Author Topic: Böff reduction  (Read 1912 times)

dreadnaut

  • Helen`s Lover
  • **
  • Posts: 612
    • View Profile
    • chezDreadnaut
Böff reduction
« on: August 08, 2013, 01:24:31 AM »
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 (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.
Quote
CTG 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 (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?)

« Last Edit: August 08, 2013, 01:36:11 AM by dreadnaut »

Duplode

  • Getting intrested in spam
  • *******
  • Posts: 3396
  • Through the astral door - to soar
    • View Profile
    • The Southern Cross Stunts Trophy
Re: Böff reduction
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2013, 04:26:05 AM »
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  :)

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).

CTG

  • Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam
  • *
  • Posts: 20048
  • Psycho
    • View Profile
    • UnskilledStunts Championship
Re: Böff reduction
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2013, 08:35:23 AM »
Viagra spam flood

Viagra is an outdated stuff, there are some better "hardening" drugs.

(or choose the natural way: 'HOT CHICKS!' topic ;D)

dreadnaut

  • Helen`s Lover
  • **
  • Posts: 612
    • View Profile
    • chezDreadnaut
Re: Böff reduction
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2013, 11:01:54 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 by default and this if manually requested?

zaqrack

  • Administrator
  • Addicted to spam
  • *****
  • Posts: 4527
    • View Profile
    • ZakStunts
Re: Böff reduction
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2013, 11:36:09 AM »
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.


Akoss Poo

  • Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam
  • *
  • Posts: 5720
  • BÖFF!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Böff reduction
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2013, 11:55:29 AM »
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.
A jó nök is büdöset szarnak!

BonzaiJoe

  • Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam
  • *
  • Posts: 5074
    • View Profile
    • Purple
Re: Böff reduction
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2013, 05:50:00 PM »
I vote for continuing this debate indefinitely - like a beautiful, long böff.
But we can't be quite sure.


CTG

  • Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam
  • *
  • Posts: 20048
  • Psycho
    • View Profile
    • UnskilledStunts Championship
Re: Böff reduction
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2013, 07:07:26 PM »
I vote for continuing this debate indefinitely - like a beautiful, long böff.

Do you mean an öblös one?

Chulk

  • Trying out spam for the first time
  • ********
  • Posts: 3620
  • "Do, or do not. There is no try."
    • View Profile
Re: Böff reduction
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2013, 06:37:12 AM »
I vote for continuing this debate indefinitely - like a beautiful, long böff.
Unlike böffs, this debate CAN be infinite...
There's a General Custer for every urban tribe

CTG

  • Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam
  • *
  • Posts: 20048
  • Psycho
    • View Profile
    • UnskilledStunts Championship
Re: Böff reduction
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2013, 08:41:25 AM »
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..."

Chulk

  • Trying out spam for the first time
  • ********
  • Posts: 3620
  • "Do, or do not. There is no try."
    • View Profile
Re: Böff reduction
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2013, 07:10:54 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
There's a General Custer for every urban tribe

CTG

  • Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam
  • *
  • Posts: 20048
  • Psycho
    • View Profile
    • UnskilledStunts Championship
Re: Böff reduction
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2013, 07:18:10 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

Shoegazing Leo

  • Young Pipsqueak
  • *****
  • Posts: 2020
    • View Profile
    • Stunts LOL Classics
Re: Böff reduction
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2015, 04:24:33 PM »
I'm laughing... the BÖFF reduction script is very funny...

CTG

  • Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam
  • *
  • Posts: 20048
  • Psycho
    • View Profile
    • UnskilledStunts Championship
Re: Böff reduction
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2015, 04:42:54 PM »
blurp