Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Arantor
2851
The Pub / Re: Controversial idea: post moderation on by default
« on September 6th, 2012, 02:51 AM »
OK, there's something I want to add, is why I have a problem with unapprove.
It all stems from the question 'what does unapprove give us?' - the very short answer is nothing that rethinking the recycle bin also wouldn't give us.
Let me explain.
First up, why does the moderation filters stuff expressly dictate post moderation being enabled? Simple: if you have no rules, presumably you never enabled it. No point penalising people for the performance penalty when it isn't necessary. If you add a rule, you're pretty likely (likelier than anything else, to be fair) to put in a moderate rule, so it made sense to me that if you're not in a position where posts can be put on moderation status (because there's no rules), there's also no need to bog everyone down, but if you do add a rule, that implies you expect some posts to get moderated.
The point is to do that mostly without the user having to be too worried about it.
This brings me back to the larger question: under what circumstances would you use unapprove? What facility does it give you?
Well, it gives you the ability to hide a post from everyone else in the thread, and only the moderators can see it (and the author, but that's really a side point, not a major one). What, then, is the difference between an unapproved post and one in the recycle bin? Answer: purely aesthetic ones - you're shown the posts in their original context, and you're shown them in a different interface to the recycle bin. But the result for the bulk of users is that the post is gone.
The only places I've seen unapprove used successfully are *all* to mimic deletions but keep the content inline, i.e. a posher version of the recycle bin.
So, how about we actually drop the screwing about, and more importantly, stop the conflation. We're not talking about a simple show/hide flag. We're talking about message status: visible, moderated, deleted.
Visible posts are normal posts, moderated posts are pending moderation and may be deleted or may be made visible, deleted posts are - well - deleted.
We don't need unapprove then, because the task of unapprove is no longer required - if we don't want a message to be publicly visible, soft-delete it instead. (And always soft delete as standard, never directly perma-delete), the result for the end user is the same, the result for moderators is different, we don't lose any semantic value to anything and we get a better interface out of it. Moderators or people of suitable permission will of course be able to view the actual message should they wish to do so.
But wait, there's more. We get to drop the recycle bin board (something that has been desired for a long time, meaning we don't consume board id 2 arbitrarily), we get to avoid bleeding thread ids with the current moves to a new board, we get to simplify some of the admin UI and logic (anywhere we manually exclude the recycle board for example)
I've had alcohol so I'm aware that my thoughts may not be in the best order, but I think I'm making sense and explaining everything at hand?
It all stems from the question 'what does unapprove give us?' - the very short answer is nothing that rethinking the recycle bin also wouldn't give us.
Let me explain.
First up, why does the moderation filters stuff expressly dictate post moderation being enabled? Simple: if you have no rules, presumably you never enabled it. No point penalising people for the performance penalty when it isn't necessary. If you add a rule, you're pretty likely (likelier than anything else, to be fair) to put in a moderate rule, so it made sense to me that if you're not in a position where posts can be put on moderation status (because there's no rules), there's also no need to bog everyone down, but if you do add a rule, that implies you expect some posts to get moderated.
The point is to do that mostly without the user having to be too worried about it.
This brings me back to the larger question: under what circumstances would you use unapprove? What facility does it give you?
Well, it gives you the ability to hide a post from everyone else in the thread, and only the moderators can see it (and the author, but that's really a side point, not a major one). What, then, is the difference between an unapproved post and one in the recycle bin? Answer: purely aesthetic ones - you're shown the posts in their original context, and you're shown them in a different interface to the recycle bin. But the result for the bulk of users is that the post is gone.
The only places I've seen unapprove used successfully are *all* to mimic deletions but keep the content inline, i.e. a posher version of the recycle bin.
So, how about we actually drop the screwing about, and more importantly, stop the conflation. We're not talking about a simple show/hide flag. We're talking about message status: visible, moderated, deleted.
Visible posts are normal posts, moderated posts are pending moderation and may be deleted or may be made visible, deleted posts are - well - deleted.
We don't need unapprove then, because the task of unapprove is no longer required - if we don't want a message to be publicly visible, soft-delete it instead. (And always soft delete as standard, never directly perma-delete), the result for the end user is the same, the result for moderators is different, we don't lose any semantic value to anything and we get a better interface out of it. Moderators or people of suitable permission will of course be able to view the actual message should they wish to do so.
But wait, there's more. We get to drop the recycle bin board (something that has been desired for a long time, meaning we don't consume board id 2 arbitrarily), we get to avoid bleeding thread ids with the current moves to a new board, we get to simplify some of the admin UI and logic (anywhere we manually exclude the recycle board for example)
I've had alcohol so I'm aware that my thoughts may not be in the best order, but I think I'm making sense and explaining everything at hand?
2852
The Pub / Re: Controversial idea: post moderation on by default
« on September 5th, 2012, 09:06 PM »
Pandos, there is no need for any regex or such behaviour. The moderation filters setup is designed to allow admins to construct behaviour around moderating or preventing a post against all sorts of criteria. You can moderate a post if it contains too many links, or deny it, or even limit it by member group or post count or all kinds of things.
Heck, you could construct a bizarre rule that only applies to specific members, posting in a specific board, when a post contains 3+ links and the word "buttmonkey" if you wanted. Each of these rules is optional and configurable.
Nao, I'm OK with renaming the column, I'm not OK with the idea of randomly hiding a post that was visible before. The idea of the filters system is to try and automate content being reviewed by a moderator before being public, not hiding it again after. If you want to hide it, delete it, don't "unapprove" it, they're semantically and practically different.
Yes, a rule that works on the first post only would work exactly as expected, until their first post is approved they have no post count. Trouble is, the spammers are getting better at posting nonsense until they get able to post links. Thus I suggested the rule be moderating any post that contains a link until they reach a post count of 10, odds are that will catch them and in most cases not adversely affect any real uses.
Heck, you could construct a bizarre rule that only applies to specific members, posting in a specific board, when a post contains 3+ links and the word "buttmonkey" if you wanted. Each of these rules is optional and configurable.
Nao, I'm OK with renaming the column, I'm not OK with the idea of randomly hiding a post that was visible before. The idea of the filters system is to try and automate content being reviewed by a moderator before being public, not hiding it again after. If you want to hide it, delete it, don't "unapprove" it, they're semantically and practically different.
Yes, a rule that works on the first post only would work exactly as expected, until their first post is approved they have no post count. Trouble is, the spammers are getting better at posting nonsense until they get able to post links. Thus I suggested the rule be moderating any post that contains a link until they reach a post count of 10, odds are that will catch them and in most cases not adversely affect any real uses.
2853
The Pub / Re: Controversial idea: post moderation on by default
« on September 5th, 2012, 12:56 PM »
Firstly, how you're thinking is not how it works. Let's rewrite that logic in how the system actually works.
"Moderate the post if it contains a link, and if the user has less than 10 posts."
The system has never been designed to flag users the way you have in mind, having users be flagged as being moderated, and I'm increasingly not a fan of unapproved as a concept.
Since the same rule relies on post count, and that moderated posts do not bump post count, this would work exactly as expected.
As for your point, that's one of the downsides to the moderation filters system is that there isn't a good way to display text to the user about whether their post will be moderated (or blocked) especially if one of the rules is something like "moderate if the post contains 'fuck'" (the other is having to reparse the moderation rules potentially every thread since even quick reply would need that too, and that's a big deal)
"Moderate the post if it contains a link, and if the user has less than 10 posts."
The system has never been designed to flag users the way you have in mind, having users be flagged as being moderated, and I'm increasingly not a fan of unapproved as a concept.
Since the same rule relies on post count, and that moderated posts do not bump post count, this would work exactly as expected.
As for your point, that's one of the downsides to the moderation filters system is that there isn't a good way to display text to the user about whether their post will be moderated (or blocked) especially if one of the rules is something like "moderate if the post contains 'fuck'" (the other is having to reparse the moderation rules potentially every thread since even quick reply would need that too, and that's a big deal)
2854
The Pub / Re: Controversial idea: post moderation on by default
« on September 4th, 2012, 11:52 PM »
Why did it cause confusion, exactly?
Is it really an obstacle course to say 'the first couple of posts will be reviewed by a moderator'? Or, even, just moderate the post if the first couple of posts contain a link? How often does the average *legitimate* user sign up and make a post with links in? Doubly so if there's a message just above the post to say that it is awaiting approval by a moderator...
I don't see this being a barrier, and generally people that are stopped by *that* barrier just aren't going to be good forum members. You can extend things too far for them.
Is it really an obstacle course to say 'the first couple of posts will be reviewed by a moderator'? Or, even, just moderate the post if the first couple of posts contain a link? How often does the average *legitimate* user sign up and make a post with links in? Doubly so if there's a message just above the post to say that it is awaiting approval by a moderator...
I don't see this being a barrier, and generally people that are stopped by *that* barrier just aren't going to be good forum members. You can extend things too far for them.
2855
The Pub / Re: Getting ready for an alpha release: CSS fixes
« on September 4th, 2012, 10:17 PM »
And without wishing to be arrogant or modest, or whatever perspective you might want to draw from it, if *I* don't understand the consequences of these, I doubt anyone else will either... That's one of the downsides to something this complicated.
2856
The Pub / Controversial idea: post moderation on by default
« on September 4th, 2012, 09:24 PM »
I wondered, would it be worth shipping with a moderation rule in by default where people with less than 5 posts (who aren't moderators) are automatically post moderated?
I suspect it would encourage people to understand how the system works by having a working example in there by default?
For those coming from SMF: I totally gutted the post moderation system to be rules-based. For example:
* someone tries to make a new post
* moderate the post if:
1) they have less than 5 posts
2) they are not an Administrator, Global Moderator or Board Moderator
There are other permutations, for example you can push it to moderation if there's x number of links posted, or the user is in other groups or has a given warning level or the post contains certain words. It doesn't really matter exactly what, at this stage, just wondering if it should ship with a default rule set up.
I suspect it would encourage people to understand how the system works by having a working example in there by default?
For those coming from SMF: I totally gutted the post moderation system to be rules-based. For example:
* someone tries to make a new post
* moderate the post if:
1) they have less than 5 posts
2) they are not an Administrator, Global Moderator or Board Moderator
There are other permutations, for example you can push it to moderation if there's x number of links posted, or the user is in other groups or has a given warning level or the post contains certain words. It doesn't really matter exactly what, at this stage, just wondering if it should ship with a default rule set up.
2857
Features / Re: New revs
« on September 4th, 2012, 08:59 PM »
(7 files, 5KB)
Revision: 1682
Author: arantor
Date: 04 September 2012 19:58:45
Message:
! No need to check for the old installed-packages list being writable in the installer. (install.php)
! Can't have a default of -1 for an unsigned column, making it signed for the time being until we can establish whether -1 is a valid value for that column anyway. (install.sql)
! Allow custom fields to be displayed on the member list. Only one extra query, too. (ManageMemberOptions.php, Memberlist.php, Memberlist.template.php, Admin.template.php, ManageSettings language file)
----
Modified : /trunk/Sources/ManageMemberOptions.php
Modified : /trunk/Sources/Memberlist.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/Admin.template.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/Memberlist.template.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/languages/ManageSettings.english.php
Modified : /trunk/other/install.php
Modified : /trunk/other/install.sql
Revision: 1682
Author: arantor
Date: 04 September 2012 19:58:45
Message:
! No need to check for the old installed-packages list being writable in the installer. (install.php)
! Can't have a default of -1 for an unsigned column, making it signed for the time being until we can establish whether -1 is a valid value for that column anyway. (install.sql)
! Allow custom fields to be displayed on the member list. Only one extra query, too. (ManageMemberOptions.php, Memberlist.php, Memberlist.template.php, Admin.template.php, ManageSettings language file)
----
Modified : /trunk/Sources/ManageMemberOptions.php
Modified : /trunk/Sources/Memberlist.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/Admin.template.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/Memberlist.template.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/languages/ManageSettings.english.php
Modified : /trunk/other/install.php
Modified : /trunk/other/install.sql
2858
The Pub / Re: Getting ready for an alpha release: CSS fixes
« on September 4th, 2012, 07:14 PM »
I think a lot of it is that I don't really think we can fully understand the consequences for the changes, that's one of the problems. I have no idea of what the consequences will be for any of the choices.
(Edit: I got the new reply warning)
(Edit: I got the new reply warning)
2859
The Pub / Re: Print Page
« on September 4th, 2012, 07:12 PM »
Bah, how did I miss this one?Quote 2.0 made it nofollow by default, 1.1 did not. And it does still get indexed, because even though it's marked nofollow, Google et al *still follows* them for links, even if they don't make it into the index itself.Quote Quote Yes, it should be done like in Display.php and yes, making it a callback would fix the issues - though it would also require more than a few minutes work in rewriting it.Quote That's why there's the question on install ;)Quote Having given it a couple of weeks' thought, I still think it shouldn't be core.Quote And yet, I've seen such warnings...?
I've never seen a wedge.org print page being indexed, though. Heck, I don't remember a single SMF print page being indexed, at all... It's always the wireless content crap that gets the treatment. (And that's no longer an issue in Wedge, eh eh.)
Hmm...
Well, so it should be done like in Display.php right..? Callback and everything...
And would that be fixed with a callback?
Well... That's interesting.
I'm not sure I remember -- does PHP still gzip the page if enabled in Wedge, even if Apache can handle it? If yes, then maybe we should first add a test to see if Apache handles gzipping of HTML pages, and then disable PHP gzipping internally..?
It can still be core but made to be enabled or disabled...
PS: and once again, I didn't get any warnings for spoogs' post above mine, which was sent after I started my reply... My 'last' variable was set to 281415, so I should have gotten a warning, no..?
2860
Off-topic / Re: Doctor Who
« on September 3rd, 2012, 01:38 AM »but which leaves a rather lasting impression after it's finished.
Moffat really is a genius writer...
Well, it absolutely rocked. Moffat's first Dalek-centric episode was a real blast.
I wasn't too happy with most of his season 6 episodes (I mostly liked the fun parts in 'Let's kill Hitler!' and the last part of the final episode
I think that he was too busy writing the very best Sherlock episode ever (The Woman!), so I'm fine with it
Looks like he's back to Who with a bang.
The meeting between that girl and the Doctor was a pure moment of emotion, not only because of how it was written, but also because of how it was shot.
I think I already saw a similar scene in another show, years ago, but that one, I can't put my finger on it. Doesn't matter, the overall episode was just flawless. :)
2862
Off-topic / Re: Doctor Who
« on September 2nd, 2012, 03:07 AM »Technically, the Doctor has already been to the beginning of Time, back to Event One, long time ago.
The Daleks are such a part of Doctor Who history that they won't ever be killed off. They're too much part of the fabric, even if they're not scary any more. Same with the Cybermen, really.
FWIW, my take on it is that he's going to go back to the point before Oswin dies, and takes her away. The crash of the Alaska does not appear to be a fixed point in time, meaning that he can take her away, the chain of events that happened thus far falls apart - the most significant consequence of which is that the Daleks never forget their Predator. Though the 'Doctor Who?' joke was cleverly done.
We discovered the Angels in season 3, their use in season 5 wasn't nearly as scary as it was in season 3.
The comment made about Daleks being made by removing love and adding hate is interesting: if you watch Pond Life and then this episode, it is extremely interesting that Amy was already losing her love and getting angrier *before* going to the Alaska, before theoretically starting to be converted. Season arc, anyone?
2863
The Pub / Re: Getting ready for an alpha release: CSS fixes
« on September 1st, 2012, 11:18 PM »
b and HTML for me.
2864
Off-topic / Re: Doctor Who
« on September 1st, 2012, 09:14 PM »
Asylum of the Daleks. Wow.
Also, note that it makes more sense if 1) you remember everything that happened in season 6 and 2) watched the 5 part show that's been going on this week called Pond Life.
Also, note that it makes more sense if 1) you remember everything that happened in season 6 and 2) watched the 5 part show that's been going on this week called Pond Life.
2865
The Pub / Re: Getting ready for an alpha release: CSS fixes
« on August 31st, 2012, 11:28 PM »
I read it, I just don't really understand what the consequences of these things are in practice.
What I can say is that:
1. No matter how pretty it is, if it's visibly sluggish on an i7 box, let it go.
2. How much of a *practical issue* is the inability to use extends on a media query? What would you actually want to do that it would prevent you from doing?
3. I'm not sure it's worth the effort. The only thing that strikes me as relevant is the fact that some people like the style of linktree like XenForo uses, where you have a container and capsules with > ends that are highlighted on hover. Can this be done in the current setup just in CSS? Would it require a change in markup? Would the changes in markup that might be required also make this possible?
(also: I got the new replies warning)Quote from Jntg4 on August 31st, 2012, 11:22 PM Yes, 2 years is a lot of progress towards an alpha.
What I can say is that:
1. No matter how pretty it is, if it's visibly sluggish on an i7 box, let it go.
2. How much of a *practical issue* is the inability to use extends on a media query? What would you actually want to do that it would prevent you from doing?
3. I'm not sure it's worth the effort. The only thing that strikes me as relevant is the fact that some people like the style of linktree like XenForo uses, where you have a container and capsules with > ends that are highlighted on hover. Can this be done in the current setup just in CSS? Would it require a change in markup? Would the changes in markup that might be required also make this possible?
(also: I got the new replies warning)
It was lengthy, but glad to see a lot of progress towards an alpha!