Original Youtube embed <iframe width="460" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lZTZ2dT-3Ww?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Instead using the default Iframe embed code that youtube gives you just use the html5 embed <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lZTZ2dT-3Ww?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" />
You also can edit the width and height similar to the iframe code <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lZTZ2dT-3Ww?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" width="200" height="200" />
No, do not do this. There is a reason you want to use the iframe. You use the iframe so that if someone is using a browser without HTML5, it will use flash. If they are on a mobile phone, it will load the HTML5 supported by the phone. If they have HTML5 in a browser, it will support the HTML5 of the browser.
If you want to embed a youtube, just paste a link to it. I know that the forum right now isn't using the iframe, but it will be once I, or the Vanilla guys, fix it.
@Joe Boomer: I'd love to see the code and tags for that post with the spoiler, BBcode and HTML and whatever else you got.
If you quote someone, you get their original post along with any HTML they wrote. For example, you can quote Alan's post up above to see what kind of wizardry he's done.
You may have to put in new lines when you're looking at other HTML in forum posts to try and figure out what's going on, because otherwise it can be a bit of a word soup.
This is my biggest complaint by a large margin. Not just "oh this is annoying" but it has risen to the level of "this is fucking stupid, change this shit."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Sure, it solved a problem, but it solved a problem that was rarely if ever present. It's inconveniencing everybody to prevent something that practically never happens anyway, and even when it does, is literally no problem and no real trouble - it's not like people are blowing up the server with C4, They're just deleting their old posts.
Huh? I though Chubra was complaining about the editing limit. Which I don't like, but I got used to the "my forum- my rules" philosophy of the internet. It takes literally (though not figuratively) less energy to go to a different forum then to get up out of your chair, so it's not a problem when forum admins are being dicks. I would still like to see edits after the first 15 minutes, at least in the last post.
I don't quite see why you're getting so confused, though. Are you not able to understand what Churba is saying? You seem to get it though, so I'm not sure if you need help understanding.
Oh dear, looks like I put an extra new line in my quite. Such things happen when preview doesn't actually show what the post will look like. What a shame.
Also, Chubra is the name of a shitty anime. Churba is the man you're talking about.
Ah, yes, thank you. I meant to say "GeorgePatches" (dyslexia is a bitch). George says we should edit, and Churba agrees that we should delete. This confuses me. But, yeah, we should be able to delete. Delete or edit. Otherwise we'd have to quintiple-post, like you did there. And that's just a waste of electronic trees. ☺
P.S. spaking of thongs thees forum laks, can we have spillchuck back?
The value of editing and/or deleting is debatable, on the whole. The most notable case where I see a real use for editing is the first post of threads like this one, since the first post can act as a summary and is likely to need changing.
As for double-posting, I don't see the problem with it, and leaving the spellchecking to the browser is perfectly fine.
I don't really see the value of even editing the first post since when people read the thread, they get sent straight to the end.
I do think there would be value in a plugin that allows the creator of a thread to create a special meta-post on a thread. For example, if you made a thread that had specific rules of some kind, like a game, you would post the rules in that meta-post. The meta-post would appear maybe in the sidebar or right above the comment box on all pages of the thread.
Wow, great idea. It's like...if there was some way a person could edit the first post indefinitely so they could add information to it or something. That'd be crazy.
I don't really see the value of even editing the first post since when people read the thread, they get sent straight to the end.
I don't think that's true. Aren't they sent to the first post they haven't yet read? So the first time someone reads a new thread, they'll start at the first post, and so they should know in future that the summary is in the first post.
The meta-post would definitely be a nice touch, though.
It worked, it just didn't do what you thought it did.
Actually, I wasn't the idiot who couldn't read. That was Jason. The button clearly stated, in its title text, that it would block HTML code, or more clearly, disable its interpretation.
Yeah, fuckhead, I knew what it did. That didn't stop me from wishing it did something different. Jesus, eat a bag of dicks. BTW, aren't you banned? Three times?
A forum is for discussions, not for posts. If the first post is something that should be re-read and updated as opposed to just the ignition of an ongoing discussion, then it probably isn't something that should be in this, or any, forum. It should be on a blog. That's what a blog is, one primary post with the discussion after it. If the forum is doing a bad job of being your personal blog, then it's working as intended.
Maybe I should re-write, again, how many ways I can control my browser to go "back". Click the icon with my mouse, swipe three fingers on the trackpad, click the icon with my trackpad, hit the delete key, hit command-[. I'm sure there are more. Depending on how I am sitting at the same computer, and if my hands are near the keyboard or another device, and my state of mind, and the website I am on, I use many different methods to trigger the SAME function.
There is not a single right or wrong way to use a forum. YOU might think the best or only way is one way, but as a developer you should never assume that the way that you do things is the way the rest of the world is comfortable working.
If you want more examples, I could list about a hundred things.
The upside is clear, I think- anything from fixing mistakes to turning the first x posts into "metaposts". What is the down side? That people would retract their idiotic statements? I'd think that was a good thing. Deleting is a matter of preference, but I can see why people wouldn't like it. As for doubleposting, I don't even see why you would want to do it, given the choice, in a forum that doesn't track postcount- it's just a waste of screen space.
leaving the spellchecking to the browser is perfectly fine.
Sure it is. Until you're stuck at a terminal with IE and no administrative rights. It's quite annoying to see misspelled text in our day and age.
As for doubleposting, I don't even see why you would want to do it, given the choice, in a forum that doesn't track postcount- it's just a waste of screen space.
This is relevant when you want to update a thread with new relevant material after an amount of time of your last post.
I've done this several times in threads such as Making Things With String, Yotsuba, Professor Layton, and Dominion.
If you want to update, make a new post. Then all the history is there for people to read, including the most up to date information. Look at the Internet archive. I'm sure you can all agree that it is wonderful. Why? Because otherwise when someone updated their site, the previous version would be lost for all eternity. When you edit, you are destroying information. I'd rather not. If people can't be bothered to read every post in a thread, when those posts are important, that's their problem.
The upside is clear, I think- anything from fixing mistakes to turning the first x posts into "metaposts". What is the down side? That people would retract their idiotic statements? I'd think that was a good thing.
You don't need more than 15 minutes to fix mistakes. As for deletion/editing, it can be extremely disruptive if people remove comments that sparked significant discussion, since anyone reading it later won't be able to figure out what the deal is.
As for doubleposting, I don't even see why you would want to do it, given the choice, in a forum that doesn't track postcount- it's just a waste of screen space.
Yes, it takes up extra screen space, but who cares? The advantage is that it offers logical separation. After all, if you say two things that don't really have anything in common, it makes more sense to put it in two posts rather than one.
Even if there is something in common between the two bits of content, then there is still Ro's point above. When reading a forum, you don't generally go back and re-read prior posts. Hence if someone adds new information, putting it in a new post tells you that there is something new to read, as opposed to a mere edit, which you could easily not notice at all.
The common argument against double-posting seems to come mostly from aesthetics, but I really don't think it holds up compared to the above points.
leaving the spellchecking to the browser is perfectly fine.
Sure it is. Until you're stuck at a terminal with IE and no administrative rights. It's quite annoying to see misspelled text in our day and age.
I guess you have a point there, but even so it's a scenario that won't affect the majority of people.
If people can't be bothered to read every post in a thread, when those posts are important, that's their problem.
How do you tell when that is? Say there is a thread that is relevant to your interest, but it's 50 pages long (about 2.5k posts). Should you: a) read a decent book worth of posts, being completely late to the discussion? b) ask other people to summarize for you? (that's every new person asking the same question) c) be ignorant of the discussion that happened and say stuff people on pages 2-34 said already? d) Admit none of the above works and go on IRC instead?
To elaborate further, double-posting is really only a problem in bad forums, where a massive amount of space gets taken up by signatures with peoples' random images and such. Complaining about it on a forum like this one is, in all honesty, ridiculous. Oh noes, you have to see their icon and their name a second time!
On the other hand, you also get distinct "Permalink" and "Quote" links, which makes it easier to link to or quote the specific content that you want to as compared to a single post.
Mr. Period will take care of the spelling and grammar if you somehow can't fix it in 15 minutes.
spaking of thongs thees forum laks, can we have spillchuck back?
It doesn't. Is it supposed to? (Although "thongs", "thees" and "spillchuck" are complicated, I'm pretty sure there's only one way, ever, to correct "laks")
P.S. Just to be sure, mr. Period is a bot, right? If you're a person, I'd like to appoligize- I didn't know.
If people can't be bothered to read every post in a thread, when those posts are important, that's their problem.
How do you tell when that is? Say there is a thread that is relevant to your interest, but it's 50 pages long (about 2.5k posts). Should you: a) read a decent book worth of posts, being completely late to the discussion? b) ask other people to summarize for you? (that's every new person asking the same question) c) be ignorant of the discussion that happened and say stuff people on pages 2-34 said already? d) Admit none of the above works and go on IRC instead?
e) Start at the end of the thread, and pick up on the discussion as it is there, going back earlier in the thread to look up anything you're missing out on.
Unless it's a really long post, it's far from a major disaster to say something that has already been said - and that's one of the purposes of a search function anyway. Sometimes making the same point in a different way, or just having a different person make it, will get through to more people.
Besides, one would presume that in an active thread, whatever people are talking about at the end of the thread is newer material, so if you say something relevant to the actual discussion at the end of the thread rather than merely the topic, or worse, the title of the thread, it's not as likely to have been said before.
I have no idea how to write plug ins, but is it possible to write one where instead of not posting double, you would see double posts as large posts? If yes, can it be done on the client side? I think that would please both camps.
Comments
If you want to embed a youtube, just paste a link to it. I know that the forum right now isn't using the iframe, but it will be once I, or the Vanilla guys, fix it.
You may have to put in new lines when you're looking at other HTML in forum posts to try and figure out what's going on, because otherwise it can be a bit of a word soup.
But, yeah, we should be able to delete. Delete or edit. Otherwise we'd have to quintiple-post, like you did there. And that's just a waste of electronic trees. ☺
P.S. spaking of thongs thees forum laks, can we have spillchuck back?
As for double-posting, I don't see the problem with it, and leaving the spellchecking to the browser is perfectly fine.
I do think there would be value in a plugin that allows the creator of a thread to create a special meta-post on a thread. For example, if you made a thread that had specific rules of some kind, like a game, you would post the rules in that meta-post. The meta-post would appear maybe in the sidebar or right above the comment box on all pages of the thread.
The meta-post would definitely be a nice touch, though.
There is not a single right or wrong way to use a forum. YOU might think the best or only way is one way, but as a developer you should never assume that the way that you do things is the way the rest of the world is comfortable working.
If you want more examples, I could list about a hundred things.
Deleting is a matter of preference, but I can see why people wouldn't like it.
As for doubleposting, I don't even see why you would want to do it, given the choice, in a forum that doesn't track postcount- it's just a waste of screen space. Sure it is. Until you're stuck at a terminal with IE and no administrative rights. It's quite annoying to see misspelled text in our day and age.
I've done this several times in threads such as Making Things With String, Yotsuba, Professor Layton, and Dominion.
Even if there is something in common between the two bits of content, then there is still Ro's point above. When reading a forum, you don't generally go back and re-read prior posts. Hence if someone adds new information, putting it in a new post tells you that there is something new to read, as opposed to a mere edit, which you could easily not notice at all.
The common argument against double-posting seems to come mostly from aesthetics, but I really don't think it holds up compared to the above points. I guess you have a point there, but even so it's a scenario that won't affect the majority of people.
a) read a decent book worth of posts, being completely late to the discussion?
b) ask other people to summarize for you? (that's every new person asking the same question)
c) be ignorant of the discussion that happened and say stuff people on pages 2-34 said already?
d) Admit none of the above works and go on IRC instead?
On the other hand, you also get distinct "Permalink" and "Quote" links, which makes it easier to link to or quote the specific content that you want to as compared to a single post.
P.S. Just to be sure, mr. Period is a bot, right? If you're a person, I'd like to appoligize- I didn't know.
def new_post(user, thread, post):if thread.most_recent_post.user == user:
thread.most_recent_post.body += "<br><br>" + post.body
thread.most_recent_post.save()
else:
post.save()
Unless it's a really long post, it's far from a major disaster to say something that has already been said - and that's one of the purposes of a search function anyway. Sometimes making the same point in a different way, or just having a different person make it, will get through to more people.
Besides, one would presume that in an active thread, whatever people are talking about at the end of the thread is newer material, so if you say something relevant to the actual discussion at the end of the thread rather than merely the topic, or worse, the title of the thread, it's not as likely to have been said before.
edit: sith, now I'm doing it.