Have a suggestion for a new feature?

[Moshalas]

I'd like to see some sort of anti-bumping system to prevent old threads from suddenly appearing as "new" ones. This could be done by simply causing a thread to become bump-proof after a certain amount of time has elapsed since creation. I've seen this idea used on some boards, but it's pretty rare these days. I don't know if it's going to be easy to implement.

Many of you have problems with "necromancy", the act of reviving old threads on a forum. It works by using a loophole of allowing old threads to be bumped, which is easily abused for baiting other users into rage. The method I describe above will help to prevent aged threads from climbing back up, while keeping the board fresh and up to date with new content.

[Pesco]

Old threads get auto-locked.

[helvetica]

I'd like to see some sort of anti-bumping system to prevent old threads from suddenly appearing as "new" ones. This could be done by simply causing a thread to become bump-proof after a certain amount of time has elapsed since creation. I've seen this idea used on some boards, but it's pretty rare these days. I don't know if it's going to be easy to implement.

Many of you have problems with "necromancy", the act of reviving old threads on a forum. It works by using a loophole of allowing old threads to be bumped, which is easily abused for baiting other users into rage. The method I describe above will help to prevent aged threads from climbing back up, while keeping the board fresh and up to date with new content.

We solved this a while ago.
http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php/topic,9787.html

[Dizzy H. "Muffin" Muffin]

Something I've seen on other messageboards: a "block spoiler," which, instead of just coloring the text to be the same color as the background, actually makes it disappear completely into a "show/hide" javascript-button. (Like so.) Could do things like hide walls of text, or spoiler images in a way that doesn't expose the URL. I can understand if it's too much work for not much gain, though.

[Tengukami]

I wholly support this. The spoiler tag is useless when I'm mobile phone browsing.

[Dizzy H. "Muffin" Muffin]

That part hadn't actually occurred to me. Partly because I generally don't think of mobile phones as being able to run Javascript to begin with ... And I meant as an alternate, not a replacement, kinda thing.

[helvetica]

I nixed this when it came up a while ago because it'd be infinitely more effort for me to implement such a thing than to just find a mobile compatible spoilering method.

[Dizzy H. "Muffin" Muffin]

Kay.

[capt. h]

I think Koakuma's Grand Bookstore should be made viewable to non-members.

I'm not sure if this is something to take up in the library or here, but it seems kind of silly to lock guests out of the completed fanfic section of the site.

[Edible]

I think Koakuma's Grand Bookstore should be made viewable to non-members.

I'm not sure if this is something to take up in the library or here, but it seems kind of silly to lock guests out of the completed fanfic section of the site.

I believe the intent was to prevent Google from indexing them, but I could be mistaken.

[capt. h]

Admittedly I don't know much about how Google indexing causes issues, but even if opening up Koakuma's directly is out I think it would be really useful to have a way for non-users to view the stories in Koakuma's.

Patchouli's is how I got into the site in the first place. I wouldn't want to cut off non-members from my stories as a writer, and as a reader I wouldn't be as impressed if the only stories available were the incomplete works.

[Tengukami]

As one of the people who have stories in Koakuma's, I much prefer having the stories not visible to non-members. If people really want to explore completed works of fiction on this site, they can make the minimal effort it takes to join.

[XephyrEnigma]

As one of the people who have stories in Koakuma's, I much prefer having the stories not visible to non-members. If people really want to explore completed works of fiction on this site, they can make the minimal effort it takes to join.

I agree with this. If you're browsing PSL anyhow, you're most likely going to have a committed interest in people's stories, especially moreso if you're a writer as well. So most likely, you're going to register, and then -- oh look! A thread containing finished stories!

[capt. h]

Well, for one thing they wouldn't know anything about Koakuma's unless they already joined. We don't exactly advertise that there even is a completed works of fiction section on the site. Heck, if I were a guest browsing the library catalog, the first thing I would notice is the fact that half the stories are missing, which looks sloppy on the outside. Part of the problem is that the site doesn't distinguish between broken links to missing pages and links to parts of the site that are member only (they appear to share the same screen), so to an onlooker their first thought would be about how dozens of stories are missing, not that they should join to read dozens more stories. That part of the site needs to be advertised in some way, even if guests don't have access to it, simply so that guests will know it exists.

I don't consider Tengu's point completely fair because guests wouldn't know the completed stories section exists, and I think they would be more likely to join because of the completed stories are good than the incomplete ones. And I don't see why the completed stories should be restricted to people who already have a committed interest. Truthfully, the reason I got into the site in the first place as well as started taking an interest in writing at all was because of the fanfics on this site. I probably wouldn't have registered or even have had an interest in the site in the first place if not for stories like Frame of the Undying Fortitude and Journal of Patchouli's Loyal Assistant (my membership predates Koakuma's). I consider Koakumas to be  a very good demonstration of what the library is about, and a selling point for the library as a whole. Hiding it from the public does us a disservice, if you ask me.

[Alfred F. Jones]

I believe the intent was to prevent Google from indexing them, but I could be mistaken.

They're not supposed to be invisible to guests, actually. That is something that should be fixed.
(I didn't even know it was invisible. Whoops.)

[helvetica]

Please to not be fixing it.  It shares that permission with a board that should NOT be visible to Google and crew.  If KGB should be guestable I'll setup a new permission set to handle it.

[Alfred F. Jones]

KGB should be guestable, aye. Sorry for the trouble.

[Phoenix_lostarr]

Umm... forgive me for the concentrated stupid I'm about to pour out, but, why should some boards not have Google poking at them? What issues does it cause, exactly?

[Tengukami]

Privacy concerns of the userbase, mostly.

[fondue]

What about an option to "subscribe" to a board? Every time a new post/new thread is posted there you will get a notification such as...
A new post has came in one of your subscribed boards! Click to view.
When a board is subscribed to, you should have an option to subscribe to the child boards or an option to unsubscribe.
Perfect for the Moronic Coliseum and LettyJournal.  :3

[Dr Rawr]

Theres already one of those :V its next to the new topic button.

[Tengukami]

By the same token, how about "Ignore thread" or even "Ignore board"?

It's not a major issue or anything, at all, but my Unread is cluttered with threads I don't follow and never will. Would be neat to have a way to tidy that up without having to hit "Mark all as read" over and over.

[fondue]

Yes.

[Zil]

By the same token, how about "Ignore thread" or even "Ignore board"?

I've never tried this, but would hitting the "notify" button and then "un-notify" stop you from being notified for that thread? (Doesn't work. It's possible that the button does nothing at all.) Also, it's kind of weird that once you've posted in a thread the "notify" thing doesn't automatically shift to "un-notify."

In any event, a way to ignore threads you've already posted in would be very nice.

[fondue]

What about if you made a thread or about to make one, and you can set it's visibility to anyone, all members, all members above 3 posts, all members above 10 posts, specific members, Idiot Princesses etc. But any post must be visible to admins or shrine janitors or Staff Members, people like that.

[Edible]

What about if you made a thread or about to make one, and you can set it's visibility to anyone, all members, all members above 3 posts, all members above 10 posts, specific members, Idiot Princesses etc. But any post must be visible to admins or shrine janitors or Staff Members, people like that.

Ahaha... no thanks.  That'd be way more of a headache than it's worth.

[Alfred F. Jones]

By the same token, how about "Ignore thread" or even "Ignore board"?

It's not a major issue or anything, at all, but my Unread is cluttered with threads I don't follow and never will. Would be neat to have a way to tidy that up without having to hit "Mark all as read" over and over.

I don't really use the Unread Posts function, but wouldn't the Ignore Boards option under the Modify Profile tab of your profile work for that?

[Tengukami]

I don't really use the Unread Posts function, but wouldn't the Ignore Boards option under the Modify Profile tab of your profile work for that?

That's if I want to ignore all the threads on an entire board. I'm talking about being in Unread or Replies, and there being a little "Ignore" button next to individual threads.

This is practical for when you've commented in a thread and don't need to follow it, or if there are some threads on a board you want to follow while ignoring others. It's essentially doing what Ignore Boards already does, only on a thread-by-thread basis in your Unread or Replies page.

[Stuffman]

How much of a pain in the ass would it be to make the font face/size/color drop-down boxes reset to their original positions after you make a choice? Currently, if I want to color a bunch of lines I have to manually reset it to "Change Color" after each time. It would save me a whole bunch of clicks if it went back on its own D:

[helvetica]

Uhh, it works fine here...?  I just tried it, each time I select a color in "Change Color" it resets back to "Change Color".  Do you have javascript enabled?

e: same with font and font size