Subtle changes, bugs and feedback

@Velocio had it again this time not in a thread but on the today updates page. Screenshot is below but it moved left once, enough so you can't fully read the title and stayed that way all the way to the bottom of the page.

Screenshot below. I was looking at the today page at approx 13.23 today

1 Attachment

The key question is whether it's reproducible.

I used my device last night and never saw the issue.

If it's reproducible, i.e. this URL always exhibits the issue, then that gives me something to work with and suggest it is a bug with out code.

But if it's intermittent, and even the same page does not show the issue when the page is refreshed, this suggests it's more likely a Safari on iOS bug. I won't be able to do much there, even workarounds will require me to be able to test them and I wouldn't be able to reproduce the issue to test any solutions.

Does it always happen when "PERSON replied a few seconds ago" is a bit too wide for the screen, as in the screenshot ?

@Velocio happened again in this thread, which I think it happened in previously, this is a new page I think
http://www.lfgss.com/conversations/177280/?offset=1050#comment11800235

Would post a screenshot but phone isn't letting me at the moment..

Good catch... I wonder if that's it.

Page centering on a slightly too small screen? - looking at the symmetrical beginning of a radius, top and bottom of screenshot...

Without the tooltip showing the entire URL, isn't every link a potential rickroll? It's something that puts me off and reduces usability, regardless of the merits of redirection/affiliate links.

Any way to disable embeds in posts?

Unless you unshorten and fully resolve and know the content of every destination, your argument isn't going to reduce the chance of being rickrolled.

No, embeds happen.

Though if you use https:// to access LFGSS some of them will not display as they are not served from a https:// domain.

There is a much better chance of knowing the destination if you can see the entire URL though and it's not just about deliberate misdirection. For example: If you can see the full URL for a link to news story with only a vague description, it's a quick filter on whether a) it's interesting to you b) you've already read it c) it's suitable reading for the environment you're in.

Can users edit the tooltip? If not, can you explain in layman's terms the downside(s) to showing the full URL?

can you explain in layman's terms the downside(s) to showing the full URL?

If the full URL is spam/malware/malicious, and it is in the web page in full (even in the tooltip)... then it is really easy for malware or browser extensions to use that URL.

i.e. To send the end user directly to the bad destination without us being able to stop it from happening.

I've no doubt at all, that were that to happen, then we would get the blame... not the people running the malware and posting the spam.

Thanks - that makes sense but what's to stop the same thing happening with coded posts that the forum doesn't realise are links? Or for that matter the malware addon just going straight to the bad links and cutting out the forum completely?

We provide a technical solution.

If a user is duped and technology we provide has nothing to do with it... i.e if someone uses strange language to say "Go to this other web site by typing this in manually and buy some viagra"... then the user's behaviour is not our problem though we'll try and do something about the person that posted it if it gets reported to us.

If a user has malware already on their OS or in their browser, and this malware does some trickery that doesn't involve the forum in any way... then this is clearly the fault and blame of the malware.

Neither scenario would affect us as a company, as the entity providing this technical service.

But... if we didn't take adequate precautions, if we let spam and malware through, if the forum participated in any attack... then people would blame us for it. It could be argued that we were in part complicit by not actively preventing it even though we could take steps... and whilst that argument might not succeed... we do know how to take these steps, and so we do.

For the vast majority of how people use a website, the steps we've taken do not impact behaviour. But they do help us get a handle on the bad stuff, whilst also helping us to solve the other things I mentioned.

Find the views on gamification interesting.

The issue is that all such systems that quantify behaviour lead to a drop in the quality of behaviour as they merely reinforce the historical behaviour rather

Aren't common/shared behaviour patterns also defined as 'culture'.
This forum has an established enforced cultural identity

Doesn't matter if you publish a list who is a dick and who isn't.. we are all keeping mental ledgers.

As much as I believe personal identity should be discouraged, group identify should be defined and reinforced, as its really this that attracts and engages members.

I'm not sure i agree that rep is better measure of content.
I find train crashes interesting.. probably the most interesting thing in world.
Whats the problem?

Rep is what people would like to think they find interesting
A train crash tread will not get rep.. but it will get many views.

What about Facebook and its friends/likes?
Working pretty well for those who enjoy it no?

Just found out this new format tells you when someone has mentioned you in a post great!

To leave you with no doubt at all, we are not interested in creating another Facebook. It exists already, I just checked.

So, just to clarify, even if only the tooltip is showing the full URL it can still be used by the browser, etc even though the link is of micro.sm format before the redirect?

If so, is it possible to screw up the tooltip link (e.g. inserting an extra w so it's wwww.) or is that all too much hassle?

To be honest, my concern is less malware, etc (although that is an issue) but you can often get a good clue as to whether a link is NSFW from the URL. Whether it should or shouldn't be the case, a lot of people browse the forum from work.

If so, is it possible to screw up the tooltip link (e.g. inserting an extra w so it's wwww.) or is that all too much hassle?

It's obfuscation that would be easily defeated by malware once the pattern is known. The larger Microcosm becomes, the bigger a target we are, the more likely we are to be targeted. This would be figured out and defeated too quickly.

We now show the first 80% of a URL in the tooltip, thanks to your feedback... is that not enough to determine whether the destination is NSFW?

Note: Older posts already cached may not reflect the new tooltip length for a while.

We now show the first 80% of a URL in the tooltip

This is a big improvement for me, thanks!

Sorry that probably wasn't clear - I mean that firstly why would someone create malware that uses the forum as a middleman when they've already done the hard part in getting access to the users PC and secondly if someone is creating a two-part attack (malware on computer, links on forum), what's to stop them posting things that don't look like links to the forum software but can still be read by the malware? Is this a problem that has previously existed, given that other sites are happy to display full URLs?

Anyway, I will look out for the 80% tooltips - is there a way you could set it to remove the middle portion of URLs, the parts that humans don't need? IE.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/david-cameron-isis-squeezed-out-coalition-force-out-extremists-iraq

becomes

theguardian.com/.../david-cameron-isis-squeezed-out-coalition-force-out-extremists-iraq

How can we know when it's the middle bit that isn't needed?

Assume - occasionally knocking out the useful part has got to be better than always removing some or all of the most important part, shirley?

I agree with dramatic_hammer - I think leaving the middle out and keeping the start and end is the neatest solution.

Sometimes it'll end up displaying the wrong thing (subjectively), but it's more likely that the important bits are going to be the domain name and the page name for any given URL.

Good point @bowel.