would it be possible to disable the caps, length and profanity filter in od [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : would it be possible to disable the caps, length and profanity filter in od

FutureWorm
13 Aug 2007, 14:13
i mean that would be a nice thing to have
i understand why these measures are in place in other boards because people tend to act like children in them, but this one is a lot more mature and i think we can handle the responsibility
also in an unrelated note it would be nice to get avatar sizes up again, kB-wise

thomasp
13 Aug 2007, 15:00
i mean that would be a nice thing to have
i understand why these measures are in place in other boards because people tend to act like children in them, but this one is a lot more mature and i think we can handle the responsibility
I'm not sure if it's possible to change things like that just for one forum without installing a large number of hacks
also in an unrelated note it would be nice to get avatar sizes up again, kB-wise
Volcadmin believes a lot of the recent Database errors have been due to the attachment database and its size, so I don't know if upping the avatar size will have a knock-on effect with this.

bonz
13 Aug 2007, 15:25
If the profanity filter gets disabled, I'll be using a signature again, filled with the most filthy swear words I can find.
Probably from Bender Bending Rodríguez. :D

Paul.Power
13 Aug 2007, 22:58
Volcadmin believes a lot of the recent Database errors have been due to the attachment database and its size, so I don't know if upping the avatar size will have a knock-on effect with this."Oops", says pretty much the only guy who still uses attachments

philby4000
13 Aug 2007, 23:35
Attachment Statistics
You are currently using 14.44 MB to store 389 uploaded attachments.

Paul.Power
13 Aug 2007, 23:40
You are currently using 9.95 MB to store 411 uploaded attachments.
So more files, but a smaller amount of memory.

FutureWorm
14 Aug 2007, 00:00
You are currently using 2.40 MB to store 83 uploaded attachments.
hmm. SOMEone's not breaking the forum.

SupSuper
14 Aug 2007, 00:01
You are currently using 5.13 MB to store 267 uploaded attachments.
I'm surprised the attachment database causes trouble, what with the strict limits, the introduction of the [img] tag and the periodical cleanup of old ones.

SomePerson
14 Aug 2007, 03:32
You are currently using 1.21 MB to store 72 uploaded attachments. Heck yeah.
Was there a reason we couldn't upload our avatars on another site and link to them? If someone is dumb and puts up a 5 gig avatar, won't it just load all the rest of the page and then just take forever for the image to appear? I mean, now that we get the img tag, I don't see why it would be all that big a deal, although it would probably take a hack or two.

bloopy
14 Aug 2007, 04:14
If someone is dumb and puts up a 5 gig avatar, won't it just load all the rest of the page and then just take forever for the image to appear?
Browsers would slow down or even crash with an image that size, and someone browsing away from home at 10c/MB could receive a $500 bill. :p Lucky then that most people don't have access to any programs which can handle a 5 gig image.

AndrewTaylor
14 Aug 2007, 11:43
Was there a reason we couldn't upload our avatars on another site and link to them? If someone is dumb and puts up a 5 gig avatar, won't it just load all the rest of the page and then just take forever for the image to appear? I mean, now that we get the img tag, I don't see why it would be all that big a deal, although it would probably take a hack or two.
I think vB supports that natively; just nobody uses it. When you're talking about an image that's on one page, it's not such an issue if it loads slowly or whatever, but when it's something potentially on a thousand pages, you have to be a bit more careful. Besides which, the filesize limit on avatars is as much for the users' benefit as the server's -- you might think your 500kb avatar is awesome, but everyone else just wants a little picture by which they can recognise you. 20kB is more than enough for that.

Pigbuster
14 Aug 2007, 17:48
20kB is more than enough for that.
9.8 kB, you mean.

SomePerson
14 Aug 2007, 19:51
I think vB supports that natively; just nobody uses it. When you're talking about an image that's on one page, it's not such an issue if it loads slowly or whatever, but when it's something potentially on a thousand pages, you have to be a bit more careful. Besides which, the filesize limit on avatars is as much for the users' benefit as the server's -- you might think your 500kb avatar is awesome, but everyone else just wants a little picture by which they can recognise you. 20kB is more than enough for that.
Good point.

AndrewTaylor
15 Aug 2007, 09:59
9.8 kB, you mean.
9.8kB is enough. 20kB is more than that. What's your point?
:p

Blinx
15 Aug 2007, 14:02
9.8kB is enough. 20kB is more than that. What's your point?
:pDepends if you stand for the "less is more" ethos. Or something.

FutureWorm
15 Aug 2007, 15:44
9.8kB is enough. 20kB is more than that. What's your point?
:p
i disagree, 9.8kbps is sometimes too small for even a 100x100 still image let alone an animated gif

AndrewTaylor
15 Aug 2007, 15:50
It's plenty if you know what you're doing. Are you honestly telling me you can't cram a 10,000 pixel image into 10,000 bytes?
Edit: Also, kB are data storage. kbps is baudrate.

FutureWorm
15 Aug 2007, 16:24
It's plenty if you know what you're doing. Are you honestly telling me you can't cram a 10,000 pixel image into 10,000 bytes?
Edit: Also, kB are data storage. kbps is baudrate.
yes i know i just woke up ugh
one other thing that would be interesting is if posts within od counted now, given that they are no longer visible

thomasp
15 Aug 2007, 16:32
yes i know i just woke up ugh
one other thing that would be interesting is if posts within od counted now, given that they are no longer visible
If you do a search to see how many posts you have (well, if you use the "Member List" method), it does include OD posts, but if someone outside OD was to do it, said posts would not be included, so they'd get a lower value.

FutureWorm
15 Aug 2007, 16:53
If you do a search to see how many posts you have (well, if you use the "Member List" method), it does include OD posts, but if someone outside OD was to do it, said posts would not be included, so they'd get a lower value.
i highly doubt that, because i have more than 500 posts outside od and more than 500 within and my postcount isn't much greater than 1000
plus i'm addicted to this forum and post way too much for my own good

thomasp
15 Aug 2007, 17:29
i highly doubt that, because i have more than 500 posts outside od and more than 500 within and my postcount isn't much greater than 1000
plus i'm addicted to this forum and post way too much for my own good
That's why I said search using the "Member list" method. Not search using the "Bog standard search" method.
:p

Paul.Power
15 Aug 2007, 17:33
If you do a search to see how many posts you have (well, if you use the "Member List" method), it does include OD posts, but if someone outside OD was to do it, said posts would not be included, so they'd get a lower value.Really? I thought it didn't include them.
Hmm.
*test*
It doesn't, you know.

thomasp
15 Aug 2007, 17:45
Oh, well you learn something new every day.
I wonder if it includes posts in "Moderation" :p All the infraction threads that automatically get created when Andrew & I infract someone

FutureWorm
15 Aug 2007, 17:51
That's why I said search using the "Member list" method. Not search using the "Bog standard search" method.
:p
right, i did both

Xinos
23 Aug 2007, 17:39
6It's plenty if you know what you're doing. Are you honestly telling me you can't cram a 10,000 pixel image into 10,000 bytes?
Edit: Also, kB are data storage. kbps is baudrate.
How do you supose you fit a rgb value into a single byte? The only reason your avatar fits in under 10kb is because of that massive field of dark blue which saves compression space, however, everybody doesn't want their avatars to have large chunks of the same colored pixels.

AndrewTaylor
23 Aug 2007, 19:22
You don't need an RGB value. Pallette it. You get one colour for every four pixels -- that has to be enough. Both GIF and PNG will happily compress that to 9.8kB. Unless you want your avatar to be white noise or animated, you should have no problem squeezing it into the limit.

Xinos
23 Aug 2007, 22:12
This gif turned out to bee 12kb. And the png version was twice the size.

SupSuper
24 Aug 2007, 01:57
Well that's because it's a photo. You either JPG it or optimize it.

Blinx
25 Aug 2007, 11:32
I see no difference.

SupSuper
25 Aug 2007, 15:25
Of course not, it's about the filesize. :p

Pickleworm
26 Aug 2007, 00:49
I see no difference.
Eye is redder on the right.

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.