Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No I think I was pretty clear. If you start returning server errors don't come into this thread complainingBe 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."
.... 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 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.
Beware. Soon you will become a rational liberal.
Time limit to edit your posts goes from ninety (90) minutes to five (5) hours!
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.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 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....I do like the absence of a publicly visible editing notation in edited posts, though.
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 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.. ...
.... 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.
How does one "unsuscribe" from a thread?
Oh yeah. Duh. Thanks.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.
.... 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?