Now this is a Forum :P

by {Qs}Homicidal on 07/16/2008 19:20, 125 messages, last message: 07/31/2008 06:44, 64381 views, last view: 05/18/2024 18:48

http://sauerbraten.mybb3.org/
WIP^ comments are welcome :P

   Board Index   

#86: Re: Couple things

by Aardappel_ on 07/20/2008 19:35, refers to #83

Cool. I am fine with the idea if someone wants to enhance the php, it seems both tentus and quin have offered that already, so maybe y'all can work together.

I guess y'all can discuss what essentials you'd want to add...

Like I said, I am not a fan of editing posts, but if everyone wants it, I suggest making only ADDING things to existing posts possible (not deleting).

limited mark up (bold/italic/code) is fine with me.

inline images... if someone can tell me how to avoid people using this for obnoxious "signatures", that be good. I definitely do NOT want signatures in this forum.

reply to this message

#87: Okay

by SleepwalkR on 07/20/2008 21:37

Whoever wants to help contact me via ICQ (13848748) MSN (k.duske@gmx.net) or Skype (sleepwalkr). Note that that email address is outdated and does not work for email.

reply to this message

#88: ..

by scanf on 07/20/2008 22:51

<?php
echo str_replace(":)", "<img src='img/smiley.gif'>", $post);
?>

Something like this would be nice too. :)

reply to this message

#89: No

by SleepwalkR on 07/20/2008 23:53

not going to happen. That is, if I have any say in this.

reply to this message

#90: Re: ..

by demosthenes on 07/21/2008 01:22, refers to #88

Why would you want to add such an atrocity as context-insensitive automatic text replacement? Why would you replace it with an image? Why would you use a GIF for that image?

@Aard: The only way I can think of to eliminate signatures when given inline image capability would be to check image URLs against image URLs previously posted by that person, and disallow identical ones. But that's a lot of work to do on each post, and I don't even know if one could do that!

reply to this message

#91: Re: ..

by tman_elite on 07/21/2008 01:36, refers to #90

I think images should just be left out completely. While they can be useful for explaining things, the potential spam and such that will most likely occur isn't worth if. People can link to their images if they really need to.

reply to this message

#92: Re: ..

by demosthenes on 07/21/2008 01:50, refers to #91

Yeah, images aren't strictly necessary. If there were a way to easily turn inline images on or off completely for the administrators, then we could have a chance to use them without spamming them.

reply to this message

#93: Re: ..

by scanf on 07/21/2008 02:11, refers to #90

WTF. demosthenes did you not understand what that means. I was referring to replacing the common :) ;) :( ect. with a little gif image to add a more visual appeal to the forum. These images cannot be changed and are on the server.

reply to this message

#94: Re: ..

by tman_elite on 07/21/2008 02:21, refers to #93

I personally think visual smileys are annoying/unnecessary, but whatever.

reply to this message

#95: Re: Additions

by tentus_ on 07/21/2008 02:55, refers to #90

Ugh, smilies. No thank you.

Something I've been thinking about is doing a run through of all the ways that people have tried to post links and images using bbcode & html and reformatting them all to be just normal links. I see a lot of people putting up <img src="http://www.example.com/example.jpg"> when it'd be much easier to read to just to have http://www.example.com/example.jpg.

Maybe make additions available and also allow people to correct URLs? We see a fair number of people saying "oops, I meant http://example.com/differentexample.jpg" around here too.

reply to this message

#96: Re: Additions

by tentus_ on 07/21/2008 02:57, refers to #95

And I'm my own perfect example. The above links would be wrong if they were real links, because of the punctuation following the links.

The trick would be making sure that people don't change links into comment strings... I guess make it so that anything following the a space would be omitted?

reply to this message

#97: Re: ..

by demosthenes on 07/21/2008 04:20, refers to #93

No, I understood perfectly what it meant; therein lay my objection. Converting perfectly good text into unnecessary images (especially in a context-insensitive manner) is a Bad Thing. Doesn't help anything, most especially when it breaks links!

And yes, I realize that the images would be stored on the server, etc. The second half of my post (which is the only part I can see you even coming up with that little bit from) was directed at Aardappel, not you. And I'm going to do it again, though with tentus as the target:

@tentus: That would be useful, but it strikes me as being difficult and cycle-consuming. What rules for conversion would you have in mind?

reply to this message

#98: Re: ..

by tentus_ on 07/21/2008 06:30, refers to #97

I assume you're referring to the <img> replacement idea? Actually, now that I've been asked I'm kinda short on doable ideas for how to make it work. Seemed like a good idea at the time...

In reference to correcting urls, any word that starts with http:// or such would be set as a string, and run through explode(" ",$str), and then the first result would be moved to a supplemental cell at the end of the row of the post (I assume each post in this table is saved as a single row in a sql database... might be wrong on that one, and this idea is complete trash). Each post would have about eight cells available at the end of their row, which means that after those first eight links it is no longer possible to edit your links... this serves to keep people from trying to post a ton of spam links at once, trying to create an editable post for spam purposes, etc. I'd rather limit my own options than open us all up to abuse by the oh-so-mature public. Anyhow, when the user goes back to add to their post, the links are listed out in eight little textareas underneath the main area, and the upload process basically repeats itself.

reply to this message

#99: Re: ..

by demosthenes on 07/21/2008 07:58, refers to #98

Okay, I'll look into what explode() does, but what is your thinking behind the different text input boxes? Why eight, and how (in somewhat greater detail) does that editing system work with the different input boxes?

reply to this message

#100: Re: ..

by tentus_ on 07/21/2008 12:54, refers to #99

Eight mostly because I can't think of a time in recent memory where more than eight hasn't been spam. I'm hesitant to actually work out the proper details of how the system would work without seeing the actual system (pretty good way to confuse yourself later), but essentially I'm thinking of using $_GET[] to grab all the relevant cells, and then using a normal <form method="post"> to correct the database. Using multiple textareas is just the easiest method I can think of for everybody.

Explode(), btw, will split a string up based on a specific character. So, if I explore "Hello world how are you" we get:
Array
(
[0] => Hello
[1] => world
[2] => how
[3] => are
[4] => you
)

---

Aard, what would be your opinion of an ASCII-art system? Make it so that users are freely allowed to use the <pre> tag so they can diagram stuff up?

reply to this message

#101: Re: Couple things

by Quin on 07/21/2008 18:33, refers to #83

Awesome, well I guess I'll get that source and sort out a repository or something for those of us who are interested in it.

Anything else I need to know or do? How would you like to do this tentus? I was thinking SVN or something and catching up on IRC if possible.

reply to this message

#102: Re: ..

by demosthenes on 07/21/2008 19:42, refers to #100

Okay, so they would only have an opportunity to edit the links in the post, and not the whole post?

Eight seems arbitrary. Could you not use a loop to draw a different number of text input boxes depending on the number of links to edit?

Oh, and I googled explode() as soon as I posted that last post. :)

reply to this message

#103: Re: Couple things

by tentus_ on 07/21/2008 21:53, refers to #101

Whatever works best for you. The intern at my office just finished, so my workload has spiked more than I thought it would, but I should be able to put a few hours into it on a regular basis. I'll just follow your lead.

@demosthenes: it is kinda arbitrary, but honestly, I think that being arbitrary is better than having to deal with some spammer posting 50 links in one post and forcing every single row in the database to gain 40 cells. If I can come up with an elegant way to keep all the link data in a single cell, one that someone in the future would be able to read and understand, I'd rather do that. But unless I can sink in the time to do so, I'll just work from the assumption that up to 8 boxes should be sufficient. If the poster has less, then I'd obviously loop through and only show the needed number.

reply to this message

#104: ..

by Captain_Ahab on 07/22/2008 01:34

just please please please, whatever ya'll do...

don't add crap that makes this place load slow

I love this forum because it loads fast
for pics ...just put out a link

for editing?..just proofread things before you hit send

reply to this message

#105: Re: ..

by Quin on 07/22/2008 10:06, refers to #104

That's the whole point of improving the current forum software. It already does what it need to do, and it does it really well, we just need to tweak it for better functionality.

reply to this message

   Board Index