> More information on the all threads page [...] file size?
If (optional) closing on filesize should be implemented, this would probably be a good idea.
> More information on the all threads page [...] file size?
If (optional) closing on filesize should be implemented, this would probably be a good idea.
Oh, and the navigation bar on the error page should probably look like the one on the thread page.
Oh, and I apologize for indirectly causing you too much trouble with this change.
Suggestion / Request
Making "More options..." an option in the configs.
Seems sensible, when you already have the ability to turn off WakabaMark as a board admin. Also, it will make me stop whining (a bit).
I've also had an idea swimming around: an option to only count actual thread bumps in MAX_RES (not "sage" posts). I think it would lead to making each bump more valuable so that people don't do so wastefully and unnecessarily.
I vote yes, but that is obvious isn't it?
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 "`"
>>54
I really don't understand what the problem with the current system is. You must be confused. ┐('~`;)┌
Should be fixed now.
Oh, and I apologize for indirectly causing you too much trouble with this change.
>>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.
> It's not worth comparing until it doesn't break regularly.
The only problem with it is that it doesn't do paranoid file writes. The fact that the entire server occasionally breaks isn't related to how broken the script itself is.
A 1001th post would be a bother.
How about adding a link to 2ch in footer.html called "2ch mode"?
What does "fusianasan" mean?
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.
How about a function to replace an inappropriate image with a standard image? (aka HelloKitty.gif)
On second thought, the whole search idea was pretty poor...but could you implement saging in a way that's independent of any particular post element, and is instead assigned in the individual templates?
> For example,
Different boards having different settings does not at all touch the question whether the learning curve of sage="does not bump thread" is low or not. It's up to the admins to tell their users what a particular modification on their board implies for "sage" - hopefully in a more responsible way than on 4chan.
Thanks. I did it the hard way and put in the proper transformations everywhere so filenames can be kept intact, though.