News:

Herr Otto Partz says you're all nothing but pipsqueaks!

Main Menu

Böff reduction

Started by dreadnaut, August 08, 2013, 01:24:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

dreadnaut

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.
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 (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?)


Duplode

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).

CTG

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)

dreadnaut

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 by default and this if manually requested?

zaqrack

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 a.k.a. Zorromeister

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.
Chürműű! :-)

629.09 km

BonzaiJoe

I vote for continuing this debate indefinitely - like a beautiful, long böff.
But we can't be quite sure.


CTG

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?

Chulk

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...
Yes, it is me. No, I'm not back at racing (for now...)

CTG

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..."

Chulk

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
Yes, it is me. No, I'm not back at racing (for now...)

CTG

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


CTG