View previous topic | View next topic

Forum Bugette

Page 1 of 1

484326.  Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:10 pm Reply with quote

No - not a special type of bread... just a loophole in the dating of posts.

When you edit the last post in the thread, the fact it's edited isn't recorded in any way.

Shouldn't the original posting date be updated - otherwise you could appear to predict the future of the middle-east (although I only re-wrote the second paragraph).

And I never earned a cigar or banana... :-(

484353.  Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:10 pm Reply with quote

I think that's considered a feature rather than a bug!

There seems to be a slight negative connotation attached to editing a post, but the "edited by" line isn't shown if you edit before anyone has replied. Which is really quite useful if one discovers a typo immediately one has posted (very common, if one is me), or just realises that one's post is utter nonsense (nearly as common).

But yes, it's capable of causing confusion if one makes a post which isn't replied to for some considerable time. Personally, if I edit a post more than ten minutes or so after originally making it, I try to note that it's an edit in the text of the post.

Whether it's possible for the forum software to be told to show an edit as such in these circumstances, or to change the post time to the time of amendment, I'm unsure. (The latter is to my mind undesirable; the former might be mildly annoying but will never be misleading.)

I know that some other forums show any edit as being one even if there has been no reply; it may depend on which of the various forum softwares available is in use.

484358.  Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:19 pm Reply with quote

Like suze, I consider it a bonus rather than a bugette!

484985.  Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:43 pm Reply with quote

Gosh - this is all a bit vague - not sure how it's a bonus either. It's a bug (confusion = bug) - but I can understand why you're not too bothered.

But this board - being written in PHP - should be easily amendable (or upgradeable).

Anyway, I like the fact you're comfortable with a little "confusing feature" lurking around.

Keep up the good work (no irony honest).


485311.  Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:56 am Reply with quote

Everyone knows that the difference between a bug and a feature is that the feature is documented.

490641.  Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:13 pm Reply with quote

Something that's been annoying me lately. When you make a post, and then immediately edit it, as you've spotted an error or spelling mistake or something, quite often it won't let you repost because it's too soon after your original post.

I appreciate the need for flood control, but surely it needn't apply to editing posts?

490654.  Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:22 pm Reply with quote

It's being suggested to me that the piece of logic which is called into play there doesn't know the difference between a new post and an edit of an existing post.

The required time delay between posts is very short though - having gotten that message, if you do "back" and then "submit" again, then it nearly always works the second time. (I think I can recall once when it didn't; on that occasion the third attempt was successful.)

490882.  Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:28 pm Reply with quote

i've come across the "too early to post" thing too - waiting for a few seconds and then re-posting usually sorts it out.

I've also come across the "unexpected" permanent refusal for no apparent reason. suze will not have seen this because she's a "good girl".

I still don't see an answer to the question - why is MI5 recruiting people known to use illegal drugs?

490884.  Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:39 pm Reply with quote

Have you tried the MI5 drug policy thread?

491214.  Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:50 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
I've also come across the "unexpected" permanent refusal for no apparent reason. suze will not have seen this because she's a "good girl".

I don't know about that.

But what have you tried to post that wouldn't post at all? Our anti-spam defences do prevent any post that contains certain specified text from posting. For obvious reasons I'm not going to say precisely what "certain specified text" is, but it isn't things like curse words or any other normal language likely to occur in a non-spam post.

491787.  Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:40 am Reply with quote

Considering what gets through in bobwilson's posts, I dread to think how bad the excluded ones must have been.

491793.  Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:49 am Reply with quote

I pwersonially nevre need to eidt posts as my tryping is second to noone.


Page 1 of 1

All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group