. You have the option of "compressing" the images that are embedded in your
> Publisher pages, using the compress images tool, and you can do them all at
> once. That is assuming that you are using Pub 2003. Reference: Compress
> graphics file sizes to create smaller Publisher Web pages:
> http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/p...1266301033.aspx
> You can also optimize and resize the images before you insert them into your
> document, using a third party image editing program. This can be the best
> way, but the first is acceptable.
>
> 3. Once again, I would quibble with your word choice. If you do a web page
> preview from Publisher, it generates a look at your site in your browser.
> When you Publish to the Web, Publisher produces html files including an
> index.htm file (your home page) and an index_files folder that contains your
> other pages and the supporting graphics. You will upload both the index.htm
> file and the index_files folder.
>
> Publisher makes copies of the inserted images in various formats. You may
> insert a JPG and get a copy in GIF or PNG format. The goal of the process is
> to serve up the "best" image depending on which browser views your site,
> with mixed results. Be sure to go to Tools > Options > Web tab and uncheck
> the options to "Rely on VML..." and "Allow PNG...", before your produce the
> html to upload. Not to confuse you at this stage, but if you optimize the
> images before they are inserted into the document, and are at full scale,
> then Publisher will sometimes not make a copy of that image in a different
> format, and sometimes you will get a better looking image. At this point,
> just use your "compress images" tool, and if you are satisfied with the
> quality and loading time of the images, then that should be enough. You can
> always go back later and work on getting better quality images.
>
> MSFT is actually bringing out a number of programs to replace FrontPage. One
> of which is Web Expression. I haven't played with it much, but perhaps if
> Rob reads this message he could comment. I seem to remember that he is using
> it now. I can safely say that it is better at web design than Publisher, but
> then Publisher is a DTP.
>
> I am glad my suggestion worked. Using System Restore is not a foolproof
> cure. The longer you go without doing a restore, the longer the odds that it
> won't help and that you will loose other data that you generated. Its a nice
> tool to have, but not one that will bail you out every time.
>
> DavidF
>
> "The Kat" <TheKat@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1C29121A-9262-4571-8E85-21A7888C68CB@microsoft.com...
>
>
>
>

DavidF

2007-04-05, 10:15 pm

Keep it simple for now. Add the ALT tags, compress and go ahead and get the
thing on the web. Once you get the site up and running we can go back and
talk about how to improve the images if you want.

DavidF

"The Kat" <TheKat@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7F31444A-E5D2-49AE-ADC0-BEC4B103790C@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
> So ALL images should be embeded? Pub made that sound like it was a bad
> thing.
>
> You clued me on the "Rely on VML..." and "Allow PNG..." earlier. It was
> one
> thing I checked when I restored - didn't want that creeping back on.
> (Unfortunately my auto-update seitched back on and those $^%$ security
> updates were installed again last night. My system is at half speed and
> I'm
> saving early and often today...
>
> [The final straw on the updates was that spyware MS wanted installed to
> ensure we all have "real" MS software. The whole thing is getting way too
> intrusive to suit me; I don't WANT some monster corporation telling me
> that
> the Snopes newsletter is a dangerous phishing email and not to open it.
> Snopes is in my contact list, but I still gert that MS hogwash every
> week! ]
>
> I edited my pix on Paint Shop Pro and reduced the thumbnails to ~ 3x3" at
> 96
> on the assumption that the optimizer would have a decent original to work
> with. The files displayed in the web view look fine; the images were
> changed
> to GIFs mostly and reduced to 75 dpi.
>
> My plan was to optimize all the pix when I finished the site, "change" the
> pix in PUB while I did the final proofing (no tweaking allowed) and made
> certain that all the graphics images had alt labels. Extra work maybe, but
> I've changed out several photos and added others just recently to get what
> I
> wanted.
>
> I am really close to the proofreading now. Finally!
>
> The Kat
>
>
> "DavidF" wrote:
>

The Kat

2007-04-05, 10:15 pm

Guess I'm too picky - I'm trying for perfection and that won't happen on this
one! Everyone want the site up - they are after some of the pieces. (A lot of
what is there is sold, but I can make more...)

I'm trying to make a reasonable link button for my contact email, then it's
into the final stretch.

Should I be afraid now or later -- or just VERY afraid?

The Kat

"DavidF" wrote:

> Keep it simple for now. Add the ALT tags, compress and go ahead and get the
> thing on the web. Once you get the site up and running we can go back and
> talk about how to improve the images if you want.
>
> DavidF
>
> "The Kat" <TheKat@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7F31444A-E5D2-49AE-ADC0-BEC4B103790C@microsoft.com...
>
>
>

DavidF

2007-04-06, 3:17 am

Don't sweat the small stuff. Even professional web designers don't achieve
perfection...in fact, IMHO perfection is a matter of perception. I tend to
think that one of the advantages of building your own, less than perfect
website, is the opportunity to interject your own personality and character
into it. This makes some websites more effective.

Just get it posted, and then accept the fact that you will be tweaking it
forever...that's the blessing and the curse of web design. And of course
post the URL so we can begin to ridicule you...

DavidF

"The Kat" <TheKat@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D31DFA8B-EE1D-4D94-875B-48139A8F7165@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
> Guess I'm too picky - I'm trying for perfection and that won't happen on
> this
> one! Everyone want the site up - they are after some of the pieces. (A lot
> of
> what is there is sold, but I can make more...)
>
> I'm trying to make a reasonable link button for my contact email, then
> it's
> into the final stretch.
>
> Should I be afraid now or later -- or just VERY afraid?
>
> The Kat
>
> "DavidF" wrote:
>

The Kat

2007-04-06, 3:17 am

It's so reassuring to know my friends are behind me all the way ... with
knives in their hands! :) Old site is up - so you can compare - at
2-Lions.com

"DavidF" wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Don't sweat the small stuff. Even professional web designers don't achieve
> perfection...in fact, IMHO perfection is a matter of perception. I tend to
> think that one of the advantages of building your own, less than perfect
> website, is the opportunity to interject your own personality and character
> into it. This makes some websites more effective.
>
> Just get it posted, and then accept the fact that you will be tweaking it
> forever...that's the blessing and the curse of web design. And of course
> post the URL so we can begin to ridicule you...
>
> DavidF
>
> "The Kat" <TheKat@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D31DFA8B-EE1D-4D94-875B-48139A8F7165@microsoft.com...