sup

> Making them configurable from site to site is really dumb, because it would create an unthinkable usability mess.

Why? Let people figure out things themselves, if they are so keen on changing their keywords. They can get together in their own webmaster threads and figure this out. I don't see why this should be solved here.
Of course I think this is a dumb idea in the first place. Nobody needs to know what fusianasan and sage are. Write a FAQ with two sentences about it and/or let your oldtime users tell newbies. Two frickin' words, and you people talk about it as if it were something like making up a new system of romanization!

> Then why not simply boil it all down to the comment field, with trigger strings for inputting the name, e-mail, sage, ID:Heaven, and fusianasan? You can get a lot more minimal with the current interface.

That's a bit too much. You want to talk about sage and fusianasan in the comment field, not trigger it with it.
I suspect you are joking here, though. Design is about what you can take away and still remain optimal conveniency/efficiency on the user part, not about taking as much away as you are technically capable of.

>>201

Yeah, no, maybe. Using secure trips for capcodes also adds extra protections against accidentially misspellingyour capcode and leaving it open to attack.

> He meant saging a thread just because a part of the actual e-mail address contains the word "sage."
> You know, like [email protected].

Well, then you are out of luck, aren't you? So you want to enter your E-Mail but cannot because then the post wouldn't bump then? Solution: Write it in the comment field, problem fixed.
There is no reason to change well-known keywords for this or even turn this into a frustratingly unconvenient tickbox/checkbox.

>>165

>There's no one English word that does the job of the pseudo-Japanese "sage".

How about "dontbump" or "nobump"? Using "down" is pretty misleading, since sage doesn't bump a thread up nor down; it just stays in its place until a thread below is bumped.

>>167 orz

In reference WAHa's post in http://wakaba.c3.cx/sup/kareha.pl/1127713568/l50

>It's been suggested to change the no-ID-on-email to no-ID-on-sage

That sounds good to me.

That would be a bother too.

>>343

"When they shouldn't be?" They've always been bolded.

RENZOKU are the flood detection things... even if they are useless MAX_POSTS_PER_MINUTE makes a lot more sense than RENZOKU2

3) was about a string to trigger ID:Heaven, not a constant for the Heaven part (which is already configurable)

Re: email/link field

Just because it works one way on 2ch/whatever does not mean it is the best way. Having 'fusianasan' as the only way to trigger the effect is just narrow-minded. Functions should have descriptive names to the people using them; should we keep the field names in Japanese because the Japanese have them in Japanese? Having all of the applicable things configurable is something that makes sense, and you can easily have both 'fusianasan' and 'show_ip' that work at the same time. Frankly, the combinations of many things into unrelated fields is a design flaw. What if you want to use a name/trip and fusianasan? What if your email address contains the string 'sage'? What if you want to sage a thread, but have an ID still?
I think the confusion of existing users is worth reducing the learning curve and improving the intuitiveness.

I'm not saying that the default behaviour needs to change, but being able to easily configure the strings used allows for easier localization.

I probably misspelled fusianasan too, why should I have to remember something so foreign?

A trigger for turning wakabamark off and one for forcing a monospace font

>>220
I meant only using the extra post for autoclose situations where the thread has exceeded the defined postcount limit in config.pl. As for the implementation, couldn't you just have Kareha use post_stuff() and (somehow) replace the timestamp with "Over XXXX Thread"?

The "Entire thread" link on the thread page is missing a "/" at the end.

>>305

Shift-reload already! Also, most people are familiar with "More options..." links and know when and when not to click them. I might see about styling it, though.

>>348

That's a Firefox bug.

>> 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.

Put the Entire thread link on the top of the thread, not the bottom.

>>108
I don't think that restricting specific users' posting priviliges is useful in any way except restricting them from posting.

>>108,113
"fusianasan" is for when a user wants to prove that he is posting from a certain place (like a school, a company's network or a military base).

>>112
A keyboard shortcut for "reply" in Kareha or "submit" in Wakaba would be nice to have.

>>129

That form just looks wrong with no title or clear separator, though. I might put in a title that is not the exact same as the button, though. Any suggestions?

The board title is inserted by template.pl, and rules.html is included after it.

>>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?

> 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!

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

> the only boards that use them are image boards where you have to load images anyway.

Correction: http://www.akatsukimanga.com/kareha/

>>153

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Domain

It means anyone can do whatever they want with it. They can't claim copyright, though, since they didn't create it in the first place. They can modify it an claim copyright on their modifications, at least as long as they're significant enough, but that doesn't affect existing works in the public domain.

> This is kinda what I had pushed for earlier in >>52. I think that separating the sage (aka, "don't bump"), fusianasan (aka, "show IP"), and ID:Heaven (aka, "no ID") functions from any particular post elements in the main scripts would be ideal for implementing Kareha in systems where inputting a certain string to trigger these functions is not intuitive (ie, every board outside of the 2ch/Futaba family). These trigger strings (S_DONTBUMP, S_SHOWIP, S_NOID) and their assignment to a certain form field input could be instead implemented individually in each template.

There's no obvious way to do this, since there has to be code that specifically checks a field and takes certain actions long before the template comes into play. It'd take some sort of plugin system to implement it, and I don't think that's quite called for.

Also >>154 is Kami.

>>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.

Another topic: since dynamic pages eat up CPU in order to rebuild pages according to URL parameters, what would be the likelihood of the current dynamic thread subpages having a significantly adverse effect in this aspect if a board were to grow to 2ch-sized proportions? Should there be a consideration to make these pages as static as the front page?

Also, let's put out a partition to kill secure tripcodes (unless they originated from 0ch/Futaba) and captcha (until we find a way to implement similar functionality without requiring it in the form of a GIF/PNG image), and add functionality for multiple uploads in one post.

And is there any practical way that Kareha can be modified to run multiple (even nested) boards in a single installation?

>>177

> 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.

I vote yes, but that is obvious isn't it?

Tell me more about these pre-compiled binaries. I thought that was impractical...I mean, instruction set differences and so on.

I meant Remote host adress instead of IP.

durr hurr