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"?
The Futaba template is missing the "No File" checkbox next to the File field in the Post New Thread area.
http://wakaba.c3.cx/sup/kareha.pl/1114201493/l50
Or use some sort of filter to replace them characters with underscores on upload.
This offcourse for files that keep their original filename.
> Huh?
You know, like [email protected].
Shiichan 2000 let you enter "down" to sage and "showip" for fusianasan, but it was mainly just a curiosity and was not used. There's no one English word that does the job of the pseudo-Japanese "sage". Better to have a tick-box and explain to people why it is useful. Or an option for it.
> Then the board has to be configurated to just do that (it already can).
No, 148 is referring to a user-end problem, not a server-end problem.
Removed it when redesigning the page head, haven't figured out quite what to do about it yet. It needs to be changed, but to what, I'm not yet sure.
>>313 Like lots of people use them anyway </sarcasm>. Yes, security is a good idea. What are the holes, anyway?
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.
>Most admins probably don't get point of the secret string anyway, and asking them to put in several is just too annoying. In retrospect, I'd like to add a second layer of hashing to these, but that'd mean breaking secure trips AGAIN.
You could take the route that MrVB (I think?) did and generate the strings on first run? openssl, /dev/random, perl's random as last resort. In almost every case you are going to get a better random string than most people will supply, and if they want to change it they can. Or only have them generated if they are not supplied.
Honestly, when people care so much about anonymity they can put up with the changes required to ensure it.
> Red, bold thread filesizes displayed near the bottom of subpages?
I support this, especially if thread-closing by filesize should be implemented.
And maybe this: http://wakaba.c3.cx/sup/kareha.pl/1126586277/5
Oops, here's the screenshot. orz
>> config.pl parameter to permasage after a certain thread filesize/total number of characters has been reached
> Isn't this essentially the same as saying "Please don't talk so much?"
I am not >>208 but the first who suggested this here (long ago). I think it may be vital for future, actually popular boards to limit the filesize of a thread so that the board won't get hammered by repeated loads of whole threads without having to limit the size of posts themselves something fierce.
How about appending an estimated (at the time of thread creation) time of pruning to the first post's header, if pruning-by-age is enabled?
>The effect would be miniscule in comparison to the huge increase in bandwidth that would result from sending the entire static thread pages.
How about a config.pl parameter to split up thread subpages into X posts per page? The navigation links already use 100 posts per page for practically everything except "Last 50 posts".
Hmm, I just remembered: >> links would not work at all with static pages. Not good.
>Why? Even if 0ch or Futaba implemented secure tripcodes, you wouldn't get the same secure tripcode there as on another board. That's the nature of the security.
Right, I guess it was dumb to mention 0ch/Futaba in the first place. The point is, as you said yourself, tripcodes are a gimmick, and if someone wants to maintain a persistent identity across multiple boards and sites (ie, everyone here with a tripcode), they have no choice but to use ordinary tripcodes. Secure tripcodes are useless because they limit your identity to a single board, supposing each board/site's cipher key is different -- which it should be, since that's the point of having a secure tripcode in the first place. No one should be so paranoid about a tripcode that they'd need to have a different one per board/site.
>Not without doing a lot of changes throughout the code, and not without breaking current installations.
Shouldn't we sacrifice some backwards compatibility for a more robust and scalable design? It might even be possible to provide an upgrade.pl for old threads.
>You could only trigger the functions in a specific format, say...
That's a cool idea, though for now it would have to be left alone if we want to keep Kareha compatible with 2ch/Futaba conventions.
>>195
Exactly. The methods and the effects of saging a thread are separate subjects.
P.S. I recently discovered "rXX-XX" for threads in /soc/. How exactly does this work? From the sound of it, it's supposed to randomize the post order, but when I hit refresh I get the same order.
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.
I thought fusianasan was supposed to be a mod-only function to weed out bad posters. And what would be the difference between revealing the persons's IP and his ISP's domain?
>>99
I didn't mean to include Forcenick in there, sorry.
Adding to that, however, how about forced sage for specificed IPs? It'd make for a great slogan: Remember kids, tripcodes and aging are privileges, not rights!
I vote yes, but that is obvious isn't it?
> What about a(n) (optional) preview page?
I've been considering that, but it's a goddamn pain to implement. It'd be pretty useful, though. Also, it could include the spell checker someone requested way back at the beginning of time.
And maybe this: http://wakaba.c3.cx/sup/kareha.pl/1126586277/5
Weird, ¦ now stays ¦.
Testing #¦ now.
>>54
I really don't understand what the problem with the current system is. You must be confused. ┐('~`;)┌
>>137
I'd advocate going for a separate interface a-la Wakaba, but it might be a bit too much to do for this release.
Also, maybe Easter Eggs like the Eternal September timestamp and others (if they exist) should be documented in config.pl.
Lastly, a question: who here finds enough use in the auto-expanding comment box to justify the annoyances when you click in or out of it?
Kareha can't use different layouts for posts on different pages, except by CSS trickery. I could add the second colon, though.
Also, I've implemented optional thread closing now, but there's no extra post. That would just be a total mess to implement, and would make re-opening threads annoying, if such a feature was requested. It replaces the posting form with a notice that the thread has been closed, instead.