Temporary forums

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qhimm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Speaking of which, a bird whispered in my ear the other day that Eidos is no longer direct-linking to the chocobo patch hosted here. Quite polite, since they never asked for permission before either distributing the patch (bit of a moot point perhaps, as some recent laws makes it border-line illegal o_O) or more importantly eating up my site bandwidth with hundreds of people downloading directly from me (without ever realizing the "qhimm.com" in the URL contained anything more than file storage, for example, oh, the people who made the patch?).

But I digress. The same bird also claimed that the reason they're no longer linking to the chocobo patch is because they're now linking to AnimeVamp's patch instead. So much for politeness. If this is true, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Or are they (AnimeVamp) actually crediting anyone these days? Yes I'm lazy since I don't google for it myself, it's just that I'd feel so dirty afterwards...
 
Last edited:
I do believe your bird is wrong. Though I'm sure you don't want to stoop to their level, why not rename the patch on your server, then set up a redirect to a porn site or similar on the old name?  :-D
 
Glad to see it is back, was worried at first when it stopped working for (seemingly) no reason.

Furthermore, perhaps it would take less of your mysql to run just a little faq for the guests, instead of having all these people lurk the forum?

P.S.: Nice taste in comedy Squire Qhimm, wink wink nudge nudge, say no more!
 
Last edited:
I am the bird. I believe that this does in fact link to AnimeVamp's patch. This, however, still links to Qhimm.
 
Hey!! I'm glad the forums are back too !! Thanks Qhimm for your good work !!

And I agree with what Synergy Blades said about changing the name and redirecting it :-D.
 
Last edited:
Am I seeing things, or does SMF flag edited messages as new?

Because I have this feeling that I've seen flagged threads with no new messages. I might be seeing things, of course. :|

If it does, that's great. Better than great. No need to double, triple or quadruple post to get updates noticed. :-D
 
Indeed, it looks like edited messages are flagged as new.

This is yet another reason that makes me feel phpBB is overrated : switching to SMF was definitely a good choice ^_^
 
Dear mr Admin,

While you are hard at work with the new design, how about allowing user selectable themes and uploading few alternatives?

Since the default isn't so hot looking.

Maybe even... *gasp* taking submissions from users? (Because SMF has some annoying things in the CSS, making it impossible to fix things without breaking others with style sheets only)


Pretty please with sugar on top?

The doggie wants them, too:

photo_3433.jpg


 :-)
 
Weeelllll, if the doggie says so... I guess I'll upload a few alternatives when I get back to my regular computer. Of course, they'll all look like crap when the new design is revealed. Whenever that is. :P

EDIT: Unruined post. :P
 
Last edited:
Weeelllll, if the doggie says so... I guess I'll upload a few alternatives when I get back to my regular computer.
Click to expand...
Wii!

I noticed a curious thing; if you post pictures, the forum server performs two requests - first it asks for HEAD and then regular GET. Yes, it seems to download the entire picture for whatever purpose. I think that it even might do that every time you edit the message with the pictures, although I haven't confirmed. The resize is done with HTML, so it shouldn't need the picture for that...

Any idea...

a) Why it does that?
b) Does the bandwidth that way count towards the limit, too?
c) Could it be a possible vulnerability? Say, someone posting that 14MB aerial photo of the WTC-site. Put that few times into a single post with different file names and if the poor thing tries to download each of them... Rinse and repeat if that wasn't enough.

:-(
 
I think that a picture hosted offsite would not use the site's bandwidth. It would, however, slow down loading on the user's end.
 
Actually, I think that I know why it does that. It has to find out the size (pixel dimensions) of the picture somehow, so it knows if it should resize it down to 480px max. And to do that, it actually downloads the picture.

At least that's my guess. :-)
 
Yep, it does that to check if the image is so large it needs to be forcibly resized by HTML (obviously it would be bad to set width=640 height=480 for all images :P ). While there are some ways to detect image size on the client side and modify the HTML dynamically as needed, it's neither reliable, cross-browser, nor does it look very good (the image is first very large until it's "scripted down"), while a server-side solution looks more consistent.

Anyway, using large images could be a problem, then again I do have bandwidth to spare. Though I suppose the script could be modified to look at the HEAD request and transform the image into a link if it's too large?
 
'Previous names'-feature would be nice to have (again).

It would make it lot easier to keep track on who said and did what.
 
Wow, I just came back after getting an email notification of a PM.  The new design scares me, but I do like this compact preview thing below!  Looks like the forum's grown a fair bit too.

Anyway, hope you're all well.
Cheerio!
 
I miss the old phpBB design, and I hope soon that this forum will get a makover from the SMF style soon, (it gives me the creeps)

Now how did you convert it from phpBB?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top