Poll: If PJH is willing and able, would you hide him behind an ellipsis?
-
the timestamp, which [...] has the same functionality
Plus some. It also shows the full timestamp for the post in the popup, while the "link to this post" popup doesn't.
-
With free z-index mistakes
-
Plus some. It also shows the full timestamp for the post in the popup,
When you hover. There's no reason to believe that it performs some other completely unrelated function when you click it, at least until you click it. I suppose you might discover this more quickly on mobile; since the vast majority of mobile devices don't support hover, you might be more inclined to tap it to see if it provides more useful information than the Discotime.
BTW, thanks. I never noticed the time in the popup. It is not the full timestamp, however. It omits the year, which is included in the hover tooltip.
-
It omits the year
If it's the current year, it does. If not, it includes it (in the apostrophe shortened version).
-
-
-
They both do.
Which I, for one, consider annoying. I nearly always remove it when I paste the URL. If I were to post a link on somerandomblog.com, I couldn't prevent Discourse from knowing from the Referer that people are visiting from there. However, I don't think it's any of Discourse's business that I am active on that blog.
-
fair enough, but don't expect badgers for links and stuff if you do that.
that username is how discourse tracks who posted the link to give them their badgers.
-
Wait, so if I understand you correctly, I could just add another username there and they would potentially recieve badges?
That sounds really dumb. Discourse should know who posted a link by checking who actually posted it... like checking the session/cookie/whatever Discourse has.. Is there a valid reason to use the url?Filed Under: Actually curious!
-
Wait, so if I understand you correctly, I could just add another username there and they would potentially recieve badges?
AFAICT, yes that is true.
-
That sounds really dumb. Discourse should know who posted a link by checking who actually posted it... like checking the session/cookie/whatever Discourse has.. Is there a valid reason to use the url?
Sessions and cookies will hardly help if the link's being posted on a third-party site will it?
Course, they could replace the username with a token or something. And it's hardly to your benefit anyway to grant someone else badges.
-
And it's hardly to your benefit anyway to grant someone else badges.
Depends who gets them.
It might be funny to donate them to someone who doesn't want them, for example.
-
that username is how discourse tracks who posted the link to give them their badgers.
I don't see any badge for posting links other than the "First Link" badge. That makes the username useless for badgers once the "First Link" has been awarded. For many of us, that happened months ago. So the new TL0 or TL1, who probably doesn't even notice the URL has the username appended, gets the "First Link" badge, but it's worthless for any active poster.
Edit: I guess the Nice/Good/Great Share badges use that. Whatever. Still doesn't seem important to me.
-
Still doesn't seem important to me.
likewise, still they are badgers that can be gotten off of that username in the link.
-
Only the "Share" badges use that, not the "First Link" badge - that's for internal links. See also "First Share".
-
Oh, it's a chain? I always thought they were eyeglasses.
-
I right click the timestamp and copy that link.
Can we just give up and give everyone that posts in this topic a "maybe you whooshed but I'm not sure" badge? It wouldn't even require any moderator attention because (I hope) "did this user post in this topic" is a relatively straightforward query.
-
a "maybe you whooshed but I'm not sure" badge?
So now I have to put a quick word just to be sure I get that badge ...
-
-
Still doesn't seem important to me.
Just wait. You didn't think the movie game was important at first. Then it was. ;-)
-
FTFY
Don't forget the one you see from the side which joins the two obvious links.
Hung a pendant on this one. -b
-
Hung a pendant on this one. -b
I congratulate my esteemed competitor, @abarker, on tying the current TDWTF record for pendants received.However, I would also file a protest with judges in this matter. While I do not wish to dispute the awarding of this particular badge to my worthy opponent, it does show an appearance of bias on the part of the judges. When one competitor receives a badge for a single sentence that is not even dickweedy, but another has, on several occasions, written multiple paragraphs of detailed pedantry without receiving a badge, it appears that the criteria are, intentionally or otherwise, not being applied evenhandedly.
As long as I'm filing a protest, I would also like to draw to the attention of the judges the criteria to be used in the awarding of another badge. The description of the "Someone didn't get the joke" badge states:
Badge of shame when someone seriously Didn't Get The Joke™
(Emphasis added.) Several of these have been awarded recently in cases where it was disputed as to whether the person didn't get the joke, or even whether there was a joke to be gotten. In such cases, as in criminal law, the presence of reasonable doubt must result in acquittal. (This does not necessarily apply in the case of awarding pendant. "Someone didn't get the joke" is a "badge of shame," a penalty for doing something bad, while pendant badges are a reward for doing something well. The consequences of an error in the award are not the same; thus, the level of certainty in bestowing the badges need not be the same.)
In conclusion, I exhort my fellow citizens of TDWTF to do their duty to other citizens fairly. Flag for badgers evenhandedly and with due attention to criteria for the badger. The integrity of the TDWTF badgers is in your hands! Thank you.
What a dickweed. -b
-
In such cases, as in criminal law, the presence of reasonable doubt must result in acquittal.
hmm.... i like the way you think.
what do you charge for rules lawyering? cause i could use a proper councelor there. after all they do say "any vixen who represents herself in court has an idiot for a client" (paraphrased of course.)
-
but another has, on several occasions, written multiple paragraphs of detailed pedantry without receiving a badge, it appears that the criteria are, intentionally or otherwise, not being applied evenhandedly.
The axillary question there is whether said other person has received three flags for said posts. It is clearly described that three flags are required for a post to be considered as candidate for granting their author a badge.
It is not written these people must not be the author, and there have been cases in the past where flags from the author were included in the three flag requirement.
-
It is clearly described that three flags are required for a post to be considered as candidate for granting their author a badge.
it's also been the case when @boomzilla has handed out a pendantry badge (I would cite my source but disco searching fails to find it. if @boomzilla calls shoulder aliens on this please disregard this post.) where he disagreed with the flags but awarded the badge anyway
-
it's also been the case when @boomzilla has handed out a pendantry badge (I would cite my source but disco searching fails to find it. if @boomzilla calls shoulder aliens on this please disregard this post.) where he disagreed with the flags but awarded the badge anyway
Now that you mention it, I also recall such occasions.
-
Now that you mention it, I also recall such occasions.
well at least i'm not imagining it alone. does your disco searching find a citation?
-
Two things...
First, flagged for obvious pendantry.
Second, where the hell did fairness come into it, in this place?
-
thougth you'd appreciate that. ;-)
-
Several of these have been awarded recently in cases where it was disputed as to whether the person didn't get the joke, or even whether there was a joke to be gotten.
Or not, in the case of that post in Bad Ideas.
-
The not-daily daily limit strikes again.
-
The not-daily daily limit strikes again.
maybe you should slow down your flagging? ;-)
-
Haven't flagged anyone yet today.
-
Haven't flagged anyone yet today.
i guessed as much. still i have my buttons and you have yours. :-D
-
I would cite my source but disco searching fails to find it. if @boomzilla calls shoulder aliens on this please disregard this post.
Citing would be difficult here as that occurrence was in The Lounge.Nevermind. Thinking of another instance.
-
I congratulate my esteemed competitor, @abarker, on tying the current TDWTF record for pendants received.
Thank you. It is a hard fought, and sometimes bewildering, contest.
However, I would also file a protest with judges in this matter.
I'm not sure if bias is necessarily involved. It simply seems that an unspoken change of the awarding process has taken place. It used to be that the staff member awarding the badge had to agree with the assessment of those giving the flags. It seems that requirement has been silently stricken from the rule book. It now appears that the requirement is only that a post receive three flags to be badged. Though sometimes even that requirement can be overridden, as indicated by the awarding of a "Someone didn't get the joke" badge to a certain vixen a couple weeks ago in the lounge. In that incident, the badge was awarded before the third badge was received, as the staff member in question felt that the whoosh was so severe that the flag was all but guaranteed.
I'm not saying that I disagree with the idea of your protest, because I sort of do agree. I honestly did not expect that post to receive a pendant (but I'm not giving it up now that I have it!).
Several of these have been awarded recently in cases where it was disputed as to whether the person didn't get the joke, or even whether there was a joke to be gotten. In such cases, as in criminal law, the presence of reasonable doubt must result in acquittal. (This does not necessarily apply in the case of awarding pendant. "Someone didn't get the joke" is a "badge of shame," a penalty for doing something bad, while pendant badges are a reward for doing something well. The consequences of an error in the award are not the same; thus, the level of certainty in bestowing the badges need not be the same.)
I would add that there needs to be a clear appeals process, at least for the negative badgers. I find it somewhat funny that @accalia has so many, but I do think that some of her posts were awarded solely to increase the number of whooshers she has. And I don't know about her experience, but my attempts at an appeal one the one badge I want to appeal have resulted in absolutely no response.
-
awarding of a "Someone didn't get the joke" badge to a certain vixen a couple weeks ago in the lounge.
right. that incident.
awarded solely to increase the number of whooshers she has
probably only because i find it annoying to have that done to me....my attempts at an appeal one the one badge I want to appeal have resulted in absolutely no response.
ditto.
-
-
It now appears that the requirement is only that a post receive three flags to be badged.
I've seen a couple of whoosh posts get 4 flags and no badger.
In that incident, the badge was awarded before the third badge was received, as the staff member in question felt that the whoosh was so severe that the flag was all but guaranteed.
Wasn't the staff member in question implicitly the third flag?
-
Wasn't the staff member in question implicitly the third flag?
IIRC, he was one of the first two flags.
-
Ah, maybe I remembered wrong then.
-
It is also this totally appropriate (i.e. Discoursistent) approach to badgering that is the reason I gave up trying for such. Sad because out here in RL I am frequently known for being crazy pendantic but the standards here are nothing I can match up. All is good though, I just know to channel my energy into trying to be funny rather than arbitrarily pendantic and/or dickweedy. Doubleplus good all around.
-
what do you charge for rules lawyering?
Alas, if I were to do this, the preferred form of payment would seriously undermine my plea for fair and evenhanded badgery flagging.
-
there have been cases in the past where flags from the author were included in the three flag requirement.
While it is, as you say, within the rules of this forum to flag oneself for pedantry, and to have this counted as one of the three required flags, doing so would violate my own sense of ethics. I feel it would be immodest for me to flag myself, or to solicit others to flag on my behalf. I do not criticize others who feel differently, but I will not do so. Thus, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers in this regard, and will continue to do so in the future.
-
within the rules of this forum to flag oneself for pedantry, and to have this counted as one of the three required flags
IME three flags are not required if you intentionally flag yourself.
EDIT- That wasn't for pedantry, mind.
-
Alas, if I were to do this, the preferred form of payment would seriously undermine my plea for fair and evenhanded badgery flagging.
.... so that's a no you won't represent me at the trial?
-
That wasn't for pedantry, mind.
Yes, well, that was rather a different sort of situation.
-
you won't represent me at the trial?
I do not believe I am qualified to represent you. However, if the matter comes to trial — since, as you stated previously, your appeal has thus far met with stony silence, this is far from certain — I would be willing to consult with you. If I do so, it must be pro bono, or at least the circumstances must be such as to make it clear to all participants and observers that there is no collusion or quid pro quo of flags solicited or offered that would undermine my position with regard to the fairness of flagging.
-
You sound like a lawyer, therefore you probably are qualified to represent in whatever this place's equivalent of kangaroos are.
-
While it is, as you say, within the rules of this forum to flag oneself for pedantry, and to have this counted as one of the three required flags. doing so would violate my own sense of ethics. I feel it would be immodest for me to flag myself, or to solicit others to flag on my behalf. I do not criticize others who feel differently, but I will not do so. Thus, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers in this regard, and will continue to do so in the future.
Here here!
