phpBB 3

[Steel]

I don't know why, but I'm having trouble using the ordered list function.

[list=][*]Here's[*]what[*]I[*]get[/list]

Am I doing something wrong, or is this feature not really implemented?

Take the equal sign out:

• Here's
• what
• I
• get

[Kevin]

If you take the equal sign out, you don't have an ordered list. For an ordered list, you need to specify numbers or letters like so:

Code: Select all

[list=1][*]Here's[*]what[*]I[*]get[/list]

1. Here's
2. what
3. I
4. get

Code: Select all

[list=a][*]Here's[*]what[*]I[*]get[/list]

1. Here's
2. what
3. I
4. get

It looks like it doesn't matter which letters or numbers you specify.

[Kevin]

How do I turn off email notification of IMs?

I have "No" checked on "Notify me on new private messages."

That's odd. I'll look around and see if there's a reason for this.

[Flying Fox]

I don't know why, but I'm having trouble using the ordered list function.

[list=][*]Here's[*]what[*]I[*]get[/list]

Am I doing something wrong, or is this feature not really implemented?

Cut the "=" and you will be unordered list. Put "list=1" and you get numbered ordered list.

[titan]

If you take the equal sign out, you don't have an ordered list. For an ordered list, you need to specify numbers or letters like so:

Code: Select all

[list=1][*]Here's[*]what[*]I[*]get[/list]

1. Here's
2. what
3. I
4. get

Code: Select all

[list=a][*]Here's[*]what[*]I[*]get[/list]

1. Here's
2. what
3. I
4. get

It looks like it doesn't matter which letters or numbers you specify.

I don't know why, but I'm having trouble using the ordered list function.

[list=][*]Here's[*]what[*]I[*]get[/list]

Am I doing something wrong, or is this feature not really implemented?

Cut the "=" and you will be unordered list. Put "list=1" and you get numbered ordered list.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[mattsteg]

I don't know why, but I'm having trouble using the ordered list function.

[list=][*]Here's[*]what[*]I[*]get[/list]

Am I doing something wrong, or is this feature not really implemented?

1. t
2. e
3. s
4. t

1. t
2. e
3. s
4. t

You need to do list=a (or anotehr single letter) or list=1(or another single numerical digit)

[Vrock]

So...why does the forum prevent you from quoting more than three posters? That kind of sucks. Can we have a more reasonable limit? Say, six?

[Captain Ned]

So...why does the forum prevent you from quoting more than three posters? That kind of sucks. Can we have a more reasonable limit? Say, six?

Given the glee ISTR Kevin exhibiting over this feature, I'd not hold out much hope.

[titan]

So...why does the forum prevent you from quoting more than three posters? That kind of sucks. Can we have a more reasonable limit? Say, six?

Given the glee ISTR Kevin exhibiting over this feature, I'd not hold out much hope.

I agree with the current limitation as it is. I don't need to reread six posts. Most people don't take the time to summarize the quote either, so there ends up being a long run of nested quotes before actually getting to what the current poster is going to say. Very annoying.

Besides, you're able to quote other posts while writing your own, so what's the big deal.

[mattsteg]

So...why does the forum prevent you from quoting more than three posters? That kind of sucks. Can we have a more reasonable limit? Say, six?

Given the glee ISTR Kevin exhibiting over this feature, I'd not hold out much hope.

What it should do is give the option to cut out the deeper quotes instead of making you hunt through to find them.

[Looking for Knowledge]

How do I turn off email notification of IMs?

I have "No" checked on "Notify me on new private messages."

That's odd. I'll look around and see if there's a reason for this.

It's fixed. I may have needed to clear sign-out/clear my cookies/ or some other such magic....but it's fine now.

[Kevin]

So...why does the forum prevent you from quoting more than three posters? That kind of sucks. Can we have a more reasonable limit? Say, six?

You can quote more than three posters, you just can't have more than 3 nested quotes. I thought 3 was pretty reasonable (it was even the phpBB 3 default).

What it should do is give the option to cut out the deeper quotes instead of making you hunt through to find them.

Yeah, that would be pretty slick.

It's fixed. I may have needed to clear sign-out/clear my cookies/ or some other such magic....but it's fine now.

That's good. I was hoping it was something like that.

[Usacomp2k3]

What it should do is give the option to cut out the deeper quotes instead of making you hunt through to find them.

Yeah, that would be pretty slick.

That's what I was thinking of too.

[JustAnEngineer]

So...why does the forum prevent you from quoting more than three posters? That kind of sucks. Can we have a more reasonable limit? Say, six?

Given the glee ISTR Kevin exhibiting over this feature, I'd not hold out much hope.

I agree with the current limitation as it is. I don't need to reread six posts. Most people don't take the time to summarize the quote either, so there ends up being a long run of nested quotes before actually getting to what the current poster is going to say. Very annoying. Besides, you're able to quote other posts while writing your own, so what's the big deal.

What it should do is give the option to cut out the deeper quotes instead of making you hunt through to find them.

Yeah, that would be pretty slick.

That's what I was thinking of too.

You can have plenty of quotes. You don't have to nest them, you know.

[UberGerbil]

You can have plenty of quotes. You don't have to nest them, you know.

And note, in case you missed it when I mentioned it earlier, that when you're composing a reply you can click the quote button on as many other posts as you want and they'll each get added, with proper quote tags, at the end of your reply.

[Usacomp2k3]

You can have plenty of quotes. You don't have to nest them, you know.

And note, in case you missed it when I mentioned it earlier, that when you're composing a reply you can click the quote button on as many other posts as you want and they'll each get added, with proper quote tags, at the end of your reply.

Is that new, because I haven't seen that before. Cool

[titan]

You can have plenty of quotes. You don't have to nest them, you know.

And note, in case you missed it when I mentioned it earlier, that when you're composing a reply you can click the quote button on as many other posts as you want and they'll each get added, with proper quote tags, at the end of your reply.

Is that new, because I haven't seen that before. Cool

It's new, as in it came with phpBB3. Just scroll down to the "TOPIC REVIEW" section of the "POST A REPLY" page, and you'll see the quote buttons next to all of the posts.

[Usacomp2k3]

Gah I just lost a long reply to the Sonic thread because of the stupd 'review your post thing' because I had already clicked the tab. I ctrl-w to the next tab as soon as I see that the page was uploaded and the next one starts loading. It's going to take me awhile to get used to that 'feature'. Are you sure there's no way to turn it off?

[UberGerbil]

Gah I just lost a long reply to the Sonic thread because of the stupd 'review your post thing' because I had already clicked the tab. I ctrl-w to the next tab as soon as I see that the page was uploaded and the next one starts loading. It's going to take me awhile to get used to that 'feature'. Are you sure there's no way to turn it off?

Maybe you should use preview more, especially when you're writing very long replies?

In Firefox you can use the History menu to open "Recently Closed Tabs" and your reply should still be there.

[Usacomp2k3]

Maybe you should use preview more, especially when you're writing very long replies?

Why should I use one system that I don't need to overcome another one that I don't need. I can read my own writing fine without the need of preview. And it wasn't that lengthy, it's just that the topic doesn't really merit the 5 minutes I spent replying in the first place

In Firefox you can use the History menu to open "Recently Closed Tabs" and your reply should still be there.

Cool. I didn't remember where the setting was. Thanks.

[bhtooefr]

Hmm, while the inability for someone to break the page is nice... it's not possible to post an 800x600 image without it getting cut off on a 1024x768 display...

I think you could get 5 pixels on either side (reducing the blue area), and about 10 or 15 pixels from the profile area without causing icons to wrap...

[Usacomp2k3]

Hmm, while the inability for someone to break the page is nice... it's not possible to post an 800x600 image without it getting cut off on a 1024x768 display...

Yeah, I thought that was annoying too. I thought phpbb3 was going to have the page-breaking fix of a post that was too wide would just, itself be wider, while all the others would remain the same width.

[bhtooefr]

Problem is, that allows a wider post to still somewhat break the page.

One approach that some forums I'm on use is a scroll bar in the post if it's too wide.

Another approach I've seen (Gleek's forum does this) is, scaling images in the post automatically if they're too wide.

[Usacomp2k3]

Problem is, that allows a wider post to still somewhat break the page.

One approach that some forums I'm on use is a scroll bar in the post if it's too wide.

Another approach I've seen (Gleek's forum does this) is, scaling images in the post automatically if they're too wide.

As long as I only have to scroll so see that one post, that's perfectly acceptable. A bear to program though, I'm sure.

The problem with the second one is that unless the image is resampled and not just resized, they look like crap, and that's also a CPU hit, especially for threads with lots of pictures in them.

[Usacomp2k3]

Is there any way to not have links truncated? It is annoying in some cases.

[Kevin]

Hmm, while the inability for someone to break the page is nice... it's not possible to post an 800x600 image without it getting cut off on a 1024x768 display...

I could specify a hard limit for image size in the ACP, but what that limit should be is an open question (and would be a board wide setting).

Is there any way to not have links truncated? It is annoying in some cases.

I don't see anything in the ACP that affects this. In what cases is it annoying? Hovering over the link still shows the full URL in the status bar.

[Usacomp2k3]

Is there any way to not have links truncated? It is annoying in some cases.

I don't see anything in the ACP that affects this. In what cases is it annoying? Hovering over the link still shows the full URL in the status bar.

Yeah, I know that you can show them through hovering, but if there is a post with a handful of links, it's effortful to position the mouse over them one-by-one and you can't compare 2 links to see if they are the same.

Hmm. I can't seem to find the thread that I was at before posting the question. It's not that big of a deal, I just don't like the idea of things truncated automatically without my control. I can understand why it is generally helpful. I guess it's one of those 'yeah, it helps 85% of the time, but there is no checkbox for the other 15% of cases' type scenario.

[derFunkenstein]

why would you post the same link twice, anyway? I'm sure your 85-15 is skewed in favor of the exception, that it's more like 99-1.

[Usacomp2k3]

why would you post the same link twice, anyway? I'm sure your 85-15 is skewed in favor of the exception, that it's more like 99-1.

Not the same link twice, but various sources for an article, for example.

[bhtooefr]

Most non-phpBB forums I'm on truncate the middle of the URL, rather than the end. That way, you can still see the ending without mousing over, yet it'll never break the page.