I recently (ie. today) set up my own wakaba imageboard and I was wondering how to do some things. Now, I'm not sure if these things are 4chan only or if they can be done in any wakaba, since I've only seen them in 4chan, but here's what I want to know.
Thanks in advance!
None of those things are implemented, and the second two never will be. I pretty much consider them a disgrace to image boards, and think any board that lacks them will be a far better one than any that has them.
If you want them, you'll have to implement them yourself, but I suggest you don't.
Capcodes would be worth it. I know they are working in Kareha, but you cannot distinguish between admin/mods/etc/ (which I think should be featured).
I'm not entirely opposed to capcodes. I've just not bothered to implement them in Wakaba because I don't find them all that important. But maybe I just hang out with people who don't need to be told who's an admin and who isn't.
Well, right now capcodes on Kareha only identify as admin. That could be kinda strange in some situations when you're talking as a mod but have to explain you're not actually an admin.
I don't think capcodes matter for imageboards, though. All the important announcing and discussion stuff can be outsourced to text/discussion boards.
Ah ok, thanks for the response. I was just wondering if they were possible since I couldn't figure out how to even though 4chan does. Really, capcodes (the thing that says you're an admin?) were the only one of those I wanted but yeah, they're not really necessary.
>>6 Just name the admins and use secure tripcodes.
Name the admins? That doesn't sound like good advice for an anonymous board.
Yeah, that's a bad idea. The key idea here is that you should be able to tell whether you are dealing with the site owner himself, someone from a team of general moderators or a board moderator or whatever. And this is just in case, it shouldn't be applied all the time. We're talking about rare cases here, but it still would make sense in those rare cases to have some sort of capability for differentation.
Also, to make the tired old argument again: 0ch supports this, too.
Doesn't the S_CAPPED constant in Kareha control how capcodes are displayed, at least in part? Unless hacked, they're on line 28 of mode_image/templates.pl, line 40 of mode_message/templates.pl, and line 40 of mode_message/templates_jp.pl. Perhaps changing the string to ' (Mod)' or something similar would fix the "I'm not really an admin" problem, or at least reduce it a bit. (It won't fix past posts by capcodes, but it'll fix future posts.) The true admin should make himself known on the FAQ, rules, or mods page anyway, right? I hope I understand the discussion right.
Know what I really miss sometimes from 4chan? A hack that creates a shortcut (like ALT+S) which triggers the send button, so that my fingers don't have to leave the keyboard at any time.
>>10
I think the point is about having various degrees of authority identification by capcode. It's not a horribly important issue but I can see its usefulness.
>>12
shift+tab already is a hotkey in firefox to skip through tabs, so that's just good for windows without multiple tabs.
>>14
I did. It didn't work. Did you try reading my post?
>>13
ctrl+tab switches through tabs. shift+tab does the same thing as tab, except backwards.
Yeah well, either way I cannot really get that submitting thing to work when FF switches through all of my tabs at lightning speed, can I?
Are you using accessibilty features? What OS? It takes about half a second for the tab to start switching that fast.
>>18
I wouldn't know what "accessibility features" are, please explain.
Also, I am using Windows XP Pro.
Another thing I'd like to see on Wakaba/Kareha that I see on 4chan:
Whenever a post gets deleted/purged on 4chan, >> links to it won't be turned into hyperlinks anymore and existing >> links aren't hyperlinks anymore, either. Dunno how this works but it would be nifty to have.
Funny you should ask. I spent a week implementing a number of 4chan features and other tweaks for a board I'm gonna start. I haven't made a Mod/Admin distinction, because I don't feel I'll need one on a board as small as mine'll be, but I did add:
automated banning
global post numbering (instead of per thread)
more obvious post capping (using a css style for customizability)
an anonymod (well, anonyadmin at least)
an option to disable a maximum number of post bumps
stickies
I have yet to solve the problems of cross thread post referencing (cross thread >> links) and it looks pretty hard from the way the code is set up. Also, when you sticky something, you don't get the little sticky icon because that requires going back and editing the html pages and I don't actually know perl (I did all this in Kareha by the way, maybe I should have mentioned that. Imagine the things I could do with Wakaba and its database!)
Word filters are just regex lines in the clean_string method in wakautils.pl.
Anyway, if you're interested I'll package the code for you and put it online later.
(Sorry I'm raping your baby waha, please forgive me)
I thought global post numbering was already implemented in wakaba. Also, plz don't do stickies. orz.
A more intuitive interface for placing announcements above the threadspace would be better I think.
I'd have to agree - the other stuff is pretty cool, but stickies just fucking suck.
>>21
What's "automated banning"?
Also, 4-ch.net needs some programming help, maybe you can assist?
http://4-ch.net/code/kareha.pl/1124372271
> What's "automated banning"?
What does it sound like? It bans people according to an automatic set of rules (say, impersonating an admin, posting a picture with the same MD5 as something really bad).
Possibly you could add setting threads to never expire, to solve both the problems of them disappearing when there's still use in posting to them and WAHa wanting to kill you.
>>24
by automated i meant that you only need to mark a post and click 'ban', you don't have to manually look thru the log, find the poster, and add his ip to a ban file (not to mention finding a way to manually decrypt it). it also autobans if you try to do admin tasks with the wrong password tho.
and 4-ch programming help? i don't actually claim to know perl, but i seem to have gotten pretty far with it despite that fact. i'll think about it (because it'd look good on a resume)
>>22
yeah, i don't plan on using stickies for announcements, but figured some people like stickies, and it seemed easy enough to do. besides, i'm going for a /b/ like image board anyway, it's not a text board, nor a serious board. (also, i don't know about wakaba, but i did all this on kareha, which doesn't have global post numbering)
>>25
actually, there was already an option of setting threads to never expire. it just trims the threads furthest back, rather than the oldest ones. i was pleasantly surprised to find this out, otherwise i would have done it myself. (and the fact that this exists is the reason i don't plan on using stickies anyway)
Then there's even less reason for you to use stickies. Randomly promoting certain posts to a higher status than others on the whims of moderators does not make for a good board. Let your users run the board, not the moderators.
>Let your users run the board
I guess that is why DQN is turning into crap last two days. If users define the board, the board becomes the users... Anyway so this means the users of that board are crap.
>>28
Why have threads ever die then? If the users want to continue a thread from a year ago all the more for them. Why have any moderator or administrators at all and implement a slashdot style moderating system? A board where moderators can sticky thing can be good, just as a board where the users decide can suck. Closing threads at 2000 posts is just as bad as letting a moderator sticky something (w.r.t. the users not deciding the status of a thread, instead of a moderator it is the system).
The last two days?
Well, on an image board threads die to make room for new ones, due to disk space and bandwidth being finite. On a message board, well, I'm not convinced either way there about old threads, which I've mentioned before. Regarding Slashdot, the idea is tempting, but apparently flawed, at least as implemented by Slashdot. As they do it, it promotes groupthink and pleasing the majority. If you wanted to explore an interesting side track, you could consider designing a board around a system like, for instance, Amazon uses to find things it thinks you'd enjoy - let users mark things as "liked" or "disliked", and then based on your choices and the choices of others, figure out a weighing that promotes things that are liked by people who have in the past liked the same things as you. This, of course, requires registration (unless someone can think up a clever way around this), and isn't very suitable for this kind of board.
So in summary: Moderators are an unfortunate compromise, because no other model has presented itself. If one was presented, I would be all for it. In the meanwhile, I am of the opinions that moderators should only function as janitors, and clean up after malicious users, but not otherwise get mixed up in the running of the board.
>>29
Stop whining - and get involved if you actually care.
There are many ways to change a board's behaviour.
> instead of a moderator it is the system).
That's actually pretty much the fairest solution there is: Threads won't get infinitely long but they get closed - at a time where most discussions are either over or profit from being carried into a new, fresh thread. Nobody gets to decide when a thread is over except for the few or many people who post in it and thus bring it to the "natural" end. The only "abuse" here would be people rushing to the end.
And if the thread gets closed/archived - big fucking, deal, make a new one, link the old ones, archive old threads offsite even if you must - all of these things happen on 2channel everyday and have, for years, and they work excellent. I see no reason why you'd call it bad.
Anyway, different boards, different atmospheres, different users, etc. I believe on some it would also be benefinitial to be able to close threads as a mod. Just because it's been abused on some boards we know doesn't mean it is a bad idea in general.
>>31
I take slashdot's failing to be more of a problem with the users and moderators (Taco et al) than the system. If you have intelligent users they understand that they can mod up something even if they don't agree with it. It probably isn't good for general boards though. The anonymous nature does seem to squash some interesting features though like a trust system, ignoring certain users, searching by users. It could probably be partial dealt with by having a cookie set with a UID the first time you post, track every post by that (internally). Obviously many techinical problems with this and could even allow some posters to be identified more easily.
With regards to stickies, I think having a seperate page/section for them and then allowing people to get a thread put there with votes in the link field might work. Either require a certain % of posts include the qualifier for it to remain stuck or a threshold and allow and anti-sticky aswell. Limit to one/ip/day/thread that counts. Also old stickies become unstickied if they don't have new posts semiregularly.
>>33
>And if the thread gets closed/archived - big fucking, deal, make a new one, link the old ones, archive old threads offsite even if you must - all of these things happen on 2channel everyday and have, for
>years, and they work excellent. I see no reason why you'd call it bad.
What if a filesystem only allowed randomly generated names for files with no directory structure? You could just keep a notebook with different pages for different directories and even do sym links! Just list it multiple times! Works excellent for me!
I'm sure by now that you realize that this would be a dumb idea, but it would work, and some people might even like it. Just because it is usable does not mean it isn't broken/cannot be better.
My understanding of how it generally works is when approaching the end:
1) Notice the end is nigh
2) Someone makes a new thread, either restating the original discussion or continuing the end of the last one, back linking to the old thread
3) Link the new thread in the old thread
This is non-intiuitive, possibly confusing and provides what real advantage over not having an arbitrary limit?
You certainly don't need to make a new thread to refactor the current discussion. If the discussion is over, nothing happens? The same as if it was cut at 2000 and no one restarted it?
That was not my point however
>>34
You're starting to ramble. Shorten it up, slow down, and maybe you'll become coherent. For starters, don't try and give solutions for things people don't want to do in the first place.
> This is non-intiuitive, possibly confusing and provides what real advantage over not having an arbitrary limit?
Threads that don't get end get exceedingly large - reloading them will use up more and more capacities, esp. if they get popular in a short ammount of time and more and more people start to reload the entire thread. Some webmasters might not want that. I also already mentioned the benefits of having a new thread starting out fresh after awhile.
The system of automatic thread-closing isn't really confusing as nobody particular needs to do start the new thread, anybody can. And with anybody being able to set up a new thread, it's just a matter of somebody in the community being interested enough to do it. It's really simple and I pretty much instantly got it after browsing 2ch for the first time. I also don't see how "Threads last maximal 1000 replies, new threads can easily be set up to continue discussion" is counter-intuitive.
Your remarks about stickies and voting seems to be pretty useless. You can already age a thread you want at the top of the list. Why complicate this with voting systems?
About ignoring certain users: Could probably be done with some kind of 2ch browser thingy. Just set certain IDs or tripcodes to display "none", "aborn" or whatever.
> That was not my point however
Oh, then please do tell what your point was. I must have missed it in your ramblings.
>Threads that don't get end get exceedingly large - reloading them will use up more and more capacities, esp. if they get popular in a short ammount of time and more and more people start to reload the entire thread. Some webmasters might not want that. I also already mentioned the benefits of having a new thread starting out fresh after awhile.
Post ranges and paging deal with it just fine.
>The system of automatic thread-closing isn't really confusing as nobody particular needs to do start the new thread, anybody can.
What happens if more than one new thread is started? I obviously know what you can do to fix it, but it is still working around a problem that doesn't need to exist. I did not say it was not simple either, I said it wasn't intuitive. You figured it out by reading what it says? Congratulations, you can read. That doesn't make it intuitive.
>Your remarks about stickies and voting seems to be pretty useless. You can already age a thread you want at the top of the list. Why complicate this with voting systems?
>For starters, don't try and give solutions for things people don't want to do in the first place.
I guess no one would want a sticky system and sees no use for it, thats why >>1 asked how to do it. Aging threads does not always save them from the reaper (e.g. when oldest threads are deleted instead of the furthest back).
>About ignoring certain users: Could probably be done with some kind of 2ch browser thingy. Just set certain IDs or tripcodes to display "none", "aborn" or whatever.
Yeah, I'll just ignore that "Anonymous" fellow with ID:Heaven.
>>Oh, then please do tell what your point was. I must have missed it in your ramblings.
>Closing threads at 2000 posts is just as bad as letting a moderator sticky something (w.r.t. the users not deciding the status of a thread, instead of a moderator it is the system).
This wasn't a commentary on closing threads; it was about the users not controlling the board or rather, the board interferring with how the users may want to run it. Try looking for the forest instead of the trees next time. If the thought of a moderator stickying something was abhorrent because it was not the users deciding what threads are important why allow the system to decide which threads should die? An both cases the users aren't the ones that control the board.
So...you want to ignore certain people on an Anonymous board?
Closing threads also forces a break in the conversation, so that it doesn't keep going on and on forever. It's more about board culture than specific control.
> Post ranges and paging deal with it just fine.
No, not if new users or users who haven't read the thread yet reload the entire thread.
> What happens if more than one new thread is started?
One gets used and the other one does not.
> You figured it out by reading what it says?
No, I just saw what happened as I was lurking. People who do not have the patience to lurk do not need to know these things immediately either, so it doesn't really matter.
> Aging threads does not always save them from the reaper (e.g. when oldest threads are deleted instead of the furthest back).
I don't even know which software you are refering here to, but I guess you have jumped to Wakaba now. I was talking about Kareha/2chstyle forum software. So I take your comment here as irrelevant.
> Yeah, I'll just ignore that "Anonymous" fellow with ID:Heaven.
What are you, trolling? Or do you just not know how even Kareha works?
Oh wait, don't answer that one:
> Try looking for the forest instead of the trees next time.
Yeah, trolling. Sorry about taking you seriously.
> If the thought of a moderator stickying something was abhorrent because it was not the users deciding what threads are important why allow the system to decide which threads should die?
It isn't the thought of teh evil moderator swinging his mighty modstick that is abhorrent but that one single user or a minority of users get to decide frontpage content.
I agree that user participation should be the most important principle but that is already achieved with age and sage in regards to bumping or not bumping threads. Voting systems complicate the whole matter and are easy to abuse by minorities who can set up bots for that again.
What would voting systems help? Keep threads up more accurately to user wishes? Doubt that, they could age all they want (although I know of a lot of popular thread series on 2ch that chronically get saged to keep them out of troll sight) and if the thread ends just start a new one. Just start a new one, there is nothing complicated or counter-intuitive about that, while voting would just complicate the matter and add no real benefit.
Saying that you want "the users" to control the board and "not the system" is also a bit naïve since you will always have to rely on both.
Also, we are again mixing Futaba/Futallaby/Wakaba style imgboards and Kareha/0ch style messageboards. Threads in the former don't close (except in Snacks' Futallaby hack, I think, moderators can close threads), they just get purged eventually and I think that's just how imgboards should work: New content in, old content out.
> If the thought of a moderator stickying something was abhorrent because it was not the users deciding what threads are important why allow the system to decide which threads should die? An both cases the users aren't the ones that control the board.
You really don't see a difference between a moderator, with human ambitions and failings, and a script running on strict mathematical limits?
>>41
I do, I am just trying to understand what everyone has against stickies. If you think they clutter up the front page too much, have them on a different page altogether. If you think it is wrong for a moderator to assign the status give the power to the users and/or allow them to always be able to age threads. Stickies are useful on a 4chan style board. I agree that there isn't much use for them on a discussion board, just as easy to add something to the header and if you need discussion a link to a thread.
>>40
You have the best reading comprehesion I have ever seen.
Imagine someone talking about imageboards in a thread about imageboards, THE HORROR!
You might want to look up the definition of intuitive, here I'll do it for you:
intuitive
adj
1: spontaneously derived from or prompted by a natural tendency; "an intuitive revulsion"
2: obtained through intuition rather than from reasoning or observation [syn: nonrational, visceral]
If you learn about threads closing at X limit by reading about it or observing it, hey look it isn't intuitive.
Ignoring specific users is a useful feature, I cannot see a way where it would be implemented well on an anonymous board. I don't know how many other ways I can say this. It was only a comment in regards to the trust system not working well on an anonymous board and I pointed out another thing that does not work well. I obviously do not know anything about imageboards or 2ch style boards or anything, please enlighten me :(
I don't know what it is about stickies, but every time I see one I have this compulsion to flame flame flame.
Maybe it's just the type of stickies I see on 4chan.
>>42 If you think they clutter up the front page too much, have them on a different page altogether.
Then they're not stickys, but a NEWS PAGE. Genius!
>>42
Dude, you are not even reading what I said and then try to get back at me by throwing around dictionary definitions in order to sound smart. Knock it off.
> I do, I am just trying to understand what everyone has against stickies.
I have several things against them:
Sticky threads and wordfilters are tools for forcing memes. It's dumb.
>>47
Agreed on the wordfilter thing. Instead of abolishing the use of dumb words, it actually focuses the attention on them and just replaces them with new, equally dumb words.
Snack's radio stickies are proof that even mods disregard world4ch for proper lengthy threads.
this is the type of people who have nothing to say in 4chan because their brains are full of ctrl- alt- esc-- hfjfk hfjg sticky/ have no life=virgins
Translation: 50GET!
Can u package that stickie thing so ic an sticky posts my email is [email protected] if u want to send it to me if not oh well.
I can't imagine that you have a board where threads expire quickly enough that you need to prevent it from happening.
>>53
/b/ moves pretty quickly, and threads won't last longer than 45 minutes on average unless they're stickied. Then again, I find that the reasons behind stickying a thread usually don't warrant the action in the first place, i.e. spontaneously prolonged stupidity, sometimes derived from juvenile cliquish IRC conversations and in-jokes, or just ordinary ego-tripping and attention-baiting on behalf of moot or a mod (MrSpooky to be specific). The sporadic CSS changes to make /b/ look wacky and intentionally obnoxious are just another clear sign that 4chan's SA roots remain strong.
Image boards were never meant for lengthy, voluminous discussions or (allegedly) ongoing situations such as Itoko Otoko, but sadly that's what the 4chan community has become accustomed to. I've grown tired of scrolling through the same stupid shit-flinging debates, flamewars, and image macros every other day, each time with a different set of hee-hawing Fark/SA/GenMay drooltards, while the real discussion site (world4ch) has been left for dead for nearly a year. There are positive uses for image boards outside of porn -- preview features from press media, amusing/impressive images, fan art, or inquiries about the source of an image -- but discussion isn't one of them.
>>54
word
> /b/ moves pretty quickly, and threads won't last longer than 45 minutes on average unless they're stickied.
I am perfectly aware of everything in this post and have already thought about it more than you. >>52-53 is not about 4chan.
> while the real discussion site (world4ch) has been left for dead for nearly a year.
It's being worked on okay
> It's being worked on okay
What is there to work on? Install Kareha; problem solved. No need to reinvent the wheel.
>>57
Moot tends to "fire" people who make radical changes like that.
What does changing the script have to do with who uses it?
Besides, I kind of like it apart from the security holes, and I don't think we even have mod_perl.
>What does changing the script have to do with who uses it?
I thought the main issue with w4ch was that the Shiichan codebase has been rotting due to neglect over the past year, especially since it was poorly designed in the first place.
>I don't think we even have mod_perl.
mod_perl is not a requirement. Most if not all Kareha boards use CGI.
No, the main issue is that it gets less visitors than is ideal. The code might not be very good, but it isn't the main obstacle to that.
> Most if not all Kareha boards use CGI.
Most Kareha boards are very small.