[OFFICIAL SOFTWARE UPGRADE] Help and Bug Thread

[Capstone]

I prefer the Latin, Aquila non captat muscas, with my own slant as to the sort of flying insects the Eagle doesn't sweat, ...since some of the lowest forms of pestilence on the planet tend to occupy the highest places.

 

[cereal_killer]

Be forewarned: you guys keep fucking with scripts you're on your own.

Disabling a script is a single right-click action, as it turning them back on. Until the problems are fixed, the work-around is disabling them.

What I think you're actually saying is "If you turn scripts off you don't see the ads."

No I think I was pretty clear. If you start returning server errors don't come into this thread complaining

 

[Pogo]

.... maybe there is an option that allows for limiting the number of repeat quotes included. I'd think 3 or 4 would be good.

Then you get the best of both worlds, some context to the train of quotes - but yet not one that goes on forever.

>>>>

I would second that. A maximum of three--at the most four--would usually suffice to provide the necessary context.

This didn't happen at first. I liked it when the quote was short and faded away with the option to expand...that was one good feature I thought

I'm officially retracting my support of the nested quote reply. Given the narrow width for threads due to all the stuff on the right side of the page, the "nests" are getting ridiculously long.

I posed this question yesterday and haven't seen it addressed as yet -- are the (1) nesting setting, and the (2) way the quote used to fade off, mutually exclusive? IOW can it not do both? If it can that might be the ideal.

I'm inclined to leave the nesting as it is, seemingly unlimited. Yes it makes for complex even tedious reading but that should be on the shoulders of the poster who's nesting it all to make a point. IOW if I have to overcomplicate my post with too much background, I should just suffer the consequences of failing to edit enough.

I already, and I'm sure others do too, pass by posts that are just way too long or refuse to employ paragraph breaks. I figure that post just isn't worth the effort. As a writer I try to avoid that level of tedium but I'd rather have the nesting capability and use it effectively even if it means extra work editing, than have the extra work of manually nesting.

And I'll note again, part of the readability problem is that this new format just doesn't seem to have the contrast of the old. It's still quite difficult to see where one grey space ends and the next begins.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

That looks like a wolf in sheeps clothing to me, Delta. Sounds like one too. ( rebellious )

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I prefer the Latin, Aquila non captat muscas, with my own slant as to the sort of flying insects the Eagle doesn't sweat, ...since some of the lowest forms of pestilence on the planet tend to occupy the highest places.

You are right on the mark with that one, Capstone! I like it! Very good!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Beware. Soon you will become a rational liberal.

But you will remain an irrational leftist.....

 

[BreezeWood]

Time limit to edit your posts goes from ninety (90) minutes to five (5) hours!

this is not the case - went back to edit a post after about an hour and no option was available .... or even to just delete it.

.

 

[Capstone]

Time limit to edit your posts goes from ninety (90) minutes to five (5) hours!

this is not the case - went back to edit a post after about an hour and no option was available .... or even to just delete it.
.

I think the old board had a 24-hour window for editing posts. The window is MUCH smaller now. Not a fan of that change.

I do like the absence of a publicly visible editing notation in edited posts, though.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I do like the absence of a publicly visible editing notation in edited posts, though.

If you mean the small note at the bottom that used to say "Last Edited by..." and the editor and date/time.

If liked that feature. Kept people honest. Without it people can go back and change their posts and say "Hey, I never said that..." and ya there have been people that have done that. With the edit stamp they were busted.



>>>>

 

[Capstone]

...I do like the absence of a publicly visible editing notation in edited posts, though.

If you mean the small note at the bottom that used to say "Last Edited by..." and the editor and date/time.

If liked that feature. Kept people honest. Without it people can go back and change their posts and say "Hey, I never said that..." and ya there have been people that have done that. With the edit stamp they were busted.

Yeah, to each their own.

The OCD perfectionist in me really hated seeing that little sign of imperfection in my own posts.

I'll go ahead and concede that your reasoning on the matter is far more rational than mine, for what it's worth.

 

[Pogo]

I do like the absence of a publicly visible editing notation in edited posts, though.

If you mean the small note at the bottom that used to say "Last Edited by..." and the editor and date/time.

If liked that feature. Kept people honest. Without it people can go back and change their posts and say "Hey, I never said that..." and ya there have been people that have done that. With the edit stamp they were busted.
>>>>

?? I still see edit stamps. That hasn't changed except for appearance. The time window shrunk but the stamp is there..

(Test edit after 2 minutes, added content): I think if you edit immediately, like within a minute or two, you might evade a stamp -- just enough time to correct a glaring typo. But after that, stamperoo). (time stamp no show for this edit)

Test edit at age 6 minutes...et voilà. See lower right.

 

[Capstone]

?? I still see edit stamps. That hasn't changed except for appearance. The time window shrunk but the stamp is there.. ...

Well doesn't that just suck sweaty ass!

I had to highlight the stupid stamp just to see it. My eyesight is poor -- VERY poor -- so the color scheme and sizes of some of the board's features are obviously going to be problematic for me.

 

[Pogo]

.... maybe there is an option that allows for limiting the number of repeat quotes included. I'd think 3 or 4 would be good.

Then you get the best of both worlds, some context to the train of quotes - but yet not one that goes on forever.

>>>>

I would second that. A maximum of three--at the most four--would usually suffice to provide the necessary context.

This didn't happen at first. I liked it when the quote was short and faded away with the option to expand...that was one good feature I thought

I'm officially retracting my support of the nested quote reply. Given the narrow width for threads due to all the stuff on the right side of the page, the "nests" are getting ridiculously long.

I posed this question yesterday and haven't seen it addressed as yet -- are the (1) nesting setting, and the (2) way the quote used to fade off, mutually exclusive? IOW can it not do both? If it can that might be the ideal.

I'm inclined to leave the nesting as it is, seemingly unlimited. Yes it makes for complex even tedious reading but that should be on the shoulders of the poster who's nesting it all to make a point. IOW if I have to overcomplicate my post with too much background, I should just suffer the consequences of failing to edit enough.

I already, and I'm sure others do too, pass by posts that are just way too long or refuse to employ paragraph breaks. I figure that post just isn't worth the effort. As a writer I try to avoid that level of tedium but I'd rather have the nesting capability and use it effectively even if it means extra work editing, than have the extra work of manually nesting.

And I'll note again, part of the readability problem is that this new format just doesn't seem to have the contrast of the old. It's still quite difficult to see where one grey space ends and the next begins.

Ahem, if I may be permitted to backtrack....

Here's what posts can start to look like with unlimited nesting. That one is eighteen levels. And I'm finding that for a poster to voluntarily lop off irrelevant levels is a lot of work, just as going back and manually nesting them would be.

So I'm gonna propose that maybe a limit should be set, if it can be. I'm thinking maybe six levels would suffice -- I don't remember what the previous software was set to (three I think?) but there were definitely times when it wasn't enough. But 18 is approaching madness, especially with the lack of contrast definition.

Thoughts?

 

[Mr. H.]

How does one "unsuscribe" from a thread?

 

[Pogo]

How does one "unsuscribe" from a thread?

If you're in the thread, look up at the top right, above the top post, click "unwatch thread". In this way shall ye join the ranks of the unwatched masses.

 

[Mr. H.]

How does one "unsuscribe" from a thread?

If you're in the thread, look up at the top right, above the top post, click "unwatch thread". In this way shall ye join the ranks of the unwatched masses.

Oh yeah. Duh. Thanks.

 

[Statistikhengst]

How does one "unsuscribe" from a thread?

turn your computer off.

 

[boedicca]

.... maybe there is an option that allows for limiting the number of repeat quotes included. I'd think 3 or 4 would be good.

Then you get the best of both worlds, some context to the train of quotes - but yet not one that goes on forever.

>>>>

I would second that. A maximum of three--at the most four--would usually suffice to provide the necessary context.

This didn't happen at first. I liked it when the quote was short and faded away with the option to expand...that was one good feature I thought

I'm officially retracting my support of the nested quote reply. Given the narrow width for threads due to all the stuff on the right side of the page, the "nests" are getting ridiculously long.

I posed this question yesterday and haven't seen it addressed as yet -- are the (1) nesting setting, and the (2) way the quote used to fade off, mutually exclusive? IOW can it not do both? If it can that might be the ideal.

I'm inclined to leave the nesting as it is, seemingly unlimited. Yes it makes for complex even tedious reading but that should be on the shoulders of the poster who's nesting it all to make a point. IOW if I have to overcomplicate my post with too much background, I should just suffer the consequences of failing to edit enough.

I already, and I'm sure others do too, pass by posts that are just way too long or refuse to employ paragraph breaks. I figure that post just isn't worth the effort. As a writer I try to avoid that level of tedium but I'd rather have the nesting capability and use it effectively even if it means extra work editing, than have the extra work of manually nesting.

And I'll note again, part of the readability problem is that this new format just doesn't seem to have the contrast of the old. It's still quite difficult to see where one grey space ends and the next begins.

Ahem, if I may be permitted to backtrack....

Here's what posts can start to look like with unlimited nesting. That one is eighteen levels. And I'm finding that for a poster to voluntarily lop off irrelevant levels is a lot of work, just as going back and manually nesting them would be.

So I'm gonna propose that maybe a limit should be set, if it can be. I'm thinking maybe six levels would suffice -- I don't remember what the previous software was set to (three I think?) but there were definitely times when it wasn't enough. But 18 is approaching madness, especially with the lack of contrast definition.

Thoughts?

Excellent idea. I came across a post with so many nested quotes that the original one was one long column that was a single letter wide. VV Annoying.

 

[boedicca]

Help CK! Stat has gone BERZERKER on us!

 

[boedicca]

Okay, hun.

It's time for you to back away from this thread and get yourself a frosty beverage.