[necovek]

It was indeed good.

One minor nitpick is the use of "random" where they mean "arbitrary". :)

Also, it's still a bit unclear how caching of images would work when you append an arbitrary parameter: text implies none of the images would be cached (presumably because of cache headers or browser behaviour), but I'd prefer it if they were indeed cached by browsers as distinct images instead (iow, soft-reloading X/Y?something=foo will give you the same image).

Basically, I'd like them to figure out all the caching semantics and behaviour, and just do the right thing ;)