>>10
Exactly, but considering a lot of people can't make heads from tails in config.pl, how about a saner default?

>>11
That's true, but if least-popular threads are set to be deleted, instead of oldest-first, you don't have to guess.

>>54
I really don't understand what the problem with the current system is. You must be confused. ┐('～`；)┌

style:none plz!

The problem reported in >>143 is still present.

> I don't understand the argument for OH NO ANOTHER BUTTON MY WHOLE LIFE IS RUINNED crowd

It's all a design & layout question. I'd like to have the interface reduced to what is absolutely neccessary, esp. since I do not think many people really want to even bother or bother very often with the whole markup question.

> The replacement will be an option to select the default markup for a board, which makes much more sense overall.

I agree, this seems to make the most sense. I understand the "More options..." will not be showing up on boards with fixed settings, so I'll shut my mouth from now on. Apologies to all who I've been bothering.

>>70

?

> Personally, I find the reverse order listing, as well as the random order listing, to be a bit silly & useless.

Well, no, duh, that's the point. They're jokes.

> The only useful bonus feature here seems to be the comma range seperator, but it seems even in that case there is not much benefit to it (saves 1-3 links in the average case that it is needed, which is rare to begin with).

On the contrary, it's very useful when referring someone to a specific discussion in a thread where several discussions are going on, since you can make a link that only shows the relevant posts. Not just on the board but when linking to threads elsewhere.

PS: I always wanted to say this: The # anchors on the TiddlyWiki automatically scroll me (FF, 1.0.7) just below the actual text box of the entry. Is that a bug, a feature or... ?

>>208

> multi-page links (1-, 101-, 201-, etc) at the top of subpages

This is just implemented on some 0ch types. 2channel doesn't use it (at least on no board that I know of).

I don't see any inconsistencies in >>341 except for the rounded corners.

>>357
by "including," I mean "plus."

> Why?

I am not the user who initiated this parition but I find them to be triggered far too often.

> On another note, why have I seen partition instead of petition multiple times?

An old imageboard meme. Don't ask!

>considering the default prune behaviour of imgboards

One of the parameters Kareha uses to determine pruning is MAX_POSTS, so even if you sage a thread under this new condition, you still add to the board's total postcount and speed up the process for pruning that thread, regardless of MAX_RES. The only flew is this assumes pruning is based on thread creation date, not popularity (because someone could easily bump a shitty thread and save it from deletion).

I also agree that enabling this functionality would further make threads vulnerable to intentional bumping by trolls. I was sorta envisioning it being used in a mature community where trolling is minimal and quickly weeded out by regulars.

Here's a new idea: how about trying this in reverse? Only "sage" posts are counted in MAX_RES, in which case saging can again be used either in protest or as a courtesy to others. The only problem is that people can then freely bump threads without consequence.

>>48-50
First of all, I don't believe it would make bumps more valuable in any way. People bump threads all the time with worthless replies since most don't even know what "sage" is or means or what it is good for. They will simply continue to do this, no matter whether the sage function is changed in this way.

Even at this stage, years after its introduction to a major western userbase, people are still clueless about the main basic functions of image- and discussionboards in the Futaba/0ch style. There are some signs of improvement, but they are rare.
I doubt people would be willing or eager to learn a new, different behaviour at this point in time.

The only real change is what >>50 points out (though I want to mention that even that point is mostly misunderstood: if people want to protest against a certain thread, they should post as many sage posts as it needs to get permasaged (although it's arguably counterproductive, considering the default prune behaviour of imgboards). If threads are still bumpable and trolls find that they have been flamed with a sage, they will just bump it once more). And I don't think that's enough to justify a pretty major function change.

> 2channel does not do this either by default. It can make browsing a bit more convenient (and I suspect dedicated 2channel browsers to insert & read these in some kind of standardized way) but I don't think that's reason enough to impose it on users by default.

whoops, I misread "postcount" as "posticon". Nevermind!

>>251

Again, the list of tags allowed on that page don't correspond to what would be allowed in Kareha. Of course <img> tags wouldn't be allowed, for instance. This is just for testing the actual cleanup engine.

Also, I forgot to mention: fusianasan works now! Put it in as your name to test it!

Oh, and the navigation bar on the error page should probably look like the one on the thread page.

The problem reported in >>143 is still present.

The test thread seems to be broken too.

...and admin posts that override all board/thread restrictions (ie, bumping a permasaged thread and possibly even posting in closed threads).

It's also more markup when even the existing one isn't working as well as it should.

>>38
Sorry, I guess I should've worded that more clearly. I was referring to the ability for users to delete their own posts. It's counter-productive to discussions when a user deletes his own post and a quick replier later quotes or references it. It also encourages users to be lazy with posting, because they can always go back and hide their mistakes.

>>184
If people are going to decide to use custom names for paramaters, then there isn't much you can do about it anyway, or is there?

>>249
<a href> opens up the possibility of using inline links, and img tags allow bandwidth leeching from other sites (plus the fact that the image itself may be unsanitary).

Wow, >>243 sure looks like shit in Safari. What the hell? Looks right in Firefox, though.

Also, I'd like to ask exactly how Kareha does automatically generates deletion passwords. I'm guessing it's similar if not identical to how it creates ID session codes with a user's IP.