my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » New forum changes (Page 5)

This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  12  13  14

Author Topic: New forum changes Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 11-19-2002 09:46 PM                        quote: Would it be possible somehow to be able to edit Topic titles? This is now possible. The topic starter has the ability to edit the topic title.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-19-2002 09:49 PM                     www.foo.com Foo! Nothing else has to be done. Just type it in. If you want to use the ubb code URL tags, you can.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 11-19-2002 10:14 PM                        quote: Perhaps the old UBB did this and I don't remember, but is there a convenient way now of entering a web site name without it turning into a link? I think John is looking for a convenient way to make it inconvenient for everybody else. If you put the address in bold or italics it won't auto-hyperlink. www.foo.com http://www.foo.com www.foo.com http://www.foo.com  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 11-19-2002 10:33 PM                     John may have been talking about the hack that turned all of the hyperlink text to say "here". Even going back and editing the text post-posting, it reverted back to a link that just said "here". It made for some odd-looking posts.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-19-2002 10:55 PM                     Daryl hits it on the money. When posting refererences to, say, access-controlled web sites, it seems inappropriate to post them as links. Yes, using visible markup makes them go away, I was hoping for a way to avoid such visible markup. But it does seem that quotation marks also work, which is maybe sufficient. Adam, I think you were supposed to not mention that. Brad wanted that as a "feature" and it disappeared with the new version, but now you've reminded him, so we're perhaps doomed to its return? What a shame, too, because it really is a cumbersome thing to work in the word "here" and still provide the same useful information. Maybe people will stop abusing the linking feature in the way Brad disliked... Of course, we're doomed to forum abuse. Look, there's another case of "Matthew Bailey's edit button mysteriously doesn't work." --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 11-19-2002 11:06 PM                     Oh, I get it now. Sites like the NY Times, where I have to provide them with my email address in order to read the article.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-19-2002 11:12 PM                     Yeah, maybe. Though the specific example was in More Sony Shorts where I didn't want to give a link to the Sony exhibitor web site since most people browsing the forum won't have or be eligable for an account, and the URL was no more complicated than simply the domain name. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 11-19-2002 11:37 PM                        We're fully aware that the 'here feature' is not currently implemented. Hopefully, now that the javascript URL instant code makes it so easy, people will not post stupidly-long url's that don't display a shortened name. But don't fear, I'm currently working on an even better feature that will sign 'long link offenders' up to all the spam sending sites I can find.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-20-2002 06:43 AM                     Don't forget porn sites too Daryl! Offenders need more porn.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 11-20-2002 07:04 AM                        Note to members: To update the "New Post" indicators click the Film-Tech Forums logo on the page that lists all the different forums (first page you see after clicking agree).  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 11-20-2002 11:37 AM                     I think we've brought this one up before: How about "sticky" threads? "Who the HECK are you?" comes to mind.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-20-2002 09:14 PM                     Thanks for getting the "email when there's a new post" working. Presumably you're aware that the text is "A user has replied to a topic you created," regardless of whether the topic was actually created by you? --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 11-20-2002 09:49 PM                        John, could you let me know what thread it was that you got the email notification for. Thanks. Adam, Sticky Topics is on the list of things to do when I get some free time. Maybe next summer.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 11-21-2002 01:49 PM                        One trivial request - any chance that the 'include your profile signature' option could be set to off by default, as it was in the last version? I don't think a signature file is needed routinely - if anyone wants some background on a poster, [s]he can always press the 'who?' button. If I were posting a potentially contentious opinion in a professional context (e.g. '[insert name of product here] is brilliant/crap') then I would want a signature file on the bottom to state who I am and why I am qualified to say this. But in 99 posts out of 100 (especially in 'film yak' posts, which are not about work at all), they just generate extra text to wade through, IMHO.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-22-2002 06:55 AM                     If you don't have a signature (like myself), you don't need to uncheck the box. No harm done either way.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  12  13  14

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.