Discourse quirks
-
(by "quirks" I mean all the little, weird or annoying, non-functional things that aren't bugs or broad design decisions like infinite scrolling)
So in Discourse:
- The user's name at the top of a post is a link to that post (try middle click or copy link location).
- But clicking on a user's name shows a profile summary popup.
- The user's avatar is a link to their profile page.
- In a quote, the username and avatar are not links. Clicking on them will toggle quote expansion.
If you expand "X Replies" or the up-arrow that shows who a post replies to:
- User's name is a link to their profile page, just like their avatar.
I guess the username was made a link to the post because posts don't have titles so there's no where else to put the link to the post.
But now, one also can't tell without expanding replies which of a user's posts the current post is a reply to. It's just the replied-to user's name and avatar and the post number or any other post identifier is not displayed on the page.
And if you quote multiple people in your post, your post is not technically a reply to any of those other posts. So the reply chain is broken. So you can only branch discussions, you can't merge them.
Just some observations.
-
Consistency is Web 1.0 and a barrier to reading.
-
I guess the username was made a link to the post because posts don't have titles so there's no where else to put the link to the post.
The "timestamp". Because that's where approximately no-one expects it to be, so that's naturally where Discurse puts it.
-
Except the timestamp is a link to the post. But the click handler is hijacked and gives you a popup to copy the post's URL.
-
Where the link icon is not a link. Cool.
-
Discourse: proud retainer of consistent inconsistency.
-
The user's name at the top of a post is a link to that post
Holy shit, it's worse than that. In both of the screenshots below, I'm hovering over the name loopback0 at the top of the post, but I have the screen scrolled to a slightly different point. Look at the URLs in the status bar at the bottom:
The URL of the link is changing based on where I'm scrolled to. Please check this and confirm it happens for other people.
-
The user's name at the top of a post is a link to that post (try middle click or copy link location).
Middle click? Reading the URL in the status bar? Doing it wrong.https://meta.discourse.org/t/logs-page-now-404s-take-2/17542
-
The URL of the link is changing based on where I'm scrolled to.
Considering the name is just a <a href="#">, I'd expect that.
-
Considering the name is just a <a href="#">, I'd expect that.
Okay, that makes sense.
-
Of course it changes based on where you scroll to, since Discourse thought it was a fantastic idea to update the URL Every Fucking Post You Scroll Through.
-
I'd forgotten that (or blanked it out) - I thought it was just a standard undiscoverable link.
-
Happens for me, too.
Considering the name is just a <a href="#">, I'd expect that.
I don't understand how that explains it.
Of course it changes based on where you scroll to, since Discourse thought it was a fantastic idea to update the URL Every Fucking Post You Scroll Through.
The url in the address bar changes but why do the links on the page change?
-
Because of how the specification handles #. Basically, # indicates a link relative to the current document, specifically 'inside' the current document. If you want to move up or down a page, you can use # to point to an anchor point somewhere in the page.
If the browser sees a # link, it knows that it's to be treated as a suffix to the current URL. And since the browser changes the current URL every fucking post you scroll, it's just taking that and appending # to it.
-
If the browser sees a # link, it knows that it's to be treated as a suffix to the current URL. And since the browser changes the current URL every fucking post you scroll, it's just taking that and appending # to it.
I have the url update setting turned off, so for me every single username links to whatever post the url had when I entered the topic. Right now they all point to 1660/13#.
Filed under: I can't tell if that's more or less useless; Discourse!
-
And this is why I ignore the URL in almost every situation in Discourse because I too have that setting turned off.
-
Ah, I see.
So the URLs in the Dom aren't actually changing, the browser's interpretation of them is changing.
-
So the URLs in the Dom aren't actually changing, the browser's interpretation of them is changing
Due to discord repeatedly and determinedly pulling the rug out from under the browser, yes.
-
Why is my username in the url that gets shared when I click the timestamp? WTF?
-
It's because you're special, and discord really cares about you.
-
Why is my username in the url that gets shared when I click the timestamp? WTF?
Social. Facebook Twitter Google+ social. Instagram Facebook cookies. LinkedIn link tracking Google+. Facebook tracking pixel add from email accounts. Pinterest ads Facebook. Discourse!
Oh, you wanted a proper answer, not marketing gibberish?
-
All of this doesn't matter, because only posts directly above, and below the post are relevant - and the post above shouldn't be read because that's a barrier to thread comprehension.
-
-
Also, "+ Reply as new Topic" is awkwardly off to the side instead of sitting next to the Reply button, as if they are two completely separate things, instead of being two variations on the same idea, which they are.
And links aren't underlined ("N people liked this").
Except sometimes ("cancel" on the post editor).
Oh, and why are "cancel" and "hide preview" lower-case and "Reply"/"Save Edit" upper case? The solid-color background isn't enough to make "Reply"/"Save Edit" stand out?
-
I always copy the textual URL in the links in the emails.
Screw tracking.
I even delete the
u
parameter when I rewrite a post's URL to see it raw, out of spite.
-
Consistent inconsistency, Discourse's mantra, +1, yadda yadda
-
Basically it's because Atwood thinks he's like this:
But really he's more like this:
-
The URL silliness is because they hijacked <a> tags and then used them for onclicks and mouseovers and jazz, but didn't bother to put them in the href, or to make the href non-existent... they did the most annoying thing possible, put href="#" in them.
Filed Under: Modern browsers all support css :hover on every element, use a SPAN with CSS styling if you are just going to attempt to javascript hijack every possible native usage of the element.
-
Also:
[Logs page now 404s. Take 2][1] Regardless, what happens when you click the word "Logs"?
I am not aware of any way to navigate to that path you indicated other than typing it in.
If you can provide a click by click repro of the 404 happy to recategorize. Bugs are for things that are actually broken, per the category description.
Seeing an incorrect tool tip is not broken functionality.
Emphasis mine
WTF!
Broken is BROKEN!!! and BROKEN == BUG!!
-
Broken is BROKEN!!! and BROKEN == BUG!!
Wikipedia:
A software bug is an error, flaw, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways.
So 404 is either not an error, or it was intended. Take your pick.
-
Pedantic Dickweedery:
An incorrect tooltip is:
an error, flaw, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways.
Incorrect is Incorrect. A is A! a Bug is a Bug!
Gah!!!
-
Wait, since when is Wikipedia a reliable source for dickweedery?
Filed under : only tdwtf can be used as a reference
-
Wait, since when is Wikipedia a reliable source for dickweedery?
Filed under : only tdwtf can be used as a reference
Sorry. I wanted to be more eloquent than:
The fucking piece of shit is broken beyond belief. WTF were they thinking? TDEMSYR!
Filed under: TRWTF is Web 2.0
Not that it's wrong, mind. But it's also less words people can be pedanatic dickweeds about.
-
Well, an incorrect tooltip is not broken, functionally. It's just incorrect information.
Filed under: Pedantic Dickweedery+1
-
Wikipedia is a reliable source because <a @codingwhore said so. It's nearly as authoritative as blog.codingwhore.com1
1 Actual link may be considered NSFW
-
Don't you mean authoritarian?
-
My dickweedery was based on @Onyx quoting Wikipedia, and then ignoring the words in that quote!
Filed Under: Making baby Jesus cry...
-
Actually, I mean "full of unreliable tripe written by someone who thinks the internet is an MMORPG"
-
Sure it is. Everyone plays a part that is usually similar to their real life. Jeff plays a complete twunt. And everyone levels up periodically.
-
So a program giving you incorrect information in any manner, is A-OK with you?
Filed Under: You go home! You go home now!
-
It's not 'A-OK' by me, but it's important to differentiate between the two as they have two different cause-effect.
- Broken functionality: Causes the software to misbehave
- Bad information (IE: broken/incorrect tooltip) Causes the Users to misbehave
Both should be fixed, but both have different severity levels.
-
That's one hell of a way to instill discipline.
-
2) Bad information (IE: broken/incorrect tooltip) Causes the Users to misbehave
Which then (at least from the user's perspective) leads right back to
1) Broken functionality: Causes the software to misbehave
As far as the User is concerned, the path to any sort of misbehavior on the part of software is immaterial. It misbehaved. In the case of #2 it lied to me! Try to tell your parent that lying isn't misbehavior. It's also the moral basis for, in legal terms, a charge of "Incitement".
-
Sure, from a users perspective it's broken. But you're a developer, you know better than that!
Also, lying isn't a misbehavior unless you get caught. Discourse is just a bad liar.
-
Sure, from a users perspective it's broken. But you're a developer, you know better than that!
-
-
That's one hell of a way to instill discipline.
No, it's the authoritarian's approach to civilised discourse because we're always doing it wrong.
-
In the case of #2 it lied to me! Try to tell your parent that lying isn't misbehavior. It's also the moral basis for, in legal terms, a charge of "Incitement".
Not necessarily true. At least in the UK, prior to the abolition of Incitement as an offense in 2008, the person being incited had to know he the act to which he was being incited was illegal:
Therefore, an inciter who knows that an incitee is unaware that his or her actions will constitute a crime, and, in fact, acts in innocence, cannot be found guilty of incitement, although conviction as an indirect perpetrator would be possible.
Thus, inciting a person to commit a crime by lying to him might not, in fact, be incitement:
Case History - Mixing up the accounts
E was charged with inciting G to make a false entry in books of account in contravention of the Companies Act.
E knew the entry was false but G did not, and E knew G would make the entry thinking it to be correct.
- The courts acquitted E on a charge of incitement.
(R v Milne and Erleigh, 1951)
Yes, even the courts handing down decisions like this thought this was a WTF.
-
It's still the moral basis of a charge of Incitement, whether or not the twats on either the Queen's Bench (is that the right name?) or SCOTUS have rejected the legality of the charge.
The twAtwoods have already infested most governments.
-
Laws: you're doing it wrong.