Congratulations to 82.94.251.206!
So the subject line will look like this:
[username]<><>[unix timestamp from now]<>[content of comment box]<> <>[IP]
Well, that's what I've said from the start, but people keep requesting them.
FUDGE_BLOCKQUOTES is used by the Futaba style, and I guess I just want to keep it there to make it compatible with Futallaby-style CSS files.
>You need to explain what you're talking about before I can do anything about that.?
See attached screenshot. It's in every style but Pseud0ch.
>No. I'm too lazy to figure what that's supposed to do, and I don't think anybody actually wants to use that in the first place.
Well the functionality is already in kareha.pl, right? All you need is some modifications to the mode_message template. You can check out the 2ch-like boards on Futaba for reference, though I'm pretty sure I've seen other 2ch-like boards that implement multi-paged functionality with a different layout. Personally, it isn't all that big a deal if it's just a template issue though.
>There's no database to keep IP data in, and I'd prefer to keep the script completely agnostic to IP addresses.
No need for a database, just a text file. You're right about storing IPs, though, but then how can you implement a banning system? Do you use an encrypted IP like the algorithm to generate ID codes?
>No, because I don't know what you mean.
I mean that (for example) if I wanted to replace the permasaging function under the MAX_POSTS condition (permasage after X posts) with the thread-closing function (close after X posts), all it would require is a simple replacement of the proper function references in post_stuff(), correct?
>(optional) preview page
Excessive, methinks.
>Is there a reason why the post box is so small and pushed to the side?
Because mode_message is modeled after the 0ch layout. To compensate for the smallness, it expands automatically when you click inside it.
>Forced fusianasan would be fine I think, if they had advanced warning.
This can be easily done manually with rules.html
> Frankly, the combinations of many things into unrelated fields is a design flaw.
I don't think so, not in these cases. What's the alternative? Having a different field for fusianasan, a new checkbox for sage, etc.? That's just cluttering up the interface.
> What if you want to use a name/trip and fusianasan?
Then just make one post with your name/trip and one with fusianasan and let your ID show up in both.
fusiansan is just intended for rare or special cases anyway, as is the whole subject of identification on anonymous message boards.
> What if your email address contains the string 'sage'?
Huh?
> What if you want to sage a thread, but have an ID still?
Then the board has to be configurated to just do that (it already can).
> why should I have to remember something so foreign?
It's rarely needed anyway. Also, these things are pretty easy to remember. "sage" and "fusianasan" is all there is, really.
Plus if you were to allow those tags in HTML, you should do the same for WakabaMark (which actually takes its cue from Markdown, so I don't see why it has a different name).
> Reintroduction of "Marked for deletion (old)"
I actually don't like that, and think wakaba should no longer use the futaba style of dropping threads by default. Why not use the least-popular option instead? If a thread is in demand, let it live.
∧∧
( ・ω・) It's late
_| ⊃/(___
/ └-(____/
∧∧
( ・ω・ ) Good night!
_| ⊃/(___
/ └-(____/
<⌒/ヽ-、___
/<_/____/
 ̄ ̄
> people like admins might prefer to use them
but they have capcodes now...
I almost forgot this:
For thread-closing, it would be nice if Kareha would post a last post, telling the thread is now over and closed (with some default message that can be customized for each board), akin to the 0ch 1001th post behaviour.
Oh:
> Getting back to inconsequential nitpicking: I find the "___ image replies omitted" phrase to be a bit redundant, and for one it confuses me as to whether or not those image replies are separate from text-only replies. How about simply calling it "images"?
Yes, that's a great idea, which is why I've always done just that. You're thinking of 4chan.
>>151 It's all public domain, I believe.
Semantical nitpick: shouldn't the "Page top" link be called "Thread list"?
>>71
forgot to add that turning the CSS selector and Admin functions into drop-down menus and moving them to the right side of board and thread title headers would remove that top bar entirely on the front page.
I notice some weirdness with the CSS changes sometimes. For example, the first post on a -100 page will sometimes have the first character of the post enlarged. >>2 looks something like
\
/>2 until it is mouse-overed or you change the CSS, but then it goes back to large again on refresh. Also can happen with lowercase letters. Some of the field labels also change size from refreshing in a certain CSS versus just switching to it.
>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.
Why have a name field or link field? For the majority of posts they are not used, or only used for sage. As stated earlier, they are not even needed for the bare minimum of usage. You want to prove it is you posting? Use a gpg signature or something and a third-party extension, it is just fluff that is not needed at all!
I'm all for having a system that is easy to modify to the end-user's wants and needs. However, there are going to be plenty of users that are not hardcore enough to make or use such options. Therefore, the normal functionality should be pretty usable.
People seem to pop-up whenever something that would change the interface to shout it down. They seem to fear any change and normally give no reason other than it would clutter things up or some nonsense. Does the CSS selector -really- get in your way? It is probably a whole ten pixels! Is having the More options thing really ruining your experience, or are you just against it on some principle? Personally, I would move it below the comment text-area or something, as now the tab amounts between the main fields has changed.
Put the Entire thread link on the top of the thread, not the bottom.
I had a number of good old threads from this board bookmarked so I could read them later and wrap my head around their ideas, but then I lost them all in a hard drive crash (strike two, Western Digital!). I also had a number of Japanese BBS's linked from this board bookmarked so I could take a look at their software's functionality and get some other ideas.
Anyway, these are all non-template suggestions:
I also have an early idea swimming around in my head about only bumping threads a few positions up, instead of to the top. Another idea is actively bumping threads down, either by a few positions or to the bottom. I'm not exactly sure yet what good it'd be for.
Also...
>* I'll add thread closing to Kareha, but I was thinking of setting the default behaviour to never permasage or close threads.
I think this is ideal for the time, until we have enough statistical data to derive thorough auto-permasage and auto-delete/archive algorithms. Just add the functionality for mods to manually set these statuses, but remove the "permasage at 1000" behavior.
The standalone thumbnailer project is a great idea too. As a suggestion, how about adding functionality to also read and thumbnail document files like TXT, PDF, and DOC?
The one with encoded Javascript that makes you post with fusianasan is cute.
Recapping, here are the things I'd like to see in the final release:
Some nitpicky template adjustments to mode_message in order to more closely resemble 0ch (see http://f17.aaa.livedoor.jp/~zerotest/jikken and http://0ch.mine.nu/jikken):
Er, that's a feature, not a bug. That's how most GUIs act.
About the etyomology of "fusianasan":
http://4-ch.net/nihongo/kareha.pl/1102656968/224-
Weird, ¦ now stays ¦.
Testing #¦ now.
requesting features:
>>n and >>q and anything else that can be used in the url.
Copyright only applies to the literal code, not to features, ideas, or algorithm. Patents do, to some extent, but that's not the issue here. Since I'm not going to write the exact same code, there's little they can do.
>>336
IMO minimalist web applications like Kareha should only focus on core content/functionality and leave the inconsequential presentation options up to browser extensions so that each user can tweak them to his whim. That's why I was pushing to offload the CSS selector to an extension.
>>337
Here's a better example, I think. Even if we can't remove the excessive side borders, is there a way to at least have rounded corners?
On formatting options: I think >>338 fails to understand that leaving the formatting options up to each individual user is a good thing by all means. Besides, they are absolutely necessary to the interface and core functionality, just like the Name and URL fields are. Preview functionality, on the other hand, should be implemented in an extension.
I think the issue that people have with the formatting options is that we don't have a Japanese counterpart to blindly model it after. Since we're going at this on our own, nobody is quite sure how it should be done. I'd like to see how it turns out on mode_image (if you feel the need to include it at all). :)