New A2K Bugs

... additionally, is there a good reason not to set the default back to ten? In the old threads people frequently reference page numbers. "I think I answered your question on page 41", or, "on page 50 you said this but now your saying something different." These references are now useless.

Granted, this is not a catastrophy, because these references don't occur super often. But why sacrifice this piece of backwards compatibility without a good reason?

Good catch. This should be fixed now...

dadpad -- are you previewing from behind some organization's firewall? It seems that I get this behavior on my work computer, but not on my home computer.

There seems to be some confusion about these preferences

expand all posts - this will not make a scrollbar appear for posts. If someone posts a long post, by default you will have to scroll the post to see it all. If you don't like this, set 'expand all posts' to 'yes', and it will be back to how it worked on the old site.

topic and post threshold - when users vote up/down a topic, it changes that topics popularity score. If a topic gets a score too low, it will collapse the post for users automatically. These 2 prefernces allow you to set at which score the posts will automatically appear collapsed. Setting it to 'no collapsing' means that even if a topic has a score of -100, you will still see it (assuming you haven't ignored the starting user, or voted it down yourself)

First things first, the enable BBC code link should probably default to showing the editing tools for writing a post.

Next, I was testing the editing tools over in the nifty stuff thread and ran across a few bugs. I'll try quoting the post here with all the bbc code so you can see what I was doing. The bug is that if you use multiple bbc codes for formatting the content of a post, they start to nest amongst themselves after awhile. For instance, when I was trying to create the image link it kept bouncing up to where the bbc code for code display was already set. I finally had to enter it manually. The bold, italic, underlining and quote buttons all worked as expected. The problem started with the others after it so perhaps they just haven't yet had the wrinkles ironed out yet because they are the less frequently used ones.

Had the problems with the code, img, url, and font size button. Had to try several times before the cursor stopped jumping up to the previously entered bracket to insert the code. Sometimes giving a few line returns made it work, sometimes it bounced up to the previous bracket anyway.

Yep, thanks!

There was. I probably shouldn't have connected my remark to Region Philbis's, and I probably should have posted them in the Annoyances thread rather than the bug thread.

But having posted it here, my question remains: Why display 20 posts per page if it needlessly breaks crossreferences in old threads? This breakage can easily be fixed in one of two ways: (1) continue displaying 10 posts per page on the new site, or (2) allow users to configure the number of posts per page, so they can set it to 10 themselves. I personally prefer option #1, because it's uniform for all users, and allows them, quite literally, to make sure they're on the same page.

Feh. I hate having to click to reach the next page.

Hitting preview on my work computer, but outside the work firewall

Aha! It posts! So it's connected to some settings on my computer; it has nothing to do with the firewall

or we all get used to referencing the post number we're errrr referencing

That will help in the future, but it won't fix the problem in the old posts. But hey, if I'm outvoted -- Fine! Have it your way, you rotten breakers of backwards compatibility.

There are duplicate entries in the Topic Tags and Related Tags boxes.

One thing I've noticed is that the hand icons (thumbs up/ thumbs down) often appear in funky places -- overlapping the avatar or far below, like this:

Very weird, sozobe. I need to look into this. Can you please tell me specifically what Operating System and Web Browser you are using? Also, is it certain situations that you've noticed that cause this bug? This one might be a hard one to troubleshoot, so I appreciate as much info as you can give me. Thanks!

I have a mac, OSX version 10.3.9, and I'm using Firefox version 2.0.0.16

I've seen it across many different situations, haven't noticed a common thread yet. But will keep an eye out and report if I notice anything that might be useful.

Whatever is going on, it's not consistent even for me.

For example, I noticed the funky placement again on page 8 of a thread. I had a spare thought -- maybe it has to do with how long a thread is? I sorted by "most replies," and clicked on the last page of this this thread:

http://able2know.org/topic/31-3376

Lo and behold, the hands were all over the dang place. Strangely, individual posters maintained the same alignment, though the alignments varied on the page. For example, Rockhead's hands were always a bit too high. Dutchy's were always fine. Black Tulips were REALLY high. Etc.

I tried to get the url for the page -- cut off the post number part, hit "return" to make sure it worked -- and when I did so, all the hands were where they were supposed to be again.

#2 doesn't make it any better for what you want. It's worse and the users can be on vastly different pages.

As to the number per page, it will likely change again as we find out what works best. 10 is just far too low and it may go up substantially.

Here's another wrinkle -- only the gray hands float around to weird places. If I've voted, the voting hand (green or red) is where it supposed to be, while the non-voting hand (gray) floats weirdly. If I re-vote -- click on the thumbs-down whereas it had been thumbs-up, for example -- the hands snap into their proper places.

Probably not a big enough bug for all of this exposition so will quit unless I notice anything else Major, but wanted to get that one more thing in.

Nick, I've seen this as well. A refresh will often put them in the right place so this is going to be a particularly hard one to debug.

I had the same thing... didn't occur very often, just saw it twice, though. Chalked it up to some CSS problem, reloaded the page, and they were placed correctly.

Browser/OS version:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.1.16) Gecko/20080702 Firefox/2.0.0.16