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.
7726
Features / Re: Recycling board by default
« on April 8th, 2011, 10:12 AM »
That's pretty much where we're at.
Thing is, whatever we do, someone isn't going to like it, and we will have to accept that. Mind you, the bulk of the concern as far as the short and sweet interface is concerned is about getting the context of the posts, so what the short and sweet interface needs to do is present the full thread with the deleted posts in the right places.
Thing is, whatever we do, someone isn't going to like it, and we will have to accept that. Mind you, the bulk of the concern as far as the short and sweet interface is concerned is about getting the context of the posts, so what the short and sweet interface needs to do is present the full thread with the deleted posts in the right places.
7727
Off-topic / Re: If this is "The Pub"...
« on April 8th, 2011, 09:12 AM »Then you're OBVIOUSLY not an alcoholic :(
7728
Off-topic / YouTube using short links?
« on April 8th, 2011, 02:41 AM »
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=200401.msg3012232#msg3012232Quote Long version works here, short version does not. I don't particularly plan on documenting the fix publicly over there, but would be worth knowing that it needs to be fixed.
I'm using the old Auto Embed Video Clips...
YouTube seems to now be using shortened links to vids.. so links change
from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqXE9XWvMPM
to http://youtu.be/iqXE9XWvMPM
which in turn does not embed the video .. How can i update the code so that it embeds both the old and new format ??
7729
Off-topic / Re: Dr S.E. Optimisation, or How I Learned To Stop WP and love the Wedge
« on April 8th, 2011, 02:27 AM »
Going back on topic, I took a look at that plugin, and it's certainly given me food for thought.
Firstly, it does sort of piss on the notion that WordPress is SEO friendly out of the box like I've heard a number preach.
It claims to provide support in these areas:
* Post titles and meta descriptions
* Robots Meta configuration
* Canonical
* Breadcrumbs
* Permalink clean up
* XML Sitemaps
* RSS enhancements
* Edit your robots.txt and .htaccess
* Clean up head section
There is definite food for thought, let's examine one by one what they're claiming and what I think we should do for Wedge, if only to placate the 'OMG MUST HAZ SEO' crowd.
* Post titles and meta descriptions
There is, I'll grudgingly admit, some validity to passing something meaningful in the meta description - at least in our case. There isn't for the conventional forum because the conventional forum is user driven.
But a blog, oh that's where it all changes, because a blog isn't primarily user-driven in content submission. It's admin driven. Which means there's a decent chance that something like this might be useful to include.
More specifically, blog posts having some meta content that wouldn't normally be presented.
For forum posts, I'd be inclined to follow the sheep on this one and put the first post into the description of the thread, since that's no worse than the current status quo of using the thread title, and odds are it will improve matters marginally. (It will, at least, cut support queries)
* Robots meta configuration
SMF and Wedge pretty much get this right so far, but it does seem interesting to be able to have areas that are publicly accessible but controllably hidden. I would certainly be interested in adding the option WP has to 'hide' it from search engines without denying access.
* Canonical
Other than a possible bug with PHPSESSID, this is pretty much all set in the core anyway (and it's not down to us if a mod breaks it). Though the point with the calendar is well made, that we should ensure that's fixed as and when we expand the calendar.
* Breadcrumbs
I don't see any need to make the linktree accessible from an administrative POV; if people want to change how it operates, fine, but there's no need to change it out of the box otherwise.
* Permalink clean up
Hmm, that's interesting, forcing redirects back to original content. Not quite sure what to do with that one yet.
* XML Sitemaps
I've made it clear that I'm interested in adding both an XML and human readable sitemap.
* RSS enhancements
The ability to add content to the beginning or end of the RSS feed entries, like a link back to the post in question actually embedded in the content. That's not actually a bad idea.
* Edit your robots.txt or .htaccess
If we provide sane files in the first place, there's not really any great need to have them be 'readily editable', anyone messing with them should know what they're doing.
* Clean up the head section
WP's head is full of crap, like the XMLRPC interface URIs and some inline CSS. Most of our header is much more interesting and useful - everything is worth keeping IMO, and our default head is shorter than WP's ;)
Firstly, it does sort of piss on the notion that WordPress is SEO friendly out of the box like I've heard a number preach.
It claims to provide support in these areas:
* Post titles and meta descriptions
* Robots Meta configuration
* Canonical
* Breadcrumbs
* Permalink clean up
* XML Sitemaps
* RSS enhancements
* Edit your robots.txt and .htaccess
* Clean up head section
There is definite food for thought, let's examine one by one what they're claiming and what I think we should do for Wedge, if only to placate the 'OMG MUST HAZ SEO' crowd.
* Post titles and meta descriptions
There is, I'll grudgingly admit, some validity to passing something meaningful in the meta description - at least in our case. There isn't for the conventional forum because the conventional forum is user driven.
But a blog, oh that's where it all changes, because a blog isn't primarily user-driven in content submission. It's admin driven. Which means there's a decent chance that something like this might be useful to include.
More specifically, blog posts having some meta content that wouldn't normally be presented.
For forum posts, I'd be inclined to follow the sheep on this one and put the first post into the description of the thread, since that's no worse than the current status quo of using the thread title, and odds are it will improve matters marginally. (It will, at least, cut support queries)
* Robots meta configuration
SMF and Wedge pretty much get this right so far, but it does seem interesting to be able to have areas that are publicly accessible but controllably hidden. I would certainly be interested in adding the option WP has to 'hide' it from search engines without denying access.
* Canonical
Other than a possible bug with PHPSESSID, this is pretty much all set in the core anyway (and it's not down to us if a mod breaks it). Though the point with the calendar is well made, that we should ensure that's fixed as and when we expand the calendar.
* Breadcrumbs
I don't see any need to make the linktree accessible from an administrative POV; if people want to change how it operates, fine, but there's no need to change it out of the box otherwise.
* Permalink clean up
Hmm, that's interesting, forcing redirects back to original content. Not quite sure what to do with that one yet.
* XML Sitemaps
I've made it clear that I'm interested in adding both an XML and human readable sitemap.
* RSS enhancements
The ability to add content to the beginning or end of the RSS feed entries, like a link back to the post in question actually embedded in the content. That's not actually a bad idea.
* Edit your robots.txt or .htaccess
If we provide sane files in the first place, there's not really any great need to have them be 'readily editable', anyone messing with them should know what they're doing.
* Clean up the head section
WP's head is full of crap, like the XMLRPC interface URIs and some inline CSS. Most of our header is much more interesting and useful - everything is worth keeping IMO, and our default head is shorter than WP's ;)
7730
Off-topic / Re: Texasmans Programming Blog
« on April 8th, 2011, 01:42 AM »I agree, unless you cheat with json_encode and decode or serialisation, which works.
7731
Off-topic / Re: If this is "The Pub"...
« on April 8th, 2011, 01:42 AM »What? This is a pub for christ sake!
Mind you, I spent a lot of time eating at the buffet and talking to people I hadn't ever seen before or hadn't seen in over a decade that had all descended and were also partaking of the buffet that I'd helped pay for.
Wakes are such odd things.
7732
Off-topic / Re: Texasmans Programming Blog
« on April 8th, 2011, 01:37 AM »
What's wrong with a 1985 Honda-made car?
7733
Off-topic / Re: If this is "The Pub"...
« on April 8th, 2011, 01:30 AM »
The only thing up right now is my core temperature after imbibing a cup of my specially brewed "builder's strength" tea, strong enough it can practically hold the spoon up by itself.
7734
Off-topic / Re: Texasmans Programming Blog
« on April 8th, 2011, 01:29 AM »You forgot to place a wildcard ($) before logic
7735
Features / Re: Recycling board by default
« on April 8th, 2011, 01:14 AM »Yes, I meant a tab IN the topic (not in the header menu or in the moderation center), and if there are no deleted posts in that topic it's not displayed. :)
7736
Off-topic / Re: Texasmans Programming Blog
« on April 8th, 2011, 01:13 AM »yes it is essentially similar to skype, except for i didn't mention anything about streaming audio. lol
just tossing a few text strings around is really pretty easy, but in a chat prog, or something similar, normally you still have to have some type of server.
what i would use is sort of a variation of the udp protocol
and it is simple enough to establish a pseudo system of public and private keys to keep it pretty well buttoned up.
but i know it is more than doable without the need of there being a "server" running on the web host.
I won't be abandoning the shoutbox I wrote yet, oh wait, I won't be abandoning it at all, it works just great for the site I wrote it for, which is often what people actually want: the ability to have a chat localised to the members/regulars of a given community rather than being able to chat to anyone and everyone.
You want to see what a centralised chat with variable clients looks like... it's called IRC, been around for years. Failing that, it's called AIM, Y!M, MSN/Live Messenger, or if you're going more exotic, Jabber, which overall basically fulfils your criteria. Good luck implementing though, especially if you're planning on making it available over HTTP because it's just not designed for that, and using UDP/TCP brings a whole new level of technical fun with it.
I'd be more positive, except that I see nothing new here, nothing worth learning multiple new languages and development environments for and nothing to give myself stress headaches over when the support issues come in. For a single site it might be feasible to create such, but for creating tools that others can use to deploy such, they already exist.
7737
Features / Re: Recycling board by default
« on April 8th, 2011, 01:03 AM »
...which is almost exactly what is now being suggested.
7738
Features / Re: Recycling board by default
« on April 7th, 2011, 10:44 PM »
Well, if we leave the deleted stuff in place, excluding them in normal posts, and make them available through the mod centre... And create a virtual board for it like we do in SD, it's covered.
And technically Wedge could do that, because all it requires is an expansion in Subs-BoardIndex to expand the array.
And technically Wedge could do that, because all it requires is an expansion in Subs-BoardIndex to expand the array.
7739
Features / Re: How about PMs being listed in Core Features?
« on April 7th, 2011, 08:46 PM »
I guess we could totally rewrite it ;) But to be honest it isn't something I really miss, and in any case it's mostly a tweak for Aeva now ;)
7740
Features / Re: Recycling board by default
« on April 7th, 2011, 07:59 PM »
That's exactly what SD does, it injects a fake board (and category if needed) with fake id and links back to the help desk instead of to a "board". No board is consumed, no board=x in the URL.
As far as giving me ideas, it makes me think about being able to indicate a type of board to the template.
As far as giving me ideas, it makes me think about being able to indicate a type of board to the template.