From here on, this thread is about Kareha again:
↓

>>189

>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.

>>193

>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.

>>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.

Hey, I just noticed this: where did the admin link go? Or are you working on a separate interface already? :D

>>360
Doesn't mean we can't have separate releases for special scripts. :)

> Better to have a tick-box and explain to people why it is useful. Or an option for it.

Yes, an option. Because I think a tickbox is horrible.

This is a widely used system. There is a very low learning curve here. sage = does not bump thread when replying, that's all there is to know. People can then figure out why it is useful on their own.

And personally, I think sageing should be encouraged more (since the perceptions on it have been pretty much ruined by 4chan). So it helps that it stays in the E-Mail/Link field instead of being purged from the tickbox each time like Shiichan does (interestingly, 4chan's Futallaby does also purge "sage" if written in all minor letters).

>>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?

Too late! Already released!

>>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?

http://wakaba.c3.cx/sup/kareha.pl/1099697376/101-101
(First "Next 100" link) does not include >>1 in that thread

There's also some weird bug where the entire browser windowd content goes black, dunno what that is about...

>>255
By replacing it with AN EVEN DUMBER PUN!

Also, wouldn't making capcodes even more prevalent be considered A Bad Thing®? If anything, the role of capcodes should be minimized or altogether eradicated, in favor of ninja moderation.

Another question: would FUDGE_BLOCKQUOTES be considered deprecated by now, or are there still CSS styles out there that require it?

>>48

That is an interesting idea, and one that deserves some more thought.

No, but that's not the point.

>>48

That is an interesting idea, and one that deserves some more thought.

Funky, works... I am pretty sure the error has something to do with the characters preceeding the "¦" in the unprocessed tripcode. It begins with a "`"

Oh, and "AA mode" should be changed to "Text art mode" so we won't be incessantly quibbling about the difference between ASCII and SJIS art.

Oh yeah, regarding the CSS selector: HTML dropdowns aren't styleable, and will look like shit. I'll look into using some other trickery for that, though.

>>348

That's a Firefox bug.

>>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.

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.

Wakaba:

• Better handling of the code that automatically inserts the >> links for quote-replies. Right now it inserts them numerous times if you go back and forth several times before actually hitting "submit".
• Reintroduction of "Marked for deletion (old)" (it's just handy to have that)
• Prune-limit mode that is defined by number of files or size sum of files on a board

Congratulations to 82.94.251.206!
So the subject line will look like this:
[username]<><>[unix timestamp from now]<>[content of comment box]<> <>[IP]

>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.

While we're on that note, can there be a config.pl option to toggle between opening file attachments in a new window or in the current window?

Forgot this one:
The general functions of imageboards do not seem to be clear to most people that eventually come around, the influx of total newbies is still big. Many neither know what sage is, how to properly reply to threads, what tripcodes are, etc.
Because of that, I believe it would be good to include a default link at the bottom of the unordered list at the bottom of the new thread form that links to http://wakaba.c3.cx/docs/docs.html#UsersGuide

Relevant:
http://dis.iichan.net/idc/kareha.pl/1128824710/12-

>>91 Ohshi-, time paradox!

Well, both >>30 and >>31 didn't change the ¦ into ?U so I am out of ideas what happened...

> Would it maybe make sense to make a separate thread creation page?

Considering that the ratio of users who start new threads to those who don't is pretty small on most message boards, I think it does.
A seperate page could also be used to put a more visible disclaimer/set of rules, as a seperate page with a different layout is likely to generate more attention from the user. Stuff that can be put there also wouldn't clutter up the frontpage.
I don't think this is an urgent matter, though.