Website comments
This topic contains 946 replies, has 51 voices, and was last updated by 
-
AuthorPosts
-
21 October 2013 at 17:23 #18938
Anonymous @
Ahhh but @pedant – it all goes back to @bluesqueakpip pointing out in the miasmic early days of this website:
By the way, @craig, if you should ever feel inclined to adopt a website motto, I’m particularly fond of Rory’s comment from The God Complex.
— No, it’s amazing you’ve come up with a theory even more insane than what’s actually happening.–
Something like “We come up with theories even more insane than what’s actually happening.”
PS @craig – love the new Forums search! Found this post in mere blips of an instant. 🙂
PS 2 @pedant – “Also, can we pleas get target=”_blank” working in the forums?” You and your sweet talk. 🙂 Always does it for me. 😆
21 October 2013 at 17:44 #18942Harrumph.
Al right then. I’ll let you off.
THIS TIME.
21 October 2013 at 17:57 #18944@pedant – I am SO looking forward to meeting you in person at the pub get-together next month. 😀 Please don’t change an inch until then.
21 October 2013 at 19:29 #18957@pedant I’m not keen on target=”_blank” on links (unless they are to PDFs). It takes away user control and can disorientate, especially on mobiles, as the back button doesn’t work. And the back button is the second most used feature of the web after hyperlinks.
I hope most people know that they can just do Ctrl+click to open a link in a new window if that’s what they want.
I know this is old, but a lot of it still stands, especially with the rise of small mobile screens.
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/the-top-ten-web-design-mistakes-of-1999/
21 October 2013 at 20:47 #18975I just did a massive big post and it’s been eaten 🙁
Reopened it to add a link, clicked “submit”… and it’s gone, vamoosed 🙁
(Don’t suppose it’s lurking in the backwaters of the site anywhere? It happened a couple of weeks ago – @Shazzbot was a witness!))
21 October 2013 at 20:49 #18976@scaryb – did you reference me in it? Because I had a notification that you’d referenced me, and then the post wasn’t there. Unfortunately I don’t have posts e-mailed to me, so I wouldn’t have a copy. 🙁
21 October 2013 at 20:52 #18978@scaryb I’m just looking through the database now.
Can you remember the first sentence, that would help. Or is the first sentence in your email @bluesqueakpip ?
21 October 2013 at 20:54 #18980Yes I did (I like your policeman theory – don’t see why they’d do it (in joke?), but it’s amusing); I referenced loads of people. I had it copied to memory, till I re-opened it to add the link to @phaseshift‘s blog (which is all I get when I hit “control /V” now) 🙁 (Oh well, I’m sure people can survive without my words of wisdom heh heh)
21 October 2013 at 20:56 #18981Yikes – memory span of a gnat, me! … Ref’d Shazzbot first – “Wrong policeman… typical 60s chinstrap style…”
or something like that
And then Wolfweed to thank him for the earlier pic of the 4 Doctors
21 October 2013 at 20:58 #18982PS @craig I ref’d you as well, tho further down, but it’s maybe in your email notifications?
Check with @Shazzbot re the earlier time – I tried posting something 3 times and she said she just watched them going on, then promptly disappearing. Not happened since
21 October 2013 at 20:59 #18984@scaryb I’ve found it!
Am just trying to activate it. For some reason it was marked as spam. Which is strange.
If I can’t reactivate it I’ll PM you the text and you can re-post.
21 October 2013 at 21:02 #18986@craig Yay! You’re a genius! HUGS! 😀
Maybe it was something to do with the no of @ refs? or the blog link… it was fine till I added it
21 October 2013 at 21:04 #18987@scaryb Saved you
You seem to have been marked as a bit of a spammer for some reason. There are a few posts of yours in spam.
I’ll look into that, as I know you’re not!
21 October 2013 at 21:05 #18988SPAMMER????!!!!!
😥
21 October 2013 at 21:08 #18989Aw, I know you’re not. It just these stupid computer algorithms 😉
21 October 2013 at 21:31 #18991Urrgh.
1 – Trouble is those guides come from a time when the back button would reasonably reliably take you back to where you were – the remotest hint of scripting makes this either unreliable or PAINFULLY slow.
They also comes from the days before TABS. They change everything – an absolute redesign of the paradigm. It is web design fundamentalists who failed to keep up.
Also, it is a hangover from when the web was run and used by nerds and geeks descended from hippies. These days they let in people who don’t know the difference between “Windows”, Word” and “Internet Exploder”. I know, it’s a disgrace.
2. It makes clicking backwards and forwards between pages and unreliable pain in the arse – especially when a post-in-making (or any other form) vanishes if you accidentally hit “back”.
3. There is check box – it does not work with the forum software (fine with WordPress proper, I think). Where’s the choice?
4. Things taking the user out of a site should not assume that you do not want to come back (see 1 above).
Basically, hippy-dippy standards hung over from the days when browsers were crude, but 98% of users were geeks aren’t appropriate for the modern era.
In my experience the overwhelming majority of users want to close the tab and be back where they were without losing their place – or forms – or relying on coding to get them there (usually after a little walk around the houses).
The correct approach is to have a preferred method that minimises the risk of data loss. The tyranny of the back button gets in the way of this.
Nutshell: there are too many ways to arse-up the cache to rely on it, so a new tab is better on 99% of occasions. It is the Ford Focus’s electronic ignition NNG’s Model-T handcranked.
21 October 2013 at 22:34 #19000I’m afraid I’m not convinced. At least, I’m not convinced enough to decide to spend a few days programming when I have other things to do.
1. This site tends to have pretty robust URLs so unless you’re a few screens down into Activity (which is admittedly produced by AJAX once you “Load more”) then the back button is gonna work pretty well, and will reliably take you back to where you were. And yes, tabs did change everything, but I know people who still don’t use them (my boss absolutely hates them). I love them and Ctrl+click opens a link in a new tab, which I do frequently, so I’m not sure what the problem is. Ctrl+click means I have control and not the website.
2. Again, I’m not sure what the problem is. Adding target=”_blank” to links will not make clicking backwards and forwards between pages reliable, it will make it impossible (in terms of going back and forward). You would be able to tab through pages but, as I said, that’s a bit more difficult on mobile. And how do you accidentally hit “back”? Are you posting from a mobile? I’d be interested to know as I just can’t see that ever happening. And I don’t think I could do anything to stop you accidentally hitting “back” anyway unless I was there to grab your mouse.
3. If you mean the check box when adding a link I’ll test it now as I didn’t know it didn’t work. Here’s a test link. Hmmm, seems to have worked, but I won’t know until I post.
4. That’s what Ctrl+click is for. YOU can decide if you are returning, not the site. Are you making a case for opening a new window every time you click on a link? I would end up with about 300 tabs after 20 minutes.
I do think that “the overwhelming majority of users”, if that’s what they want, need to learn to Ctrl+click. It gives you so much power.
And I don’t think the back button is tyrannical. It’s kinda sweet and helpful really. It’s got me out of scrapes before and has never done me wrong, not once. I like it, and I also like the ability to choose to open a link in a new tab, rather than have it forced upon me. Is forcing that not tyrannical?
21 October 2013 at 22:56 #19001Just chucking in my tuppenceworth – and I confess I don’t understand about 90% of @pedant and @craig‘s last posts – so speaking as a user, not a designer. But as a web-luddite I like the back button (and yes I occasionally press it accidentally 😳 (told you I was a luddite) but I can live with that).
I much prefer not opening a new tab automatically when clicking a link (especially if I’m using my phone)
22 October 2013 at 00:33 #1901422 October 2013 at 00:37 #1901522 October 2013 at 01:00 #19016Adding target=”_blank” to links will not make clicking backwards and forwards between pages reliable,
The point is to remove the need to use the back button, because it is unreliable.
(The link in your reply opens a new tab neither of the links in your tests does so).
Are you making a case for opening a new window every time you click on a link?
No, only when linking outside the site (to Youtube etc).
YOU can decide if you are returning, not the site…………I do think that “the overwhelming majority of users”, if that’s what they want, need to learn to Ctrl+click. It gives you so much power.
And how do you accidentally hit “back”?
With a track pad – warm hands in a hot room can do it.
That weird combo of hippy dippy can-we-all-just-get-along and libertarian indifference to others. Only found in the tech sector 😉
It’s kinda sweet and helpful really.
But it fails the obviousness test (despite appearances) because on way too many site – especially with the very modern fad for huge pages) it does not actually take you back where you were, or takes you to an arbitrary anchor that may more may not correspond to where you were.
22 October 2013 at 16:06 #19055@craig – that wretched ‘span’ error is rearing its ugly little head again – whenever I move text around within a post. I’m dragging and dropping within the ‘visual’ screen.
#19054 is the latest.
22 October 2013 at 16:11 #19056Sorry @bluesqueakpip – I swooped down and deleted the span junk on your DotD post. But I don’t think the details are what Craig needs, just the fact that it is still happening …
22 October 2013 at 18:38 #19064@bluesqueakpip I’m really stuck I’m afraid as I’ve done everything I think I possibly can. The editor now has all of these set to true:
- paste_remove_styles
- paste_remove_spans
- paste_strip_class_attributes
- paste_text_sticky (i.e. just paste text)
- paste_text_sticky_default
But I’ll do a bit of searching and see if there’s anything else I’ve missed.
22 October 2013 at 18:49 #19066@pedant I’m honestly not being indifferent (and I work in communications, not tech, I just dabble in websites). I understand your point but I just have a different opinion from you. I think the back button works most of the time, that for most users the back button is still something they use, and opening a new tab without them choosing to is a pain, especially on mobile. I’ve watched users become completely disorientated because they didn’t know how to go back from a new tab, because they hadn’t realised a new one had been opened.
I am however looking into how to enable the tick box for target=”_blank”. As you rightly pointed out, it doesn’t work at present. I thought I had a quick fix last night, hence my test posts, but it didn’t work. Will dig into the functions.
22 October 2013 at 18:58 #19069Just out of curiosity: what back button are you two talking about? You can open new tabs in both mobile and pc versions and there is a static back/forward button in every standard brwoser (mostly top left corner?)…? That not something the website can influence?
In the editing of posts? There is a undo and redo button? No idea which one you mean. To flip through pages in a thread? Why would there be a problem….? I don’t get it X-x.22 October 2013 at 19:11 #19071@timeloop We’re talking about the one in the top left. @pedant (IAmNotAFishIAmAFreeMan) wants all links to other sites to open in a new tab. The back button is then useless (so in a way the website has had an influence). Instead you get back by visiting the previous tab.
I prefer to leave the choice up to the user. They can Ctrl+click to open a link in a new tab if they want to. Or just click, and then hit the back button when they want to go back.
Hope that makes sense. What do you think? Do you use the back button or do you open new tabs? Or both? And would you like new tabs automatically, or just when you choose?
22 October 2013 at 19:34 #19074@craig Ah, I see!
Well I am always venturing through tabs. But I don’t ctrl+click, I just use my mouse (stay longer on the link on a mobile device to get the option for a new tab). I tend to have a look around the linked site and once I am finished with that website (close that tab) the tab of the forum is exactly where I left off. So I dont have to look for it again. To me it is frustraiting if I click on a link that takes you somewhere else and you loose your position on the other website.But I agree that is only helpful if you leave the website otherwise it would be as frustraiting to have a million tabs with the same website at different positions (if not created by will).
I also agree that people who prefer tabs will create them at will and people who like the “back” funktion all the time should have the option to do so.
It is not like it would be so much more work to create a tab instead of being created for you? Only 2 clicks – right click and first option in the firefox. You can’t be that lazy @pedant =P
22 October 2013 at 19:56 #19077Not quite – I want the checkbox in the link dialogue to work as advertised.
Instead you get back by visiting the previous tab.
Well, no. You get back by clicking the little close box once you are done with the external site and TA DA! you are exactly where you were.
(BTW, something I noted a couple of weeks back but forgot to mention – the music page has loads of YouTube thumbnails (well, OK big thumbs) and as a consequence takes absolutely ages to load. Might be worth blocking embedding on there if it kills performance).
22 October 2013 at 20:07 #19078@pedant That is exactly what he said? Previous tab as in the one before the external page?
22 October 2013 at 20:09 #19079@pedant And I’ve said I’ll work on getting the checkbox working.
Re going back to the previous tab or closing the current one – it’s really just a difference of semantics, both achieve the same thing. Are you being argumentative on purpose?
The Music page problem was noted long ago and people are now mostly posting links rather than embedding, but I have no control over what others do. I’m not spending several days reprogramming WordPress and BBPress over one thread.
This site is never going to be perfect, because it’s just me, not a team of developers and I have a finite amount of time to spend on it. It kinda works and I’m happy with that. You may just have to learn to live with that fact.
22 October 2013 at 20:40 #1908123 October 2013 at 00:19 #19091Oh for heaven’s sake calm down.
23 October 2013 at 00:52 #19094@craig – it may just be a case of ‘fix one bug and cause two more’. I can edit stuff; not a major problem. Don’t worry – you’re doing a great job.
Regarding the target=”_blank” controversy, may I say that I find websites that open up links in another tab a bit annoying? Firstly, it usually takes me a while to figure out why their links don’t seem to work. Secondly, because I’m frequently doing a lot of very rapid searches through a large number of pages – I end up with twenty or thirty teeny tiny tabs.
If you’re curious, I’ve been on fourteen sites since midnight. 🙂
23 October 2013 at 02:09 #19096Oh for heaven’s sake calm down.
Oh – If we are going down that route, can I strongly suggest you reel your neck back in/take a step back/consider your options? Normally I’d send a message like that by PM, but for some reason it looks like you want to make this a public argument.
For what it’s worth, for me this is a moot point. If you activate the check box so we can direct to _blank some people will use it (well – one anyway), others (me included) will not. Because the current system gives me a choice of either opening a link in a new tab if I use any of the shortcuts, right click-new tab etc or I can replace the thread if it’s the last entry and explore the link that way. So you’ll just be in the position of not really knowing what the link is going to do. Depends who set it, with no consistency guaranteed.
If the check box isn’t working “as advertised”, I’m not sure if an easier route would just be to remove the thing altogether if possible. Just to avoid “confusion”.
23 October 2013 at 12:11 #19120@craig @pedant @jimthefish @timeloop @phaseshift
I’m a bit flummoxed by this talk about opening links in new tabs and backspace-ing and such. Perhaps it’s because I only access this site via a laptop and not a mobile device?
My two pence worth is that I always right-click a link and choose ‘open in new private window’ (I use Firefox). And I must air my general ignorance in not understanding the difference between windows and tabs. Technically speaking, what is the difference between a window and a tab? What is the benefit of using tabs over windows? Is there a performance issue? A memory issue?
Until this discussion started, I never even noticed the tick box when adding a link ‘open this link in a new window/tab’. Per the comments above, I’d lean toward allowing members to do what they want with links, and not proscribing their actions. But if it’s a faff to remove that tick box, Craig, I’d vote for just leaving things as they are.
{retreats into her beloved relational databases where everything is perfectly logical; and windows are for letting sunlight into the house, and tabs are on the back of her Tshirt necks with the size printed on them}
23 October 2013 at 13:21 #19132@pedant I was never anything other than calm. However, your post at 7:56 did frustrate me as it seemed antagonistic when I was just trying to put my point across as clearly as I could. I apologise if I came across as abrupt.
Firstly, you ignored the fact that I had already said I would look into the check box issue.
Secondly, as @timeloop noted, you were unbelievably, eh, pedantic, regarding how to go back to an old tab.
Thirdly, you raised a completely unrelated issue which did nothing to further your argument and just made you come across, to me anyway, as petty. You might just as well have added “…and you smell!”
You have a perfectly valid opinion and so do I, they just conflict. I think the consensus seems to be that control should remain with the user so I think I’ll leave things as they are (although I’ll try to remove the check box so there is no confusion).
23 October 2013 at 19:58 #19161@craig I tried 3 times now to post something in the 50th thread and it never appears? Am I spam now?
Funny enough even though it does not show up I get a warning that I am posting a duplicate.
Was able to post it after I removed the hyperlink to the original post of Bluesqueakpip. Might be important when looking for the error.
-
This reply was modified 12 years, 9 months ago by
Timeloop. Reason: Troubleshooting
23 October 2013 at 20:05 #19166@timeloop It did go into spam but I’ve removed it and it is now live.
No idea why as there aren’t many links in it.
As you could post here you’re not marked as a spammer. But let me know if you have any other problems.
23 October 2013 at 20:08 #1916723 October 2013 at 20:08 #19168Hah! Was just about to report that the original one miraculously re-appeared =D Man, you are fast. Thanks a lot. Probably because I have been very active recently…
@craig Could you add the new thought to the old post then? The one with the moment?
23 October 2013 at 20:18 #19171@timeloop I had deleted the latest one but got your moment text from the one before. Hope it’s okay.
23 October 2013 at 20:19 #19172Thanks a million, perfect!
23 October 2013 at 23:07 #19175@timeloop Welcome to the spammers club! (Although at least you got a warning, it just ate mine)
🙂
24 October 2013 at 06:47 #1918824 October 2013 at 11:32 #19194I wondered where to put this, but following a conversation a while ago with @craig and @jimthefish about the possibility of implementing polls in the future (which may be a way just to evaluate feeling on episodes/issues and spark debate), I thought here.
The Radio Times is running a “Best Companion” poll for the 50th here, and I can believe a Steward’s enquiry may be called for.
Because at time of writing, way out in front by a HUGE margin is (drum roll please)……..
Adric. Yes – you read that right. With almost twice as many votes as Saint Rose of Tyler. A result which would probably even have Matthew Waterhouse thinking “come on – someone’s taking the piss!”
I probably just think it’s worth baring in mind that most of the poll functions on the web are pretty easy to spam if you’re bored and don’t mind deleting your cache, and it’s probably best to be mindful of the fact. I think some sites use a function that means you have to be logged in to vote, but logged in people could vote more than once if they could be arsed.
24 October 2013 at 11:37 #19195Ha ha ha @phaseshift – ‘St Rose of Tyler’.
Yeah, even Mel is too high on that list. Definitely some people having a bit of fun.
I’m not that big on polls myself, but I agree that if they are instituted here, there should be a logged-in restriction as to who can vote.
24 October 2013 at 11:50 #19196@phaseshift @Shazzbot
Are you trying to tell me that online polls aren’t to be trusted??! *sigh* Another illusion shattered
24 October 2013 at 12:04 #19198@Shazzbot @scaryb
Yeah, all the greats are doing well – Adric, Mel, Dodo ….
Of course, I could be completely wrong about this and this is a true reflection of opinion. In which case, I think we are probably in trouble as there aren’t enough strait-jackets in stock in the UK.
*sigh* Another illusion shattered
You may joke (and I’m pretty certain you are 😀 ) but there is at least one example on this site of someone posting an online poll as proof positive of something.
24 October 2013 at 12:04 #19199Well, I love me a good online poll and consider them an unimpeachable source of data 😉 But they are good fun and are useful as a springboard for comment/debate. I think the logged-in restriction would be sensible if we implement them here though….
-
AuthorPosts
The topic ‘Website comments’ is closed to new replies.
