Thoughts on new Format?



  • <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #efefef">So what are your thoughts on the new format of the site?</FONT>



  • I like it.

    However.

    The buttons for Reply and Quote totally wig out in FireFox 1.0.  They collapse and are unclickable.  After a few reloads and some cunning mousing I was able to post this reply by tricking the mouseover.




  • Cool. I use a forums engine instead of a pure weblog engine myself.

    Think you'll have alot more moderation duties ahead of you 😉



  • I have no problems at all in Firefox 1.0 with replying, everything looks normal to me, all buttons work fine.



  • I'm using Firefox 1.0 and it's working fine.



  • weird.  my Firefox 1.0 hates the reply button.  I have to click as I mouseover to get the mouseover to freeze so I can click the thing.



  • Can you please lose the .NET icon?  



  • I use Firefox 1.0 and everything works OK and yes, loose the .net icon and can we get back comments in the feed, PRETTY PLEASE.



  • reiterating a recent post of mine in another thread, i would like to suggest dating the title of each thread in the WFT forum. I miss being able to surf over and see today's post. Currently, with the new format, it is more appropriately called TheWTF.com. Just a thought, hopefully this makes sense to others, keep up the good work, drew..



  • Drew,

    I will add a new sorting option (Sort by Thread Date) in the interface ASAP. Currently, you can go to the main page (http://TheDailyWTF.com) to get this sorting or grab it from the feed (http://TheDailyWTF.com/rss.aspx) in this order. I do understand that the RSS feed is kinda screwy as well, I'm looking into that too.

    -- Alex



  • thanks Alex, and i just saw today's post on the original main page, thanks! While i love the forum format (and use it myself..) sometimes a bit of separation never hurts either, but in any event, again, nice work, drew..



  • Requiring registration is a bit of a pain, but understandable with the flood of blog-spam.

    I do like the new forum-style format, however.

    Keep up the good work. I'll see if I can find any WTF in my current code 🙂



  • Anonymous Posting -- Enabled

    @BradC said:

    Requiring registration is a bit of a pain, but understandable with the flood of blog-spam.


    I've setup Anonymous replies for the Main TDWTF Forum. It seems to have flipped off, but it's back on now ...



  • Glad to see you move up in the world!



  • Well, whatever was wrong before with the buttons, seems to have fixed itself. Yay!



  • Oops. Ignore the above post. It was supposed to be somewhere else, but I'm retarded.



  • @BradC said:

    Requiring registration is a bit of a pain, but understandable with the flood of blog-spam.

    I agree on the spam side of things, but frankly, if you look at these forums and others that allow anonymous posts, you tend to see a lot of the thoughtless and sometimes ignorant posts. At least with sign-in you have a bit of accountability. I have run a number of forums and registrations seem critical to maintain a certain level of control.

    But heck, whatever suits Ü.. perhaps that is some of the entertainment value, the crazy anon posts.. either way, keep up the excellent work, drew..



  • Looks pretty average in Lynx



  • Any chance we could lose the JavaScript HTML / rich text control
    thingy? I don't trust stuff which deliberately tries to look like
    anything as elephantine as Office.



    Seriously, for some reason the default text is coming up in FF as 12pt
    Times, even though it's 10pt Sans in the preview and actual post, and
    it uses <font> tags, and strips out any style="" s you put in the
    HTML, along with a bunch of other faults. What's wrong with a bit of
    BBcode or whatever? We're supposed to be coders, fer Eris' sake.



    I get the feeling that this has already been discussed, but hey, I needed to rant a bit.



  • @Scott C. Reynolds said:

    I like it.

    However.


    The buttons for Reply and Quote totally wig out in FireFox 1.0. 
    They collapse and are unclickable.  After a few reloads and some
    cunning mousing I was able to post this reply by tricking the mouseover.






    Putting aside for a moment the odd thoughts the phrase "cunning
    mousing" brings to my twisted mind, exactly what sort of cunning
    mousing was utilized??



    And, for the record, the buttons look/work fine in FF1.0 / Windows for
    me.   My only complaint is the microscopic text that
    sometimes happens when replying to things.  I haven't figured out
    the exact steps to reproduce it, though I suspect someone here
    has.  






  • It's Ok, but I get it through an RSS feed, and the site has some sort
    of problem where all the articles get downloaded multiple time, list
    they are resetting their date stamps or something.



    Quite annoying!



    Anyway, whatever is causing it, it's unique to the software your using
    because I get it on two feeds from this site, but not from any other
    site I get RSS feeds from.



    To reproduce:

    I use Thunderbird 1.0 which has a News & Blogs account type.

    Set it up, and add The Daily WTF.

    It might take a while for them to show up (it seems to be something of
    a Heisenbug), but eventually you will start getting the articles
    duplicated.


    • Brill


  • Just for the record...



    I see the collapsing buttons in Firefox sometimes; it's not consistent.



    I also get the duplicate posts in Feedreader.  I forgot what feed type I'm using (at work).



    Overall though, this is nice software.




  • OK, the button thing is getting ridiculous.  There's no good reason to animate the reply and quote buttons, esp. when it isn't done right.  In Firefox they usually compress into a little blob that is unclickable.  In IE, they shrink, and contain a red X (missing image).  [+o(]

    How about limiting javascript to useful things, instead of trying to exercise every feature? [8o|]



  • Here's an idea. Instead of having missing images on a page, why not have missing Javascript?

    This would solve more problems than you know...



  • @CPound said:

    Here's an idea. Instead of having missing images on a page, why not have missing Javascript?

    This would solve more problems than you know...



    Amen! [:P]



  • Any chance we could lose the JavaScript HTML / rich text control
    thingy? I don't trust stuff which deliberately tries to look like
    anything as elephantine as Office.

    Agreed,
    can I please have a standard textarea for entering my posts? Or at
    least a setting in user preferences setting so I can set HTML mode as
    the default?

    Also, the emoticons don't work in HTML mode, and I can't
    figure out what the ASCII equivalents are (if there are any, 🙂
    doesn't work) - so you might as well loose the emoticons bar in HTML
    mode.

    And why is there no real threading? It's really hard to
    figure out what people are replying to if they don't quote the parent
    message (which usually is a waste of space anyway).


    Two more things:

    Pressing preview and then edit messes up your HTML formatting.

    Why is there a "Do not allow replies to this post" if there isn't a threading view anyway?



  • @ethiksgradient said:

    The forum software is, frankly, a poor fit for the needs of geeky programmers posting about code they want to laugh at; a good Daily WTF would be <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fthedailywtf.com%2FShowPost.aspx%3FPostID%3D25789">this</a>.

    This is, essentially, an elitist site. That's cool, but if you're going to be elitist, then you're going to have to have forum software that doesn't steal icons from Windows XP, and that is rendered using standards-compliant HTML, and that actually does message threading properly.

    The software currently running is BETA 2. I am getting close to finishing work on FULL version. I'm doing some customization that will make this a better software for all of us.

    As far as the elitism, it really isn't. It's more of a learn through non-example. I've received a number of submissions from people who admit it's their own monstrostity. Heck, I've posted some of my *own* monstrostities. The key difference is that we're not laughing at the person ("look at what this idiot wrote") but more the work ("wow, who would have thought you could do that").

    On top of that, I do not post from Newsgroups or the like; only real, live code put together by some one paid to write code. (There are some exceptions of course, but that's the general attitude).



  • @Jeff_S said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    I have no problems at all in Firefox 1.0 with replying, everything looks normal to me, all buttons work fine.

    Looks like you can finally downgrade, @Lorne-Kates


  • SockDev

    @loopback0 said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    @Jeff_S said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    I have no problems at all in Firefox 1.0 with replying, everything looks normal to me, all buttons work fine.

    Looks like you can finally downgrade, @Lorne-Kates

    oh FFS fbmac.......

    🤦



  • @accalia This post is not deleted.

    Mega Necro™ happened long before fbmac made it uncool.


  • SockDev

    @loopback0 said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    @accalia This post is not deleted.

    Mega Necro™ happened long before fbmac made it uncool.

    @fbmac didn't make it uncool, he just did it enough for his username to become synonymous with it.

    Just like Lorne and his transhookers.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    8/10, good job



  • @apapadimoulis said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    The key difference is that we're not laughing at the person ("look at what this idiot wrote") but more the work ("wow, who would have thought you could do that").

    We're not? Sure could have fooled me. I guess the culture has changed a little in the last 12 years.



  • @HardwareGeek said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    @apapadimoulis said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    The key difference is that we're not laughing at the person ("look at what this idiot wrote") but more the work ("wow, who would have thought you could do that").

    We're not? Sure could have fooled me. I guess the culture has changed a little in the last 12 years.

    TBH I don't see the difference between them.

    "wow, who would have thought you could do that"

    An idiot, obviously.


  • :belt_onion:

    I find it amusing how all the non-default avatars from that era are headshots.

    Though it's more likely be we're just picking up people's current Gravitars. The @Scott_C_Reynolds one matches his GitHub account.


  • BINNED

    @apapadimoulis why did you necro a thread after 1 whole month?!!


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @Jeff_S said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    I have no problems at all in Firefox 1.0 with replying, everything looks normal to me, all buttons work fine.

    Fucking hell!


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @Greybeard said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    I find it amusing how all the non-default avatars from that era are headshots.

    Though it's more likely be we're just picking up people's current Gravitars. The @Scott_C_Reynolds one matches his GitHub account.

    They were imported from Discourse, which was imported from CS. I don't believe any magic gravatar stuff got back-applied to imported accounts...



  • @Tsaukpaetra said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    They were imported from Discourse, which was imported from CS.

    They were? I think I remember having to re-upload mine when we went to Discurse.


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @HardwareGeek said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    @Tsaukpaetra said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    They were imported from Discourse, which was imported from CS.

    They were? I think I remember having to re-upload mine when we went to Discurse.

    Dunno, before my time, but falsely remembered documentation of the "upgrade" process indicates an attempt was made.



  • 0_1484127094929_upload-b4ef0ccb-af7b-4a39-aee7-1c141975d5c3
    0_1484127106317_upload-df3c1f8e-d5ec-4168-a95e-9ff5e7eae081
    0_1484127117121_upload-f9142a0c-637d-43ae-88d8-944736023011
    0_1484127128629_upload-57220775-ad91-44a9-b5f6-da23aa569ce4
    0_1484127199001_upload-cbe0ebd2-3416-472d-8044-48f12ea223b2

    The wording of that feature was really well thought out, don't you think? 👏 👏 👏



  • @remi You missed

    0_1484127479408_years_from_now.png

    Was it changed recently? My brain tells me that it said something different until recently. Either way, I approve of this version. 🙂



  • @cvi Yeah but at least this one is vaguely accurate if weirdly worded (i.e. the post above was indeed 12 years ago).

    Well, closer to 14 years ago actually, but I think we're well past these kind of quibbles here... I seem to remember a few front-page articles about computing dates, could it be that 👶 tried to emulate some of those?



  • @remi I thought you were posting about the wired wording, and not about the time spans. My bad. 🤦

    But ... solve the problem by prefixing the 21 days with "about" or "approx." ? 😉



  • @cvi said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    @remi I thought you were posting about the wired wording, and not about the time spans. My bad. 🤦

    No, you were right. My initial reaction was about the wording. I was scanning the thread, saw that the first posts were very old, scrolled down until I saw a separator that said "xx days ago" and thought that everything below was very recent.

    The wrong computation is secondary to that, I don't really care whether it was 12 or 14 years ago (but the fact that it gets it wrong is a very nasty code smell...).

    But ... solve the problem by prefixing the 21 days with "about" or "approx." ? 😉

    That would help. But if you (well, figuratively "you", not "you" personally) want to go that route, do a proper rounding, i.e. "about 20 days ago" (or "later"), not 21. That's also my beef with the "12 years": I don't mind rounding to a few years (again, don't care about 12 vs. 14), but why round to 12??? "more than 10 years ago", "about 15 years ago", any variation on that would work. But 12 instead of 14? Come on...


  • SockDev

    Just replace all of these dates and time spans with "Before Now".

    Problem solved 🙂


  • :belt_onion:

    @remi said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    That's also my beef with the "12 years": I don't mind rounding to a few years (again, don't care about 12 vs. 14), but why round to 12??? "more than 10 years ago", "about 15 years ago", any variation on that would work. But 12 instead of 14? Come on...

    Or, you could do the sane, rational thing and drop all that BS completely and just stamp a post with the actual date and time, and forget all that nonsense about calculating how long its been.



  • @El_Heffe Well, the large banner in the middle of the post makes sense. Like I said, I started reading, noticed the first posts very antediluvian, and then scrolled quickly until I saw the banners, thinking that would bring me to the recent parts of the discussion. So it's not totally useless.

    The precision in those is stupid, yes. Something like 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years... would be enough to give an idea of the span. But if computing time spans and writing them in a non-nonsensical manner is too much to ask for, just scrap them, yes.


  • SockDev

    @remi said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    But 12 instead of 14? Come on...

    2017 - 2005 == 12



  • @RaceProUK said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    @remi said in Thoughts on new Format?:

    But 12 instead of 14? Come on...

    2017 - 2005 == 12

    Hem. Yeah. Something like that. Depending on the base. Or the calendar. Or whether I can count or not.

    Right, we've established that I'm stupid. Can we move on please?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.