I don't think so.... but maybe the bugs are related to each another. The spacing issue you mentioned is even greater than the one I was talking about (the issue I discuss applies to quote-blocks anywhere in the reply). Perhaps they are both caused by the same glitch? Well, we'll see if it gets fixed with the other or not.
Wow....The Image zoom thingy is only bound to the left shift? Why can't it be both?
It works with both shifts here...Kumacuda said:
Wow....The Image zoom thingy is only bound to the left shift? Why can't it be both?
Hmm must be my keyboard then. It's one those gaming keyboards, the right shift might be bound to something.
I know this sounds mean, I'll suggest it anyway:
Just me having some mean thoughts
You may now throw stones at me.
Just me having some mean thoughts
You may now throw stones at me.
Don't the user records do that? It's publicly accessible from More -> User Records.Anpan said:
I know this sounds mean, I'll suggest it anyway:
Just me having some mean thoughts
You may now throw stones at me.
Shame on me for not knowing. Everything behind more is so hidden (~°.°)~
Suggestions for Kona?
-A symbol or something like that on the Thumbnail. So I can see that someone has given a commentary on the Picture.
-More options in the Profile area: Location, sex, Self introduction,age etc.
The disclosures are of course voluntary.
-More ranks for new Members.To get the right to do something on Konachan. Each freshman must earn his privileges.
Just to prevent that this bad or forbidden images are uploaded.Post- and Tag- spamming.
-A symbol or something like that on the Thumbnail. So I can see that someone has given a commentary on the Picture.
-More options in the Profile area: Location, sex, Self introduction,age etc.
The disclosures are of course voluntary.
-More ranks for new Members.To get the right to do something on Konachan. Each freshman must earn his privileges.
Just to prevent that this bad or forbidden images are uploaded.Post- and Tag- spamming.
I knew not yet that there is such a function. Is there something more that I do not know?Kumacuda said:
Wow....The Image zoom thingy is only bound to the left shift? Why can't it be both?
A way to improve konachan.... hmm, how about adding emotes? You know like the Onion head emotes. Or would that be going against what you're try to go for with konachan?
I think it would help in the forums but on the picture comments it might be a bad idea... then again, it could get really hectic with those...
Still i wish i could use some of them in order to replace these: (-__-) <_< >_> O_O etc.
I think it would help in the forums but on the picture comments it might be a bad idea... then again, it could get really hectic with those...
Still i wish i could use some of them in order to replace these: (-__-) <_< >_> O_O etc.
Emotes were cool back in like what, 04? On the off chance Kona can use emotes, I would find it annoying to be cleaning one smiley comments along with the normal ones. Plus they would break the look of Kona with the black, purple, pink and white if you threw in a random yellow smiley of red rage face.
Well sorry for not being up to date on that stuff.
It would really make my keyboard and fingers happy if mods could choose some generic ban reasons such as "Read the comment guidelines" and "Read the upload guidelines". If you take a look at the user records you'll know what I mean.
sorry for breaking off topic, but Anpan you're a machine, it's people like you that keep this site clean enough to be usable. :) so thanks!
and actually i do have a question, is it possible to put a filter in place that prevents people from
uploading anything less than the image requirements? i'm not sure if that's possible or not i'm just thinking aloud. :)
and actually i do have a question, is it possible to put a filter in place that prevents people from
uploading anything less than the image requirements? i'm not sure if that's possible or not i'm just thinking aloud. :)
I asked that a while ago, and they said it wasn't. Unfortunately.
Ah, oh well can't be helped then i guess.
I'm not quite sure if this has been asked previously, but I reckon it's a good contribution to this thread ;3
What i'm proposing is taking locked useless threads made out of people's stupidly from all of kona's history and deleting them... Then making some type of list on the guidelines thread what has been asked... There are countless dublicates of the same questions being asked and others that are just silly.. It could take a while deleting them, but you're opening up space on the servers that could be used for more... Beneficial things -_-
With the list being wrote, perhaps users could read what has been posted previously provided that they read guidelines like good citizens... And maybe encourage them to post whatever theh are asking in the friendly topic if it's important...
What i'm proposing is taking locked useless threads made out of people's stupidly from all of kona's history and deleting them... Then making some type of list on the guidelines thread what has been asked... There are countless dublicates of the same questions being asked and others that are just silly.. It could take a while deleting them, but you're opening up space on the servers that could be used for more... Beneficial things -_-
With the list being wrote, perhaps users could read what has been posted previously provided that they read guidelines like good citizens... And maybe encourage them to post whatever theh are asking in the friendly topic if it's important...
...
what if we merge your idea with the faq and replace the "Wiki" link at the top with "FAQ"? or just add it next to it...of course, most questions can be answered by exploring the links within the FAQ as it is now...
when it all boils down, if people can't even follow guidelines that stare them in their face when uploading an image, i doubt they'll bother even clicking the "FAQ" button if it were at the top. hell, they don't even bother with the help page. but what do i know, huh?
what if we merge your idea with the faq and replace the "Wiki" link at the top with "FAQ"? or just add it next to it...of course, most questions can be answered by exploring the links within the FAQ as it is now...
when it all boils down, if people can't even follow guidelines that stare them in their face when uploading an image, i doubt they'll bother even clicking the "FAQ" button if it were at the top. hell, they don't even bother with the help page. but what do i know, huh?
I've wanted to standardized the deletion/ban/warning reasons for a LONG time (more or less around when I made Admin, which was about 4 months after I made mod. So around Feb, 2011.) The problem is more on the backend side with how the moebooru engine is coded for staff use. It's nowhere near optimized at all for administration. It's wholly focused on excelling at showing pretty pictures. And administrative improvements you've seen were pushed by me, for the most part.Anpan said:
It would really make my keyboard and fingers happy if mods could choose some generic ban reasons such as "Read the comment guidelines" and "Read the upload guidelines". If you take a look at the user records you'll know what I mean.
Adding selectable reasons to the ban/records/deletion screens I think would entail needing another DB table to track/maintain them. As far as I know, the devs are VERY wary of adding new tables to the codebased. They prefer not to screw with the DB structure if they can avoid it.
I asked about that back in like 2010. Coding issue. The codebase is quirky as fuck. I think the last time we attempted something remotely similar to that (finally), it bugged out and prevented ALL uploads. Shuugo had to disable it and we reverted to the old-fashioned hand screening of uploads. We have considered lowering the upload limit to 10/day for normal users and/or reinstating another user rank (see below: that has its own problems) to help fight the spam issue.KingOfTheCrazies said:
sorry for breaking off topic, but Anpan you're a machine, it's people like you that keep this site clean enough to be usable. :) so thanks!
and actually i do have a question, is it possible to put a filter in place that prevents people from
uploading anything less than the image requirements? i'm not sure if that's possible or not i'm just thinking aloud. :)
That's what the separate COMMENTS section on the main site is for...gnarf1975 said:
Suggestions for Kona?
-A symbol or something like that on the Thumbnail. So I can see that someone has given a commentary on the Picture.
That came up long ago. We're not a social networking site at all, so all of that isn't needed. That's what FaceBook is for...gnarf1975 said:
-More options in the Profile area: Location, sex, Self introduction,age etc.
The disclosures are of course voluntary.
Shuugo and I considered reactivating the Privileged Rank (it's disabled currently) for that reason. There's no way to automated the process of promoting users to new ranks based on simple parameters, however. All promotions on the site are done by hand. You can image we're not going to do that by the dozens (if not hundreds) per day.gnarf1975 said:
-More ranks for new Members.To get the right to do something on Konachan. Each freshman must earn his privileges.
Just to prevent that this bad or forbidden images are uploaded.Post- and Tag- spamming.
Oddly enough, I thought about that a few months ago, but 2 things prevented me from bringing that up with Shuugo:Anpan said:
I know this sounds mean, I'll suggest it anyway:
Just me having some mean thoughts
You may now throw stones at me.
A) Shuugo already covered one point with his response
B) We have no where to put such a list in a VERY conspicuous location on the site without breaking the layout.
There have been several things I wanted to make more obvious on the site (oh, like say, the NEWS thread), but with the site's layout, it doesn't work at all without breaking SOMETHING more important.
On you last remark: While that would be more entertaining, I find people on the 'Net as whole stupider than a bird bashing repeatedly into a window because it can't see the glass. Whenever I break from my systematic reason formats, something is truly fucked up about a post or user. Also, personalized ban/deletions reason make it seem like staff would be singling out particular users. Granted, we don't, usually (unless it's a repeat offender), but when was the last time you met a fuck-up user that understands the job and role of a site moderator enough to NOT take it personally at all?
Granted, I'm partially biased for neutral, standardized (read: boring) reasons due to my time in the military. I prefer being able to skim text and get/understand the issue immediately instead of having to completely parse and process the words and statements I'm reading. Time is precious and all that. Short, concise, and informative is my preferred format/standard. (Pretty sure you've seen plenty of my ban/deletion reasons to see where I'm coming from.)
Animated Avatars.
Not going to happen how the system current works, and is not priority at all to allow users to upload their own images.gnarf1975 said:
Animated Avatars.
the option to remove your account or change its name is something I would like to see (even if that just means I need someone to point it out to me)
there's already an option to change your password but, unless I'm much mistaken, there's no option to change your username (and likewise for deleting your own account.
I suppose you could break the rules until your account was deleted then, if you were looking to change your name, make a new account.....but that seems like a rather inefficient option.
there's already an option to change your password but, unless I'm much mistaken, there's no option to change your username (and likewise for deleting your own account.
I suppose you could break the rules until your account was deleted then, if you were looking to change your name, make a new account.....but that seems like a rather inefficient option.
Changing usernames requires a valid reason and contacting an admin with DB access (to date only Shuugo and myself will do this. As far as I know, no other staff members have direct DB access except the two of us.)jaelin910 said:
[...] unless I'm much mistaken, there's no option to change your username (and likewise for deleting your own account. [...]
This was outlined quite some time ago in one of the main forums threads here, so I don't blame you for not being aware of that procedure. It's not very common and to be honest, you should pick a name you'd be happy to live with on this site.
In fact, I just had a name change request about 2 weeks ago. Legitimate request because he had used his real name as his username and wanted to switch to a pseudonym (like most people.)
If you want a username change, be sure you have an email address associated with your account and email us: info@hanyuu.net with you request, reason, and preferred username(s). We'll review your request and either honor it or reject it (and why) at our discretion.
Deleting account we don't do because of how convoluted the system tracks things across the various DB tables. Deleting one account is not worth the effort. We just disable accounts.
May I ask for further clarity on what should and should not be used as an avatar? Here is how the wiki reads as of now
If my understanding of the rule's intent is correct, I would ask for a stricter clarity put into the guideline, as "borderline safe/questionable" doesn't give me much to work on.
On another note
By my logic, avatars that show any nudity (nipples, butt, et cetera) shouldn't be allowed as they'd be visible on the safe-only .net site. I don't get this idea from reading the rules, however, and am therefore reluctant to remove avatars of semi questionable posts, such as a user who was using post #146022 as his avatar.Wiki said:
(Don'ts)
Use of obviously explicit (rating:e) avatars.
-Your avatar COULD be originate FROM a rating:e post; the avatar itself MUST not depict what make that post explicit.
-Explicit avatars are changed immediately by the Mods to whatever image they wish at their discretion/whim.
-Repeatedly using explicit avatars will get you banned.
-Your avatar can be questionable, but only borderline safe-questionable. eg. cleavage.
If my understanding of the rule's intent is correct, I would ask for a stricter clarity put into the guideline, as "borderline safe/questionable" doesn't give me much to work on.
On another note
When I deal with avatars, borderline ones are hard. I basically just follow if I see nipple I remove it, other then that it's up for the other mods or admins to choose.
As for the comment idea, that's something I've wanted for awhile to find repeat spammers, you can't remember every name that you delete the comment of.
As for the comment idea, that's something I've wanted for awhile to find repeat spammers, you can't remember every name that you delete the comment of.
I think that's the right method to follow. I just don't think that's well reflected by the rules as they stand. If I were to receive a complaint (which I've not received one thus far), it'd be nice to just point to the rule and not have to explain.Kumacuda said:
When I deal with avatars, borderline ones are hard. I basically just follow if I see nipple I remove it, other then that it's up for the other mods or admins to choose.
True, it doesn't say you can't have nipples and to some people, me included, nipples aren't explicit. It's a simple change to the rules.
That clause was prusposely left semi-vague for staff discretion/flexibility. Most users who actually think about stuff before doing something usually err on the side of caution when faced with vagueness. It follows the example of, "If I saw this one someones else's system without knowing the context, would I worry?" Granted, I will admit it's more subjective than I would like, but half the running of the site is based on subjective judgment (Post approvals being the obvious one.) It's leeway meant for the site and staff to cover our own collective asses. Making it too specific will open exploitable loopholes. Vagueness is a loophole that goes in BOTH directions. And staff interpretations have more weight by default.
I've brought up several ideas regarding how comments are handle by the system. It's mostly dependent on how much we pester the Moe devs and their willingness to code the shit in. I think the current reason for it's lack of inclusion i sthe need for DB structure changes to actually track those numbers and changes. The Devs are avoidng table structure changes like the plague: once you commit to a new DB structure, you can't revert without a full back copy of the older table system. And if you don't upgrade, you shit outta luck for further enhancements if the devs are committed to continuing on their track unless you decide to do your own shit (i.e. code forking.) <<< Not happening on our side.
The above is way I started adding Ban duration and actual dates to ban records. At least this why we know how often a user fucks up, for what reason, and how to progress the ban lengths based on those 2 facts. (My general scheme is 1, 3, 7, 14, 30, 60, 90, 182, 365, 3650. Last one is to mark accounts I will deactivate later.) I generally warn problem commenters before invoking bans for comments though, unless it's a blatant problem (i.e. the user just spent their entire hourly comment allotment on BS comments). Warning and 1-day bans are my standard starting records (depending on which situation the user dug themself into.) After that, I flow back into my increments starting at 3-days for subsequent bans of the same user.
Violations types stack with me, so for say a first time comment, post, and tag violator will get 3 days (or or 7 if they're just stupid) instead of just 1 if I find them after they've fucked up in all three categories.
I've brought up several ideas regarding how comments are handle by the system. It's mostly dependent on how much we pester the Moe devs and their willingness to code the shit in. I think the current reason for it's lack of inclusion i sthe need for DB structure changes to actually track those numbers and changes. The Devs are avoidng table structure changes like the plague: once you commit to a new DB structure, you can't revert without a full back copy of the older table system. And if you don't upgrade, you shit outta luck for further enhancements if the devs are committed to continuing on their track unless you decide to do your own shit (i.e. code forking.) <<< Not happening on our side.
The above is way I started adding Ban duration and actual dates to ban records. At least this why we know how often a user fucks up, for what reason, and how to progress the ban lengths based on those 2 facts. (My general scheme is 1, 3, 7, 14, 30, 60, 90, 182, 365, 3650. Last one is to mark accounts I will deactivate later.) I generally warn problem commenters before invoking bans for comments though, unless it's a blatant problem (i.e. the user just spent their entire hourly comment allotment on BS comments). Warning and 1-day bans are my standard starting records (depending on which situation the user dug themself into.) After that, I flow back into my increments starting at 3-days for subsequent bans of the same user.
Violations types stack with me, so for say a first time comment, post, and tag violator will get 3 days (or or 7 if they're just stupid) instead of just 1 if I find them after they've fucked up in all three categories.
I understand your point of intentional vagueness, but I still think a bit more clarity there is needed. Not much, mind you, but at least an additional statement that spells out the intention of the rule. For example:StahnAileron said:
That clause was prusposely left semi-vague for staff discretion/flexibility. Most users who actually think about stuff before doing something usually err on the side of caution when faced with vagueness. It follows the example of, "If I saw this one someones else's system without knowing the context, would I worry?" Granted, I will admit it's more subjective than I would like, but half the running of the site is based on subjective judgment (Post approvals being the obvious one.) It's leeway meant for the site and staff to cover our own collective asses. Making it too specific will open exploitable loopholes. Vagueness is a loophole that goes in BOTH directions. And staff interpretations have more weight by default.
"What's visible in the avatar should be suitable for the work safe version of the site. Those that aren't will be changed."
This is, in my opinion, still a very vague rule. What is safe and not safe? In the end, that's up to the moderator. It's open to interpretation. We're not specifically saying nipples and genitalia can't be pictured just for someone to exploit the loophole and use a cum-covered face.
I'm not saying we need everything not allowed to be spelled out. I'm just saying that, as it stands, I don't feel that I can't confidently remove an avatar depicting a bare breast based on what's stated in the rules.
秀悟
9 months ago