Messing up page formatting for others

[Flash]

Sorry if I messed up some of your examples, Bruce.

The forum software seems a bit quirky as regards URLs. If it sees a character in a URL it doesn't think ought to be in a URL, it sometimes displays that whole post as blank. Sometimes it will wrap a long URL (I think) and sometimes not. The example Bruce gave contained a block of Quoted text which for some reason the forum software won't wrap. I don't know why.

One way I've found to use a long URL is to make a word a hot link, as I did in the paragraph above. To see how I did it, click the "Quote" button in this post. You can use that trick to post really long URLs without making your post so wide that other people have to use a horizontal scroll bar. Tres chic.

I must be one of the few forum members who admires his own work so much that he has to look at it after he posts. Otherwise I don't see how so many double-wide posts show up in the forum. I fix 'em when I see 'em, unless I think I might screw something up, such as code.

[dejan555]

The example Bruce gave contained a block of Quoted text which for some reason the forum software won't wrap. I don't know why.

If you use line breaks when writing description in attachments it should wrap.
Also, phpbb forum version on this forum is ancient, could it be updated?

[Bruce B]

:shock:
I obviously have not had enough coffee yet for this conversation.

It is 6:20 AM for me, that puts you at 9:20 AM

Goodness it's Saturday.

I heard the humidity is so bad in Florida this time of year - you can't take a deep breath without drowning.

~

[shariebeth]

@Flash: Yeah I've noticed the quirky things you've mentioned and I generally tend to review my post too, to make sure quotes are correct and various other potential mistakes.

But Bruce B is indicating that some of these problems are intentionally done and all I am trying to figure out is how, so as to make sure I (and others) are aware that these "tricks" mess up the whole thread. I can't believe that all of them are intentionally trying to mess up the thread, even while intentionally using these "tricks", whatever they are.

[Flash]

Well, I don't think I've ever seen one such that I thought was done intentionally. Certainly Iguleder didn't do that to annoy.

[Bruce B]

Well, I don't think I've ever seen one such that I thought was done intentionally. Certainly Iguleder didn't do that to annoy. :)

I have very intentionally not made horizontal scroll bars. This means that sometimes I've made them, saw the results and fixed the posts.

Iguleder was simply the first example I could find.

Of course they don't intentionally do it. (Even though I think I implied such). That would be along the lines of vandalism and trolling.

One cannot on the other hand, argue that posters who make the horizontal scroll bars exercise any intention to fix their posts or prevent the horizontal scroll bars.

~

[Bruce B]

But Bruce B is indicating that some of these problems are intentionally done and all I am trying to figure out is how, so as to make sure I (and others) are aware that these "tricks" mess up the whole thread. I can't believe that all of them are intentionally trying to mess up the thread, even while intentionally using these "tricks", whatever they are.

Maybe Bruce wants to light your fire. You think I don't know what gets you up and perking.

Sherie Beth - I'm going to change the title again. Controversial titles get attention.

~

[shariebeth]

This means that sometimes I've made them, saw the results and fixed the posts.

What did you do that created it?

One cannot on the other hand, argue that posters who make the horizontal scroll bars exercise any intention to fix their posts or prevent the horizontal scroll bars.

Maybe they would if they knew what the heck they had done to create it in the first place.

*hums Twilight Zone music*

The title of the thread has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't look any different to me.

[rjbrewer]

It is not a rule dejan555 in the context of something posters should obey.

It is a software configuration. If the attachment is > 600 px it doesn't
display the image. It adds it as an attachment which the reader will have
to click on to see it.

< 601 px the image will display

Not making sense.

I make my attachments 600px and they do display without clicking.

edit:
Need more coffee; > = greater than.

[Bruce B]

What did you do that created it?

Pictures and posting with the code tag mostly.

I preview the posts before sending. But the preview is different than the actual post.

Then if the post is bad, I fix it.

~

[Bruce B]

I make my attachments 600px and they do display without clicking.

If you can give a URL I'll look into it and get back

~

[Bruce B]

Sharie,

It depends on specifics, actually specific posters. If I started putting long horizontal scroll bars, none could say I don't know what I'm doing.

If we find developers are attaching their software and writing excessively long description tags, then why?

A software developer doesn't have the skill or know how to make a forum post without ruining the formatting of all posts on the page?

Do you want to argue that with me?

Bruce

~

[shariebeth]

That's not what I'm talking about though ("arguing").

You inadvertently gave an answer to what I was asking, when you talked about using code tags.
One expects code tags to work a certain way but they don't always work the same in different forums.

For example, in another forum I frequent, the code tag doesn't make a vertical scrollbar (which you would think is a logical result). Instead it makes an annoying horizontal scrollbar which as we see here, is annoying at best and the post is 10 miles long.

That said, yet another forum I frequent, DOES make the vertical scrollbar and keeps the post itself short and only whatever is placed within the tags scrolls. Meanwhile the post width is forced at a constant, with the text wrapping as it should.

That is the sort of answer I am looking for. What makes these annoying scrollbars? Only the code tags or other tag options as well?

[rjbrewer]

I make my attachments 600px and they do display without clicking.

If you can give a URL I'll look into it and get back

~

I may be wrong , but it's my understanding that a jpeg image
attachment up to 600px in width doesn't need to be clicked.

Not sure about png.

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 486#504486

[Bruce B]

Sharie Beth,

How about we get some bear hunting licenses and bag some bears?

If we bag only one bear, I'll take the head and mount it on the wall, you can have the fur for a rug. Unless of course you want the head. While you are deciding about the bears, I'll fill you in on technical issues.

~~~

Things that cause it on this forum software

» a long line or url in the post with no spaces

» a long description for a file upload

» using the [img] tag and posting an over sized image

» messing up with the code tag and posting long code

» an over width image in the signature

I think that's about it?

Bruce

~

[Bruce B]

I make my attachments 600px and they do display without clicking.

If you can give a URL I'll look into it and get back

~

I may be wrong , but it's my understanding that a jpeg image
attachment up to 600px in width doesn't need to be clicked.

Not sure about png.

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 486#504486

It displays just fine in the browser window for me. That means lots of questions and answers if you want to run it down.

click on attachment to see what I see - also nice car there

~

[Bruce B]

I almost forgot to mention stupidlongusernames.

The Author column dynamically adjusts itself to the longest user name. The user with the longest name controls the column width.

I attached a screen pic as an example

I'd like to tell this person to get a shorter name

~

[Bruce B]

Sharie Beth

That's not what I'm talking about though ("arguing").

If argue has a negative connotation, I think you put it there.

If we argue, it is basically debating, discussing or persuading through the use of reason.

Look up the word argue and argument and you will see reason is used with most definitions and especially the definitions which would apply to our online discussions.

Bruce

~

[shariebeth]

I thought you used the word "argue" to imply that you felt I was only trying to be difficult and "arguing" in the negative connotation something you would have more knowledge about than I do. (Which is true, I was just trying to get you to come forth with that knowledge and share it.)
I had until that point not considered this thread anything other than an information request and discussion.

That said, thanks for the heads up on things to look for when we post. That's all I was looking for.

[Bruce B]

Here is one I stumbled on a few minutes ago

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=68761


~