Böff reduction

[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.

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?)

[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  . 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]

Viagra spam flood

Viagra is an outdated stuff, there are some better "hardening" drugs.

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

[dreadnaut]

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.

[BonzaiJoe]

I vote for continuing this debate indefinitely - like a beautiful, long böff.

[CTG]

I vote for continuing this debate indefinitely - like a beautiful, long böff.

Do you mean an öblös one?

[Chulk]

I vote for continuing this debate indefinitely - like a beautiful, long böff.

Unlike böffs, this debate CAN be infinite...

[CTG]

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]

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

[CTG]

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]

I'm laughing... the BÖFF reduction script is very funny...

[CTG]

blurp