The quote limit

[Gogf]

InvisionFree 2.2 now includes a limit on the number of quotes in a thread. This feature is excruciatingly irritating, especially in conjunction with the double post automerger. I was replying to a very long post when I came up against the hard limit on the number of quotes. I tried posting it piece-meal by using the automerger, but I had no luck. Since I could not start a new post, I was unable to post my entire post with all of the quote tags; I was instead forced to edit a good deal of them to quotation marks. I fear that the same is also true for posts with a large number of images or smilies and posts that come up against the limit on characters.

There are two possible solutions:

1.) Make it so that posts that would violate one of the rules if they were automerged at not merged.
2.) Allow members to check a box that says "make new reply."

The second possibility is more open to spam, but has its uses. For example, in a game thread or a contest thread, the "host" of the game often wishes to reserve the first few posts in the thread for future use. Under the current automerger, doing this is impossible, something which - much to my annoyance - I have noticed in the past.

Was the automerger system set up as a safeguard against spam, or as a tool which was used for the posts of lazy members who didn't bother to edit their first post? If it's the former, than my second suggestion won't work. If it's the ladder, however, then the second suggestion would certainly work. Perhaps have it be an per-usergroup option, like the ability to remove the edit line?

[Mat Barrie]

InvisionFree 2.2 now includes a limit on the number of quotes in a thread. This feature is excruciatingly irritating, especially in conjunction with the double post automerger. I was replying to a very long post when I came up against the hard limit on the number of quotes. I tried posting it piece-meal by using the automerger, but I had no luck. Since I could not start a new post, I was unable to post my entire post with all of the quote tags; I was instead forced to edit a good deal of them to quotation marks. I fear that the same is also true for posts with a large number of images or smilies and posts that come up against the limit on characters.

There are two possible solutions:

1.) Make it so that posts that would violate one of the rules if they were automerged at not merged.

2.) Allow members to check a box that says "make new reply."

The second possibility is more open to spam, but has its uses. For example, in a game thread or a contest thread, the "host" of the game often wishes to reserve the first few posts in the thread for future use. Under the current automerger, doing this is impossible, something which - much to my annoyance - I have noticed in the past.

Was the automerger system set up as a safeguard against spam, or as a tool which was used for the posts of lazy members who didn't bother to edit their first post? If it's the former, than my second suggestion won't work. If it's the ladder, however, then the second suggestion would certainly work. Perhaps have it be an per-usergroup option, like the ability to remove the edit line?

Merge Concurrent Posts is an option in the Admin Control Panel. It is now on by default, though it was off in prior versions. So, your second option wont happen because it would circumvent an administrator specified rule.

Also, number of quotes allowed in a post is ALSO an option in the Admin Control Panel. Ironically, it's the option above "Merge Member's Concurrent Posts" - simply look in ACP > Tools & Settings > Topics, Posts, and Polls.

{Side note, InvisionFree never went past IPB 1.3 - that was confusing at first ;)}

[Guest]

they seem to have applied the same skin as the ipb 2.x series though, I wonder if that's not in violation of copyright actually... :unsure:

[Mat Barrie]

they seem to have applied the same skin as the ipb 2.x series though, I wonder if that's not in violation of copyright actually... :unsure:

So lond as they didn't actually use the CSS and HTML from IPB2.2 itself, it is not. But we're getting a leettle off topic here.

[Gogf]

Merge Concurrent Posts is an option in the Admin Control Panel. It is now on by default, though it was off in prior versions. So, your second option wont happen because it would circumvent an administrator specified rule.

{Side note, InvisionFree never went past IPB 1.3 - that was confusing at first ;)}

Grah, that was a typo. I meant IPB 2.2.

Regardless of whether or not I can turn this off, this is clearly an issue that should be fixed. How does the fact that I can turn off a bug on my forum mean that it should still be not only in the release, but the default setting?

[Mat Barrie]

Grah, that was a typo. I meant IPB 2.2.

Regardless of whether or not I can turn this off, this is clearly an issue that should be fixed. How does the fact that I can turn off a bug on my forum mean that it should still be not only in the release, but the default setting?

I think it's actually a mistake that it's on by default. In the announcement, it describes the feature as Off. That said, I don't disagree that merged posts need to implement some sanity to ensure that they do not end up with unconverted BBCode and text smileys.

[Michael]

Like Kyanar has already said, there is an ACP option to limit the number of quotes you can have in posts, if you want to allow more quotes per post, you are free to do so. If you're going to leave that setting at the default value, then you will run into the problem you had. As far as I can see, these settings (max quotes and merge concurrent posts) are behaving exactly as they should be.

[UBERHOST.NET]

Regardless of whether or not I can turn this off, this is clearly an issue that should be fixed.

How does the fact that I can turn off a bug

on my forum mean that it should still be not only in the release, but the default setting?

This is the way the software is intended to work, therefore it cannot properly be referred to as a bug. :rolleyes:

[Gogf]

This is the way the software is intended to work, therefore it cannot properly be referred to as a

bug.

:rolleyes:

Okay, it's not a bug. It's a flaw in the software, beacause it does exactly as it is supposed to.

Has anybody tested this with the character limit? What if I want to post an essay or a story?

[Will L.]

InvisionFree

2.2 now includes a limit on the number of quotes in a thread. This feature is excruciatingly irritating, especially in conjunction with the double post automerger. I was replying to a very long post when I came up against the hard limit on the number of quotes. I tried posting it piece-meal by using the automerger, but I had no luck. Since I could not start a new post, I was unable to post my entire post with all of the quote tags; I was instead forced to edit a good deal of them to quotation marks. I fear that the same is also true for posts with a large number of images or smilies and posts that come up against the limit on characters.

There are two possible solutions:

1.) Make it so that posts that would violate one of the rules if they were automerged at not merged.

2.) Allow members to check a box that says "make new reply."

The second possibility is more open to spam, but has its uses. For example, in a game thread or a contest thread, the "host" of the game often wishes to reserve the first few posts in the thread for future use. Under the current automerger, doing this is impossible, something which - much to my annoyance - I have noticed in the past.

Was the automerger system set up as a safeguard against spam, or as a tool which was used for the posts of lazy members who didn't bother to edit their first post? If it's the former, than my second suggestion won't work. If it's the ladder, however, then the second suggestion would certainly work. Perhaps have it be an per-usergroup option, like the ability to remove the edit line?

wth you talking about INVISION 2.2.0 is NOT free :blink:

[Gogf]

wth you talking about INVISION 2.2.0 is NOT free :blink:

If you read up a couple of posts, you would have noticed me pointing out that that was a typo. I guess I should edit that post...

EDIT: Oh, wait I can't, because of some nonsensically draconian edit time limit that serves no logical purpose :rolleyes:.

[Michael]

Please explain what the flaw is. If you want to post 100 quotes in a single post, and you set the option to allow that, will it work or won't it? If you want concurrent posts to be merged, and the merged post contains more than the maximum number of quotes, does it still honor that maximum quotes setting?

[Gogf]

Please explain what the flaw is. If you want to post 100 quotes in a single post, and you set the option to allow that, will it work or won't it? If you want concurrent posts to be merged, and the merged post contains more than the maximum number of quotes, does it still honor that maximum quotes setting?

Try thinking about it for a minute. If I'm replying to a long post with a lot of points, I'm going to want to use a lot of quotes. I can't do that unless I use quotation marks instead of the quote tags as it is, and I see no logic behind that.

While this is irritating, it's hardly the main issue. What about stories or essays, especially ones where images or screenshots are included? What about smilies? I can't even break it up into multiple mosts now :rolleyes:.

[Michael]

Yes, you can do it, you set the option to allow more quotes per post, or don't you see that option in the ACP? It's been there since at least the 2.1.x series, I know.

And yes, you can break stuff up into multiple posts, just turn the option off in the ACP to merge concurrent posts. Again, there is an existing setting for this.

Just because certain things are behaving in such a way on this forum doesn't mean they have to behave that way on your forum, that's why IPS provides us with dozens of different options to customize IPB the way we want it to. Go download the public beta, install it, and mess with these settings, you can do exactly what you've been complaining that you can't do by changing the values of two settings.

[Gogf]

Yes, you can do it, you set the option to allow more quotes per post, or don't you see that option in the ACP? It's been there since at least the 2.1.x series, I know.

What happens if I post at a forum that I'm not admin of, like this one?

And yes, you can break stuff up into multiple posts, just turn the option off in the ACP to merge concurrent posts. Again, there is an existing setting for this.

What happens if I post at a forum that I'm not admin of, like this one?

Just because certain things are behaving in such a way on this forum doesn't mean they have to behave that way on your forum, that's why IPS provides us with dozens of different options to customize IPB the way we want it to. Go download the public beta, install it, and mess with these settings, you can do

exactly what you've been complaining that you can't do

by changing the values of two settings.

What happens if I post at a forum that I'm not admin of, like this one?

[UBERHOST.NET]

What happens if I post at a forum that I'm not admin of, like this one?

Then you respect the wishes of the forum administration.

[Gogf]

Then you respect the wishes of the forum administration.

Translation: "I respect the poorly designed default settings which the forum administrator probably never bothered to change because they never thought of it."

[Mat Barrie]

If you read up a couple of posts, you would have noticed me pointing out that that was a typo. I guess I should edit that post...

EDIT:

Oh, wait I can't, because of some nonsensically draconian edit time limit that serves no logical purpose :rolleyes: .

Actually, the edit time limit does serve useful purposes, and again is configurable from within the ACP. Default setting 30 minutes if I'm not mistaken, and it's a per usergroup (or per forum, it's slipped my mind right now) setting.

I also disagree that the default settings are poorly designed. SOMETHING has to be the default, and no matter what it is, some people wont like it. That said, it is up to the administrator to configure it how they want it, not up to IPS to telepathically read what the administration should use.

[Gogf]

Actually, the edit time limit does serve useful purposes, and again is configurable from within the ACP. Default setting 30 minutes if I'm not mistaken, and it's a per usergroup (or per forum, it's slipped my mind right now) setting.

What's a useful function of it, especially as the default setting?

It's per usergroup, by the way.

I also disagree that the default settings are poorly designed. SOMETHING has to be the default, and no matter what it is, some people wont like it. That said, it is up to the administrator to configure it how they want it, not up to IPS to telepathically read what the administration should use.

I would argue that most of the default settings are very good. On the other hand, the one that prevents you from posting long quantities of text or posts containing a significant amount of smilies or images, even if they are broken into multiple posts, is not a good one. I don't particularly care about the smilies or the images - I know some people do, though - but I do care about the text and quote limits. I can understand not wanting one post to be too huge, but why not just make it automatically parse it as a second post?

[Mat Barrie]

What's a useful function of it, especially as the default setting?

It's per usergroup, by the way.

The most popular use is to ensure that on sites where moderation is not available 24/7, one cannot post spam/threatening/offensive material and edit it out before moderators arrive, as no record is kept of edited posts.

Second, and this is seen only on "less mature" (read: massive) userbases, so that one cannot post, say, "who likes pie?" and once they have enough responses, edit so as to read as if people agreed to something very embarrassing.

I would argue that most of the default settings are very good. On the other hand, the one that prevents you from posting long quantities of text or posts containing a significant amount of smilies or images, even if they are broken into multiple posts, is not a good one. I don't particularly care about the smilies or the images - I know some people do, though - but I do care about the text and quote limits. I can understand not wanting one post to be too huge, but why not just make it automatically parse it as a second post?

Well, you can avoid this by waiting 10 minutes between posts. It only merges concurrent posts made within a 10 minute span.

[Tim Dorr]

Translation: "I respect the poorly designed default settings which the forum administrator probably never bothered to change because they never thought of it."

Then complain to the admins of that forum?

Man, you really get in a big huff about these issues. Realize that you are basically flamebaiting with the number of hyperboles you keep throwing around. Tread lightly, otherwise people are going to dismiss your arguments simply based on them being from you.

[Buddy Kidd]

Then complain to the admins of that forum?

Man, you really get in a big huff about these issues. Realize that you are basically flamebaiting with the number of hyperboles you keep throwing around. Tread lightly, otherwise people are going to dismiss your arguments simply based on them being from you.

I second that!!!!

Much to do about nothing.

[Brandon C]

Then complain to the admins of that forum?

Man, you really get in a big huff about these issues. Realize that you are basically flamebaiting with the number of hyperboles you keep throwing around. Tread lightly, otherwise people are going to dismiss your arguments simply based on them being from you.

:thumbsup:

[Gogf]

If this is the kind of response I get for pointing out what's clearly an issue with the default forum settings, I just won't bother in the future :rolleyes:.

[Tim Dorr]

You're missing the point. You're one person complaining about the something will be the default setting of every board out there. These issues affect you and the way you want to run your board. However, the vast majority of boards benefit from the settings being the way they are. They, by default, discourage excessively long posts (which could be exploited by spammers) and editing of old posts (which would lead to censorship by posters).

Another thing to consider is that the defaults provide self-revealing features. Consider the edit button. If this was set, by default, to always allow editing, then most admins who do not read the documentation might never find out there's the ability to limit the editing time. This is because they would never hit the error and the edit button would always work. But with a limit in place, they will eventually hit this limit and can decide to turn it off on the settings at that point. There are many other features that, when set with the limits as a default, will reveal themselves to board operators during the course of their use of the software.

Also, you have to go into the ACP at least once to get the forums and such listed correctly. I would assume the majority of admins would also take the opportunity to scroll by the other sections of the ACP, including the settings area.