Original profile image not found

image
profile

#1

According to https://dev.twitter.com/overview/general/user-profile-images-and-banners we should be able to “https://dev.twitter.com/overview/general/user-profile-images-and-banners”.

For user @RaboZWD, when I retrieve the profile, I get:

“profile_image_url”: “http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1353171238/Rabobank_reasonably_small_normal.jpg”,

However, http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1353171238/Rabobank_reasonably_small.jpg returns a 404

Is this a bug maybe due to the fact the original filename ends with _small?


Profile picture gives a 404
#2

This is a really good question @YousefED - I haven’t found a variation that works to retrieve the image, unfortunately. FWIW I’d always favour using the _https URL over the _http one, but that does not help in this case. Could be related to _small but I am not sure.


#3

I always thought it was _small too - but it looks like mini is the small one:

Normal Size:
"profile_image_url": "http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1353171238/Rabobank_reasonably_small_normal.jpg"

Small size = _mini.jpg
http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1353171238/Rabobank_reasonably_small_mini.jpg

Large = _bigger.jpg
http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1353171238/Rabobank_reasonably_small_bigger.jpg


#4

Right but I think in this case @YousefED is confused (as am I!) that if you remove the suffix, you cannot retrieve the original size…


#5

Ah, now that i look at it again you’re right - i think i missed the point - http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1353171238/Rabobank_reasonably_small.jpg is missing when it should be the original.

That is strange.

Also to add to the confusion these exist:
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1353171238/Rabobank_reasonably_small_200x200.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1353171238/Rabobank_reasonably_small_400x400.jpg


#6

Sorry for the late reply - didnt get any notifications.

@andypiper indeed, seems like there’s no way to get the original profile pic (by removing _xxx as per the docs) in this case. It seems like an edge case scenario (first time running into this) - but seems worth looking into as it might cause bugs for more users.