This has become more complicated than I though initially, so I'll open a thread here.
By "Böff reduction" I mean cutting off pieces of extremely long "B Ö Ö Ö Ö F F" when shown in news or archives. Do we want to have limits? Where?
I can fix stuff so that the website layout doesn't break (http://zak.stunts.hu/index.php?show=380&page=welcome&track=&season=) (
word-wrap: break-word does the magic) so it is not
necessary to reduce böffs.
I found them a bit annoying in the archives, so I went ahead and added some code to hide most of the 'ö's (proportionally to the original length!). You can see an example in this archive page (http://zak.stunts.hu/index.php?page=newsarc&year=2013&month=4#day-11).
QuoteCTG 22:19:44
BÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖFF!!! Böff reduction: 5.7KB
Yes, that's 5.7KB of 'Ö's hidden. If you don't like the unit, I can switch to a some Böff Magnitude scale :)
However, Akoss Poo made me notice the importance of böffs (http://wiki.stunts.hu/index.php/B%C3%96FF) (what's the correct plural?). So... what should I do? Not hide them at all? Have an option to switch? Should they be
limited by default, or
shown in their full glory?
Or should there be a general length limit to a news post, whatever the content? (1KB, 2KB?)
The status quo at this moment (word-wrapped böffs at the side bar and collapsed böffs with stats in the archives) feels okay to me. A reduction checkbox at the archives could help towards a compromise, though it would be rather hard to rationally justify its existence if it was enabled by default ;D. In any case, the side bar is where the heart of the matter really lies; that is, (i) whether people are able to broadcast böffs worldwide in real time, and (ii) whether casual visitors will see a garbled front page as a result. Since the word wrapping trick solves (ii), if we allow (i) - and I think we should - whatever is done at the archives about it becomes secondary.
As I write this post, having a reduction checkbox turned off by default at the archives increasingly looks like the Right Thing to do. No clue about what should be on the caption though :)
Quote from: dreadnaut on August 08, 2013, 01:24:31 AM
Or should there be a general length limit to a news post, whatever the content? (1KB, 2KB?)
My gut feeling says "no", not unless it really becomes necessary ("necessary" as in a Viagra spam flood, like the one we had at the Wiki a few years ago).
Quote from: Duplode on August 08, 2013, 04:26:05 AM
Viagra spam flood
Viagra is an outdated stuff, there are some better "hardening" drugs.
(or choose the natural way: 'HOT CHICKS!' topic ;D)
Quote from: Duplode on August 08, 2013, 04:26:05 AM
As I write this post, having a reduction checkbox turned off by default at the archives increasingly looks like the Right Thing to do. No clue about what should be on the caption though :)
So this (http://zak.stunts.hu/index.php?page=newsarc&year=2013&month=4&fullb%C3%B6ff#day-11) by default and this (http://zak.stunts.hu/index.php?page=newsarc&year=2013&month=4#day-11) if manually requested?
I would opt for the other way around.
If we could set up a bytes to seconds ratio, then we could display the length of BÖFF instead of the data included. E.g. 1kb = 2 seconds. Obviously this should be defined by Akoss as the expert of the topic.
I recommend a setting for users to switch off or on the böff reduction.
"BÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖFF!!! Böff reduction: 5.7KB" - that sounds a good solution for those who are bothered by long böffs.
I vote for continuing this debate indefinitely - like a beautiful, long böff.
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on August 08, 2013, 05:50:00 PM
I vote for continuing this debate indefinitely - like a beautiful, long böff.
Do you mean an öblös one?
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on August 08, 2013, 05:50:00 PM
I vote for continuing this debate indefinitely - like a beautiful, long böff.
Unlike böffs, this debate CAN be infinite...
Quote from: Chulk on August 09, 2013, 06:37:12 AM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on August 08, 2013, 05:50:00 PM
I vote for continuing this debate indefinitely - like a beautiful, long böff.
Unlike böffs, this debate CAN be infinite...
You are wrong. Böff can be infinite too - although it's rather "bööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö..."
Quote from: CTG on August 09, 2013, 08:41:25 AM
Quote from: Chulk on August 09, 2013, 06:37:12 AM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on August 08, 2013, 05:50:00 PM
I vote for continuing this debate indefinitely - like a beautiful, long böff.
Unlike böffs, this debate CAN be infinite...
You are wrong. Böff can be infinite too - although it's rather "bööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö..."
Then it's just an infinite bööööö
Quote from: Chulk on August 09, 2013, 07:10:54 PM
Quote from: CTG on August 09, 2013, 08:41:25 AM
Quote from: Chulk on August 09, 2013, 06:37:12 AM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on August 08, 2013, 05:50:00 PM
I vote for continuing this debate indefinitely - like a beautiful, long böff.
Unlike böffs, this debate CAN be infinite...
You are wrong. Böff can be infinite too - although it's rather "bööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö..."
Then it's just an infinite bööööö
http://wiki.stunts.hu/index.php/B%C3%96FF
I'm laughing... the BÖFF reduction script is very funny...
blurp