Why that patch is implemented in the first place anyway?
Posted under General
This topic has been locked.
Apparantly, if you create a BUR and you want to edit something afterwards then there won't appear an error message.
For example, I tried to edit my BUR in topic #13006 with imply dress_tug -> dress (same thing with skirt tug). I didn't notice that the implication is already in place, so I removed it afterwards.
But normally this shouldn't happen: One would receive an error message that this implication is already in place if you are making a NEW BUR. But if you are editing an already existing BUR, this message doesn't come up.
Something was implemented to automatically change "spoilers" tags to "spoiler" tags on submission, though existing cases weren't changed and the former's function was axed.
Initially this was a post reporting that "spoilers" tags stopped working when I found one of my old comments un-hidden, but then I discovered the above.
OOZ662 said:
Something was implemented to automatically change "spoilers" tags to "spoiler" tags on submission, though existing cases weren't changed and the former's function was axed.
Initially this was a post reporting that "spoilers" tags stopped working when I found one of my old comments un-hidden, but then I discovered the above.
do you mean spoilers tag or [ spoiler ] dtext markup?
E: ah, right, comments were switched to use new dtext parser, that can't handle [ spoilers ] but can handle [ spoiler ].
You haven't moderated any posts in awhile. Consider checking out the queue.
It's only me, or this message actually started appearing more often? An annoying reminder constantly asking to approve at least something isn't going to help keeping this place "a high-quality gallery", if you ask me.
Also, is anyone going to fix the abysmal grammar?
It doesn't ask you to check the queue for approving posts, but for reviewing posts. I know that the mod queue is pretty gutted now, but a simply "No interest" would also do the thing, I think.
Of course you can also click the link and instantly leave the mod queue. The message will also go away then, but I think that this is not intended.
Provence said:
It doesn't ask you to check the queue for approving posts, but for reviewing posts. I know that the mod queue is pretty gutted now, but a simply "No interest" would also do the thing, I think.
Just curious. If you as a mod/approver do that, does that mean the said image will be treated as if it's already reviewed by you?
Sacriven said:
Just curious. If you as a mod/approver do that, does that mean the said image will be treated as if it's already reviewed by you?
If you click anything but "Approve", for example "No interest", then the post will be "hidden" and is treated as reviewed.
Off course one can still look at already hidden posts again.
Provence said:
It doesn't ask you to check the queue for approving posts, but for reviewing posts. I know that the mod queue is pretty gutted now, but a simply "No interest" would also do the thing, I think.
Of course you can also click the link and instantly leave the mod queue. The message will also go away then, but I think that this is not intended.
I see. But I still believe it's rather obnoxious.
As for the grammar issue, here's some further reading: http://www.englishgrammar.org/awhile-vs-a-while/
Sacriven said:
Still waiting for answer.
Because it was mentioned as a "problem" in this thread, and then it was implemented as a "fix" on GitHub, and those that knew and were following this didn't raise any objections.
If you believe it's a serious issue though, start up a new topic and debate it in the forums. If enough support is garnered, it can always be changed back.
BrokenEagle98 said:
Because it was mentioned as a "problem" in this thread, and then it was implemented as a "fix" on GitHub, and those that knew and were following this didn't raise any objections.
It's exactly what I've asked, what is the "problem" for upvoting your own comments? It doesn't mean anything if others are still downvote you to oblivion. Not to mention that this also give birth to a new problem that OOZ662 said in the earlier posts.
Judging from your wordings, seems that you've misunderstood my intention. I just want to know, that's all. I don't have any particular interest in commenting system, for I quite rarely commenting after all.
Updated
Provence pointed it out and I felt like fixing it? I don't know what more of an answer you're expecting.
I doubt deleting-and-reposting your downvoted comments is completely new. It's always been possible. In any case the root issue is comments being hidden because of one downvote. People evidently don't like that, which I agree with, the default -1 comment threshold is too harsh.
evazion said:
Provence pointed it out and I felt like fixing it? I don't know what more of an answer you're expecting.
I doubt deleting-and-reposting your downvoted comments is completely new. It's always been possible. In any case the root issue is comments being hidden because of one downvote. People evidently don't like that, which I agree with, the default -1 comment threshold is too harsh.
I agree.
Like, you are in a discussion and then one user clicks "vote down" and the whole conversation is broken because of only one click and one needs to click "Show all comments" then. You could also click "Vote up", but that option should be used if you agree with the content and I don't vote up posts that I don't agree with and only for making them visible again.
Therefore, one should lower this border to maybe -3...at least lower than -1.
I don't know what went wrong, but I checked the history for a pool I created the other day, and it created a new version for almost every update to the pool, even though they all occurred within a minute of each other and so the changes should have been merged.
Has something changed with the code recently so that changes are no longer merged, or was this somehow just a fluke...?
For reference, the posts were added to the pool with the tag script function from the Safebooru domain, using the nomenclature "-parent:###### pool:#####".
Updated
Sacriven said:
Oh, so that's why. I agree completely with broken conversation thingy, it's pretty annoying.
But well, haters everywhere ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
post #2567885
Well, it's my comments that got downvoted this time. But it should serve as a pretty good example that this way, a conversation is completely broken at first. Only one person needed who disagrees (or hates) an user.
Gollgagh said:
I was not the one who downvoted your responses, by the way; as often as I disagree with you, I don't downvote people I am talking to.
Nah, the intention was to make a compromise. And I think that there is one.
So if no one disagrees, I edit the help:flag notice with the sentence that you have written:
"I am trying to encourage flaggers to express their flags both as descriptively and concisely as possible, with as little fluff as possible."
That way, there is no reason that this is not read and should disappear in the flags completely, so that there will be no discussion afterwards regarding such rhetorical questions.