Hold on, IPS want blank posts?

[SJ77]

I don't think this is difficult, Here:

1. strip tags, find remaining string

string strip_tags ( string $str [, string $allowable_tags ] )

2.  remove everything except a-z, A-Z and 0-9:

$result = preg_replace("/[^a-zA-Z0-9]+/", "", $str);

3. Count remaining letters in string

$CharCount =strlen($result);

4. If we have less than 3 characters prompt users to post something better.

if ($CharCount < 3) {
    echo "Post more!!!";
}

 

[Vikestart]

I think it comes down to the fact that there a potentially 2 notable groups of people that would make empty posts.

People being lazy (but still have good intentions) and people trolling.

I can we can establish without doubt that the first group is by far the biggest one on any forum. Implementing basic limitations would encourage that group of people to not make completely empty posts or posts with 1 symbol, etc.

The other group... well, it exists, but that doesn't mean nothing should be done to mitigate the issue.

[bigPaws]

1. strip tags, find remaining string

string strip_tags ( string $str [, string $allowable_tags ] )

2.  remove everything except a-z, A-Z and 0-9:

$result = preg_replace("/[^a-zA-Z0-9]+/", "", $str);

3. Count remaining letters in string

$CharCount =strlen($result);

4. If we have less than 3 characters prompt users to post something better.

if ($CharCount < 3) {
    echo "Post more!!!";
}

 

On the bug report that got canned @Matt seem to imply it wasn't that easy. 

PS can't seem to delete nested quote on mobile?!

[SJ77]

 @Matt seem to imply it wasn't that easy. 

​Why wouldn't it be? string management is basic php 101, this could even be done in JS if we wanted the clients computer to handle things.

[chilihead]

Yeah if people are determined to make a blank post they will. That's not the point here. The point is at least the block of the ability in 3.4 forced people to put something into the editor, which many times encouraged them to leave an actual reply.

I'd be happy with that block back, like it was in 3.4.

[JarredB]

The point is at least the block of the ability in 3.4 forced people to put something into the editor, which many times encouraged them to leave an actual reply.

I'd be happy with that block back, like it was in 3.4.

​Sorry to say, this is actually incorrect. Blank posts are easily achievable in 3.4 using similar methods to what is being done in 4.0. For example using tags without content:

[b ][/b ] (Remove spaces)

Works in 3.4.

[chilihead]

No need to be sorry, that's not what I said.

There will always be ways, I acknowledge that, that's why I said "... if people are determined to make a blank post they will." I am not worried about the tricks. But the initial prompt is gone. You can just edit a post, clear contents, and save now. Before you couldn't. There was a prompt, and you had to put something. This something could be a trick to make a blank post, a dot, or the prompt could encourage them to actually leave a short reply, or post that they made an error, etc. As it is now, we're going to see a lot of blank posts.

I expressed that here: http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/409408-hold-on-ips-want-blank-posts/?do=findComment&comment=2536574

[Rhett]

I think we are release ready if this is the main topic today..   

[iozay]

For sure haha It doesn't really bother me, if people love spamming with whitespaces you could easily remove all their posts  

[JarredB]

 You can just edit a post, clear contents, and save now. Before you couldn't. There was a prompt, and you had to put something. This something could be a tick to make a blank post, a dot, or   the prompt could encourage them to actually leave a sort reply, or post that they made an error, etc. As it is now, we're going to see a lot of blank posts.

​I see what you're referring to now, and I would agree, having the same validation requirements for the initial post and an edit to that post makes sense.

[chilihead]

Come on @Rhett, this is a showstopper and you know it!

See here:

April Fools.  

[chilihead]

​I see what you're referring to now, and I would agree, having the same validation requirements for the initial post and an edit to that post makes sense.

​Exactly.

[Marcher Technologies]

I don't think this is difficult, Here:

1. strip tags, find remaining string

string strip_tags ( string $str [, string $allowable_tags ] )

2.  remove everything except a-z, A-Z and 0-9:

$result = preg_replace("/[^a-zA-Z0-9]+/", "", $str);

3. Count remaining letters in string

$CharCount =strlen($result);

4. If we have less than 3 characters prompt users to post something better.

if ($CharCount < 3) {
    echo "Post more!!!";
}

 

​1. You just broke posts that contain no more than embedded content.(A video is worth a thousand words...)

2. And all multibyte words/characters being valid, english is not the only language....

3. See 2

4. See 1

It is not nearly as easy as you make out with a full WYSIWYG editing and supplying UTF8 HTML content.

[Vikestart]

​1. You just broke posts that contain no more than embedded content.

2. And all multibyte words/characters being valid, english is not the only language....

3. See 2

4. See 1

​1. Add an extra check for embedded content.

2. Invert the check and remove specific things like spaces, exclamation marks, etc. instead.

[MadMikeyB]

I don't think this is difficult, Here:

1. strip tags, find remaining string

string strip_tags ( string $str [, string $allowable_tags ] )

2.  remove everything except a-z, A-Z and 0-9:

$result = preg_replace("/[^a-zA-Z0-9]+/", "", $str);

3. Count remaining letters in string

$CharCount =strlen($result);

4. If we have less than 3 characters prompt users to post something better.

if ($CharCount < 3) {
    echo "Post more!!!";
}

 

​This is exactly why the editor in 3.x was full of SeeSaw bugs. I'm sorry but the IPS4 parser seems to be a LOT more stable, probably because it's not trying to moderate content for you. Matt and co are correct; moderation is the job of your staff. Too much moderation = make more moderators.

[Vikestart]

​moderation is the job of your staff.

​Sure, let's retire the IPS Spam Service as well then.  Along with profanity filters and other automatic tools that help mitigate unncessary moderation / alleviate the pressure for manual moderation. After all, moderation is the job of your staff, right?

I don't agree with this mentality.

[Marcher Technologies]

​Sure, let's retire the IPS Spam Service as well then.  Along with profanity filters and other automatic tools that help mitigate unncessary moderation / alleviate the pressure for manual moderation. After all, moderation is the job of your staff, right?

I don't agree with this mentality.

​Not even the same thing. Literally. A large part of the instability of the 3.4 editor was due to attempting to fulfill requests very much like this one, ensuring posts aren't 'blank', with literally thousands of ways to do that existing, it has a measured effect on stability for very little practical gain.

[MadMikeyB]

That's taking it to an extreme. It's quite simple. If you don't want blank posts, simply delete blank posts which are made and use the inbuilt warning tools to ensure that members know that it's unacceptable.

[Vikestart]

Of course it's taking it to an extreme, but I was making a point about that mentality not being a valid excuse to not implement basic checks for post content, to alleviate manual moderation pressure.

Sure, with a bad implementation you'll cause issues as well, but I'm not convinced that it's not possible to implement in a nice way.

Again, not talking about advanced checks to prevent people that really want to post blank posts, but to prevent people from doing it out of laziness / accident. These checks should be sufficient:

• Check that post is not completely empty (it's doing this already)
• Check that a post contains more than just one or more exclamation marks, question marks, commas, periods, etc.
• Check that at least one paragraph contains more than just spaces.

[chilihead]

May as well just allow members to delete their own posts if blanks are allowed now. A blank post is essentially a deletion. I used to allow it and I had no real issues. I guess I could do that again.

However if I did that, I would like a time limit on deletions. That would be pretty cool. People could remove their mistakes and not leave blank posts. However, after a certain time they could not delete it (to preserve integrity).

 

[JarredB]

However if I did that, I would like a time limit on deletions. That would be pretty cool. People could remove their mistakes and not leave blank posts. However, after a certain time they could not delete it (to preserve integrity).

​Might be something that could be possible with the upcoming "Community Moderation" feature that is planned. Being able to delete your last post within a small period seems like a good idea, provided no-one has replied to it.

[chilihead]

This is developing nicely.

[opentype]

 

Again, not talking about advanced checks to prevent people that really want to post blank posts, but to prevent people from doing it out of laziness / accident. These checks should be sufficient:

• Check that post is not completely empty (it's doing this already)
• Check that a post contains more than just one or more exclamation marks, question marks, commas, periods, etc.
• Check that at least one paragraph contains more than just spaces.

​I think we should stop this discussion and just see what happens on live 4.0 boards. If that actually becomes a real problem, then we have proof it needs to be fixed and the admin of such a board could easily show this proof on the specific site. 

My guess is however, it will never show to be a problem. Why should someone make an empty post out of “laziness”? Why should you post, if you have nothing to say? And if you really do that, what difference should this check for an empty post make? A character is needed? Okay, then I type a dot. Punctuation marks are not allowed? I type an “a” then. At least 3 characters are needed? Okay, I type “aaa” then. — If I wanted to make an empty post, those checks would not motivate me to make a useful post instead. In fact, it will probably annoy me even more and I might post “f**k you” or something instead. ;-) 

[Vikestart]

Because it's mostly about edits. If a user wants to remove the contents of the post, for example if they misunderstood the context of a topic or something, the first thing people would try to do is probably remove all of the post contents and submit

That doesn't work, so they might try a period or a space. If those also don't work, the chances of them writing something a lot more constructive such as "Sorry, I misunderstood" or similar is a lot higher.

Writing something like "aaaa" or random letters like "ketnbjrthy" feels a lot more like spam, so many people will probably be wary of that, and add something like described above instead. Again, it's no guarantee, but it'd be basic mitigation that would be there not to prevent, but to encourage.

[Lindy]

You cannot submit a blank post. You may be able to submit a post that appears blank, but I can also make a post that says "This is not useful" or even "....." -- if you have a member that wants to be a troll, they'll be a troll. It's like every house in the world having a sign in their yard that reads "don't let your pet soil my lawn" -- some things are just common sense and you're not going to fix or necessarily even deter inconsiderate people. It's frankly not worth the development effort to try and thwart people that can put forth an extra fraction of a second to put "abc" in a post to annoy you.