Bugs and Suggestions for Metabunk.org

Mendel said:
Is it fixed for you now? Or still broken?
Click to expand...
I see a post from yesterday, then the deleted one from 2013, then your test post as the last three posts in the thread.

I did look at it yesterday though so something might be cached for me.

Using a browser that has never been logged in here it looks fine (i.e. the deleted post isn't shown out of order).
 
Mendel said:
the new post was listed before the older one. I added a post, then the new post was listed ofter the deleted post (and before!), but after reloading the thread, it seems fine now.
probably a legacy bug.
Click to expand...
It seems your newer post, now I've read it, has at least fixed the bolding of the thread aspect. The out-of-order ordering remains a mystery, but a presently harmless one.
 
Maybe something to do with it being a very old thread, from the previous version of the board. Or maybe just a large gap between posts. I permanently deleted the old deleted posts (And Mendel's "unbork" post) which seems to have shaken it back together.
 
Curious George said:
I literally don't have that "external quote" button you taught me to use.
1705162188671.png
Click to expand...
This is definitely a bug with @Mick West 's custom forum extensions, thank you for the feedback. It would help if you could mention your operating system and browser, ideally including version numbers.

Meanwhile, you can type [ex]content as needed[/ex] manually, if you like. (I rarely use the button myself.)
 
Mendel said:
This is definitely a bug with @Mick West 's custom forum extensions, thank you for the feedback. It would help if you could mention your operating system and browser, ideally including version numbers.

Meanwhile, you can type [ex]content as needed[/ex] manually, if you like. (I rarely use the button myself.)
Click to expand...

I gave George a detailed explanation on the simple use of typing EX and /EX in brackets for external stuff back in this thread, post #1,133.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/house-oversight-hearing-on-uaps-july-26-2023.13049/page-29

It appears he tried it in his next post but instead of the EX in [ ] he ended up with <external> which didn't create an external content box, just the word external in < >.

1705196753680.png
 
Mick West said:
He'd used EX tags many times before.
Click to expand...

Yeah, seems to be back and forth like a lot of people, I know I had trouble with them at first. I think it's something that is intuitive to programmers and tech folks, letters inside brackets [ ] turn features on and off. Some of my early post attempts were complete messes as I got the EX in [ ] but failed to notice the proper use of the /EX at the end of the quote.

After thinking I had mastered the EX tags, I later ended up abandoning some lengthy posts almost entirely of strikethrough. Only later did I realize letters in [ ] do things and that Wiki especially will add a missing "s" in [ ], thus turning on the strikethrough feature. :confused:

As always, thanks for the forum sir!
 
Landru said:
I can see a message on Page 2. #41 posted by Rick Robson.
Click to expand...

Ah, he's on my ignore list. So I just get the "[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [Next]" from above the messages and the "[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [Next]" from below the messages and nothing in between.
OK, it's confusing, but it's not worth fussing over.
 
FatPhil said:
Ah, he's on my ignore list. So I just get the "[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [Next]" from above the messages and the "[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [Next]" from below the messages and nothing in between.
OK, it's confusing, but it's not worth fussing over.
Click to expand...
Watch out for "show ignored content", it indicates there is hidden content
 
Here is a possibly, nay probably, unimportant one, but since I'm here...

Should/could the "disagree" response option be changed to something other than a huge red "X?" That is, visually, a lot harsher and stronger than what I want to imply when disagreeing with a post, usually. Not 100% sure what to change it to -- one possibility would be to add a less bold, less saturated red "X" for a "somewhat disagree" option.

This may sound silly, but it almost feels like I'm violating the politeness policy if I toss a huge bold bright red "X" onto somebody's post! :D
 
Mick West said:
Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with @JMartJr that the big red X is a bit intimidating and impolite "feeling". Some with a "I respectfully disagree with you in this and will likely discuss it with you further in the thread when I have time" vibe to it. A wagging "NO" finger? An "I don't think so" face? Maybe time out hands.

I "disagree" with you is different from I "dislike" your post. "Dislike" seems to be for things like violating posting policies, claims without sources, being impolite or combative and such. JMartJr and I get along just fine and respect each other, but may have a disagreement on something, vs someone is being a PITA.

Just a thought.
 
Mick West said:
Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
Other than a less bold, less saturated-red "X," I don't have a great idea. If they could be animated a nodding "agree" face and a side-to-side shaking "disagree" face would be a possibility, though possibly too cute even if technically feasible. Or an optional Yellow X for "disagree in part?

Landru said:
There is a dislike option already there which is a softer option.
Click to expand...
There is, but I don't interpret it as a "soft disagree," or a more friendly disagree, for largely the reasons NorCal Dave mentioned in the preceding post.

Also, @Alien Chess Fiend , if you did that response to the first post tongue in cheek I got a chuckle out of it! If done in total seriousness, no offense taken! ^_^
 
JMartJr said:
Other than a less bold, less saturated-red "X," I don't have a great idea. If they could be animated a nodding "agree" face and a side-to-side shaking "disagree" face would be a possibility, though possibly too cute even if technically feasible. Or an optional Yellow X for "disagree in part?


There is, but I don't interpret it as a "soft disagree," or a more friendly disagree, for largely the reasons NorCal Dave mentioned in the preceding post.

Also, @Alien Chess Fiend , if you did that response to the first post tongue in cheek I got a chuckle out of it! If done in total seriousness, no offense taken! ^_^
Click to expand...
We can do gifs

IMG_20240203_190531.gif
 
Last edited:
Mick West said:
Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
The same X but shrunk so that it fits inside the "thumbs up" circle.

I use "like" for posts that advance the discussion, even if I don't always agree with them. When I've asked a question, a "like" indicates I accept the answer, as a short-hand "thank you" note.
I use "dislike" for posts that I think actively make the discussion worse.
I use "agree" for posts that "I could've written myself" but didn't.
I use "disagree" for posts I think are false; either for reasons I've stated above, or (usually) will explain below.
I use "informative" for posts with sources that add helpful information to a discussion.
I use "useful" for posts that present useful sources or methods.
I never use "funny" to express dislike, as that would amount to ridicule.
 
JMartJr said:
Also, @Alien Chess Fiend , if you did that response to the first post tongue in cheek I got a chuckle out of it! If done in total seriousness, no offense taken! ^_^
Click to expand...
Yes, I couldn't resist that. I do think the disagree reaction is a good thing with the way conspiracy theory promoters are tolerated here. I don't think changing the icon a bit would hurt though.
 
Any chance we make the URLs a different color than current? The light, light blue on the white background is hard to notice. They blend in enough to get missed by readers, I reckon. I can do it with JavaScript on my end, but figure Mick could dust off the ol' skill set and make it a global change. Whaddya say, Mick?
 
Area 51/50 said:
Any chance we make the URLs a different color than current? The light, light blue on the white background is hard to notice. They blend in enough to get missed by readers, I reckon. I can do it with JavaScript on my end, but figure Mick could dust off the ol' skill set and make it a global change. Whaddya say, Mick?
Click to expand...
It's a bit fiddly to do in a clean manner. Try selecting the "Red Links" theme (bottom left of bottom of page)
 
Area 51/50 said:
Any chance we make the URLs a different color than current? The light, light blue on the white background is hard to notice. They blend in enough to get missed by readers, I reckon.
Click to expand...
What links, specifically, did you (almost?) overlook?
Most non-interface links on Metabunk are supposed to be explicit, as "https://....", and thus obvious.

Does the blue actually blend in with the white for you? Or is it dark enough to blend in with the black? I can discern them well enough on my display.
 
Last edited:
Zqu0uJq.png
Perhaps it's just my monitor (or eyesight), but I would definitely gloss over this in the wild. Switching to Red Links per Mick's request is better, for sure.

I'll probably just deploy my own JS since I do that normally for many sites:

const links = document.querySelectorAll(".link.link--external");
links.forEach(link => {
link.style.textDecoration = 'underline';
link.style.color = 'red';
});

Most of the internal links are pretty obvious since they're in the same place often and don't blend in as much for me.

Thanks for the responses.
 
Last edited:
Just a thought. Can there be a way to reply to someone in another thread and have that noted in the original thread? My thought is to help threads going off topic.

For example, in the thread on the AARO report Meta Materials came up because AARO tested a piece. Some discussion of that piece is warranted, but a bunch of back and forth about where the Meta Materials came from and who owned them, and the back stories clogs the main discussion about the overall report.

So, if Bob posts something about meta materials in the AARO thread, I could hit "reply" but have the option to bump that reply to an appropriate meta material thread and continue the discussion. There would be some sort of note on the AARO thread alerting others that Dave replied to Bob over in this thread for those that are interested.

It could also bounce replies about other side topics to the appropriate thread or start a new one if needed. Sort of an oprion for "Yeah, that's interesting so let's talk about it over here".

Again, just a thought.
 
NorCal Dave said:
Just a thought. Can there be a way to reply to someone in another thread and have that noted in the original thread? My thought is to help threads going off topic.
Click to expand...
I can't find any Zenforo add-ons that will do anything like that. You could do it manually, but it's a bit of a pain

  1. Hit reply
  2. Toggle BB code
  3. Copy the BB code
  4. replace with "moving"
  5. Go to different thread
  6. Post there
  7. copy link
  8. go back to post in step 4, edit that post and past the link
Not really simple, but people do things like this occasionally. I don't think it comes up often enough to write new code and make new bugs.
 
Mick West said:
  1. Hit reply
  2. Toggle BB code
  3. Copy the BB code
  4. replace with "moving"
  5. Go to different thread
Click to expand...
why are we toggling bb code? what does that do?
what does "replace with moving" mean? Do non-moderators have a "move" option?

just hit reply.
highlight it and choose "cut"
go to another thread hit "paste". answer it.
copy link.
go to original thread. type "answer to your off topic comment here [and paste link]"
 
deirdre said:
why are we toggling bb code? what does that do?
what does "replace with moving" mean? Do non-moderators have a "move" option?

just hit reply.
highlight it and choose "cut"
go to another thread hit "paste". answer it.
copy link.
go to original thread. type "answer to your off topic comment here [and paste link]"
Click to expand...

I prefer to copy the BB code to make sure I get everything.

The "moved" thing was just a temporary marker so you can find the old post again - I often move a post and then have trouble finding the original as it's no longer a new thread. So this was more of a suggestion.

Non-moderators can't move a post.
 
Mick West said:
I often move a post and then have trouble finding the original as it's no longer a new thread.
Click to expand...
If you copied it correctly, you can click the link at the top of the quote in your new post, and it takes you back to the post you quoted, in the old thread.
 
Mendel said:
If you copied it correctly, you can click the link at the top of the quote in your new post, and it takes you back to the post you quoted, in the old thread.
Click to expand...
I know. But I often move posts that are not quoting someone.
 
deirdre said:
ust hit reply.
highlight it and choose "cut"
go to another thread hit "paste". answer it.
copy link.
go to original thread. type "answer to your off topic comment here [and paste link]"
Click to expand...

Your right, I can just do it that way. Not being a coder, I wasn't sure what's doable and what's not. I was just thinking of a quick easy way that anyone can do. Hit reply, then there's an option to post to a different thread and leave a message in the current thread.
 
NorCal Dave said:
there's an option to post to a different thread and leave a message in the current thread.
Click to expand...
the longest part of the process now is finding the thread you want to post in :)

it would take just as long to do that even with a drop down menu.

I think what Mick is saying, is that anytime he adds code to the Xeno software it causes bugs. (and everytime xeno updates all Mick's codes break! and he has to redo them). People dont move comments often enough to warrant the bugs and all the xtra work from Mick.

I'm not picking on your suggestion at all!**, just letting you know it takes literally about 30 seconds (minus finding an old thread) to do it manually.

**it certainly would be nice if moderators spent a few minutes once a week to move all these off topic noise producers they are notified of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top