Frist! And Welcome
-
TRWTF is why they bother with making you have a name other than your user id if they aren't going to show it on the posts.
I swear, I saw a setting to show the name somewhere...
-
I swear, I saw a setting to show the name somewhere...
Settings > Users > enable names [Allow users to show their full names] (Currently set to yes)?
Settings > Posting > display name on posts [Also show a user's full name on their posts] (Currently set to no)?
-
It's totally there. But should we?
-
It's totally there. But should we?
Assuming "it" refers to showing the user's full name, no. One of the most important features of TDWTF is being able to post code snippets anonymously.
-
dtech said:
The name field is mandatory during registration, so apparantly the settings page chokes when it isn't provided (because it wasn't in the import from CS)OK. I'll buy that.
So you think that maybe it could tell you somewhere on the page THIS FUCKING FIELD IS FUCKING REQUIRED TO BE FILLED IN!!
Actually you can manually edit the button to enable it and then it will save just fine without filling in the field, thus they are only doing the validation in javascript.
-
Actually you can manually edit the button to enable it and then it will save just fine without filling in the field, thus they are only doing the validation in javascript.
Amateur. Hour.
Filed under: Fuckin' websites, how do they work?
-
Actually you can manually edit the button to enable it and then it will save just fine without filling in the field, thus they are only doing the validation in javascript.
I believe it gets silently discarded, the original cause of El_Heffe's problem
-
I believe it gets silently discarded, the original cause of El_Heffe's problem
When I reload my profile after forcing the save it keeps my "don't email me ever" changes, so it appears to save them.
-
Assuming "it" refers to showing the user's full name, no. One of the most important features of TDWTF is being able to post code snippets anonymously.
The full name field is publicly visible on your profile page.
-
Assuming "it" refers to showing the user's full name, no. One of the most important features of TDWTF is being able to post code snippets anonymously.
Discourse stole our sigs and our tags. At least we can play with the full name field.
-
HardwareGeek said:Assuming "it" refers to showing the user's full name, no. One of the most important features of TDWTF is being able to post code snippets anonymously.
The full name field is publicly visible on your profile page.
So don't put a real name in. Really who enters accurate data into a website?
Filed Under: crazytalk, klatyzarc
-
Really who enters accurate data into a website?
Yeah I'd never be so stupid as to put in my real name.
Filed under: Oh wait...
-
@joe_edwards said:
Yeah I'd never be so stupid as to put in my real name.
Which is why you should pick out a new username. Do you not have a common handle that you use for random junk?
-
Do you not have a common handle that you use for random junk?
I do, and apparently it's on the default Discourse blacklist.Filed under: Does this mean I'm infamous?
-
Some of your CS-inherited default-but-edited icons are hard to distinguish at the tiny sizes.
-
I actually like how you can expand a quote snippet and it shows the full quote with the snippet highlighted.
Filed under: Frist positive feedback!
-
@joe_edwards said:
I actually like how you can expand a quote snippet and it shows the full quote with the snippet highlighted.
I do not like how there doesn't seem a way to automatically quote nested quotes (without them being flattened)
-
Ahhh christ on a pizza-delivery moped: You read through it and you see responses to posts, in-context, then 2.5 virtual pages later you see the same fucking post outside of context.
The whole idea is just B R O K E N. Has Discourse never been used with a forum that has more than a handful of posts per thread?
As others said, I have no issue with change - I'm on Java 7, Jboss 7, C# 6 beta, Windows 8.1 (.1), Office 2013 but this is just rubbish.
What an absolutely bizarre choice to go with... Oh, and where did we put all of our "I told you so" cards?
-
Ahhh christ on a pizza-delivery moped: You read through it and you see responses to posts, in-context, then 2.5 virtual pages later you see the same fucking post outside of context.
I don't see what you're talking about. For me it looks exactly the same as CS, in terms of post structure.
-
But in this case I would still place the blame on an import that doesn't provide all the required information.I wouldn't like to be the one to file a bug report with "if I manually set my database to an incorrect state, the software breaks"
If only you could... tell the database to "constrain" somehow the values that are allowed. Like maybe add something, call it a... uh... constraint why not, so it won't save the row unless all the required values are present--
Naaah! Who am I kidding, science fiction technology like that is decades away.
-
Scroll up (hey, did you know that this site has endless scrolling?) and find a post with replies. Entertain yourself by reading these erudite responses. If you're feeling scientific, take a note of when those responses were posted.
Now scroll down to the approximate time that the responses were posted and you'll see them again, completely out of context. Back in the CS days (ahhh... remember them? Good times) people knew there was no context so they would reply and quote the original post, or a portion of it, so you could say "oh, I see what you're doing, there".
Now, because you think you're replying in context you don't see the need to do that. Meanwhile, I'd been away for ~5 hours so came back to ~70 new posts and kept seeing duplicates of previous replies.
It's just a mess - trying to be best of both worlds of a threaded response view and a flat, chronological list.
-
The whole idea is just B R O K E N. Has Discourse never been used with a forum that has more than a handful of posts per thread?
well they sell it by going "Look at the example forum! Look how great we are!" Right, but the example forum only has like 5 posts in each topic, so the broken shit never comes up. You don't get the full sell until you install it and start using it, and then it's a ball of crap.
-
This post is deleted!
-
The flattening of nested quotes is pretty unacceptable. My rule of thumb is that if CS can get it right, you simply cannot get it wrong a decade later.
-
If you reply to a post that's not the one that will be immediately above yours, Discourse plops an "In Reply To" tag in the upper-right of your post so you can jump up to the post, providing context.
-
@skotl said:
Ahhh christ on a pizza-delivery moped: You read through it and you see responses to posts, in-context, then 2.5 virtual pages later you see the same fucking post outside of context.
I don't see what you're talking about. For me it looks exactly the same as CS, in terms of post structure
If you expand the N Replies V thingy, you see the replies there, in context. When you scroll down, you see them again in chronological order, without the context
-
What HardwareGeek said, below (or is it above? I'm getting confused).
It should show each post once and once only. It would actually be neater to simply have a threaded view, without the chronological view also.
-
without the context
It tells you who it replied to in the top right, and if you click that, it shows you the context. Exactly like how you figured out to click the other button.
-
It tells you who it replied to in the top right, and if you click that, it shows you the context. Exactly like how you figured out to click the other button.
Oh, goody. It adds even more duplicate copies of the messages.
-
You do know you can close the contextual view, right? Or do you get really confused when things have multiple ways to view them?
-
You do know you can close the contextual view, right? Or do you get really confused when things have multiple ways to view them?
With a button that gives no indication that it toggles state, nor a clear indication of which state it's in, since the toggleable context posts don't look different than normal posts.
-
the toggleable context posts don't look different than normal posts.
Does your browser not support CSS, or something? The toggleable context thing is significantly indented and a significantly different color.
-
Scroll up (hey, did you know that this site has endless scrolling?) and find a post with replies. Entertain yourself by reading these erudite responses.
They're folded up into a button. You mean they're already expanded for you?
@skotl said:completely out of context
That's true. But you can click the arrow next to the top of you post and open the post it replied to.
-
It should show each post once and once only. It would actually be neater to simply have a threaded view, without the chronological view also.
Just stop clicking on the replies and you won't confuse yourself. I kind of like that, and hadn't noticed it until you mentioned it. That should be a clue to people who don't read the full thread and then say the same thing someone else did.
It seems like a pretty good compromise between a flat thread and maintaining the relationship of posts.
-
If you expand the N Replies V thingy, you see the replies there, in context. When you scroll down, you see them again in chronological order, without the context
Yeah, but it's under a button, so you don't see it unless you inflict the pain upon yourself.
-
With a button that gives no indication that it toggles state, nor a clear indication of which state it's in, since the toggleable context posts don't look different than normal posts.
They do look different. The replies you opened are all in a grey box.
-
I think @HardwareGeek means that there's no clear indication as to whether a quoted reply is expanded or collapsed other than the little arrow in the corner.
-
Does your browser not support CSS, or something? The toggleable context thing is significantly indented and a significantly different color.
The indentation of context posts does not look that much different than the indentation of quoted texts — yes, the avatars (if the user has one) is bigger, but it's not really distinctive. I suppose that I will eventually learn to recognize the difference at a glance, but I don't yet have sufficient experience with this forum for that,
As for the color difference, the difference between the white background and very pale background is almost invisible on my LCD monitor at a normal viewing angle. I have to look at the monitor from quite an extreme angle for the difference to become obvious. No, it's not some cheap-ass monitor, either; it's a pretty good quality Dell.
-
I suppose that I will eventually learn to recognize the difference at a glance, but I don't yet have sufficient experience with this forum for that,
Isn't the fact that you just clicked on it and watched it expand a big hint? This is sounding like blakeyrant worthy Ludditism to me.
-
Yeah, but it's under a button, so you don't see it unless you inflict the pain upon yourself.
Yes, I did that once and figured out it was not a good idea. But that was enough to recognize the behavior that (@skotl, I think; I'm confused by not being able to have more than one level of quoting) described, and explain it.
-
@vote4sale said:
The flattening of nested quotes is pretty unacceptable.
Agreed, though this seems like a bug that could be fixed without a major overhaul, unlike most of its other issues that are intrinsic to its mode of operation.
Infinite scrolling seems like it could be a per-user preference, like CS' somewhat obscure threaded post view.
-
Isn't the fact that you just clicked on it and watched it expand a big hint? This is sounding like blakeyrant worthy Ludditism to me.
If I go off and read another window — or even, $deity forbid, do some actual work — and come back, which state did I leave it in?
Look, I'm not saying it's a big deal. It may never even make a difference to me which state it's in. I'm just saying it's not as obvious, at least to me, as Ben said it was.
-
As for the color difference, the difference between the white background and very pale background is almost invisible on my LCD monitor at a normal viewing angle. I have to look at the monitor from quite an extreme angle for the difference to become obvious. No, it's not some cheap-ass monitor, either; it's a pretty good quality Dell.
Then I might suggest checking either your color temperature settings or your brightness/contrast settings, since to me it's not "white vs. pale" as it is "white vs. grey, with quotes being a darker grey"
-
it's a pretty good quality Dell.
If it's good quality, then you need to change your settings, because your gamma is rather too high, I think.
If you can't do that, it's not good quality.
But point taken about contrast being shit on shit monitors, which would indeed make this grey not so grey.
-
@joe_edwards said:
Agreed, though this seems like a bug that could be fixed without a major overhaul, unlike most of its other issues that are intrinsic to its mode of operation.
I agree, I just don't understand how it got this far without addressing it.My largest problem with Discourse is that it feels like a lot of the design was based on conversations that started with "wouldn't it be cool if..." Which is not how you get to a robust product.
-
@vote4sale said:
the design was based on conversations that started with "wouldn't it be cool if..."
That sounds like Flip3D which was quietly nuked in Win8.
-
@joe_edwards said:
like CS' somewhat obscure threaded post view.
It has a threaded view? Never knew that.
-
-
Liar.
-
@joe_edwards said:
I found it useful.
Alright, then it's like Bumptop, which somehow suckered Google into buying it.
