chevron_left chevron_right
Login Register invert_colors photo_library
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average


filter_list Hide tags
Author
Message
RE: Hide tags #21
(12-01-2017, 05:40 AM)mothered Wrote:
(12-01-2017, 05:21 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote: That's why having it so the poster can specify a min post in their hide tag could be a cool feature

Good Idea.

In this case and given that not all threads are alike, I believe there should already be a minimum post requirement and the OP can Increase It according to the nature of the content posted. This will also help avoid any misjudgement (by the OP), whereby the minimum post In the hide tags Is set too low.

I could get on board with that. What I'd hate to see though is every post having hide tags and the minimum being set to something unreasonable, or even worse, users making a bunch of lounge spam to get the required number. Perhaps make the hide tags not tell the user how many posts are needed?
I will keep that list up to date at all times. Check often for new materials!

Reply

RE: Hide tags #22
(12-01-2017, 05:45 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote: What I'd hate to see though is every post having hide tags and the minimum being set to something unreasonable, or even worse, users making a bunch of lounge spam to get the required number.

The minimum post requirement can be set In a manner where It warrants a quality reply. That Is, an equilibrium of nothing too excessive yet a figure that's not classed as spam. The OP can Increase It (If need be) according to the quality of his/her thread.

Having the option of Increasing the requirement, will encourage HQ posts.

(12-01-2017, 05:45 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote: Perhaps make the hide tags not tell the user how many posts are needed?

As long as It's well within reason, this may In fact work quite well.

Reply

RE: Hide tags #23
(12-01-2017, 06:03 AM)mothered Wrote:
(12-01-2017, 05:45 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote: What I'd hate to see though is every post having hide tags and the minimum being set to something unreasonable, or even worse, users making a bunch of lounge spam to get the required number.

The minimum post requirement can be set In a manner where It warrants a quality reply. That Is, an equilibrium of nothing too excessive yet a figure that's not classed as spam. The OP can Increase It (If need be) according to the quality of his/her thread.

Having the option of Increasing the requirement, will encourage HQ posts.

(12-01-2017, 05:45 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote: Perhaps make the hide tags not tell the user how many posts are needed?

As long as It's well within reason, this may In fact work quite well.

Seems like we've hammered it out then. If staff/@Oni is open to this, I'm happy to make the necessary modifications to the standard hide tag plugin
I will keep that list up to date at all times. Check often for new materials!

[+] 1 user Likes phyrrus9's post
Reply

RE: Hide tags #24
(12-01-2017, 06:05 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote:
(12-01-2017, 06:03 AM)mothered Wrote:
(12-01-2017, 05:45 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote: What I'd hate to see though is every post having hide tags and the minimum being set to something unreasonable, or even worse, users making a bunch of lounge spam to get the required number.

The minimum post requirement can be set In a manner where It warrants a quality reply. That Is, an equilibrium of nothing too excessive yet a figure that's not classed as spam. The OP can Increase It (If need be) according to the quality of his/her thread.

Having the option of Increasing the requirement, will encourage HQ posts.

(12-01-2017, 05:45 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote: Perhaps make the hide tags not tell the user how many posts are needed?

As long as It's well within reason, this may In fact work quite well.

Seems like we've hammered it out then. If staff/@Oni is open to this, I'm happy to make the necessary modifications to the standard hide tag plugin

Its quite easy to modify honestly. Wouldn't be much work.
[Image: d1wl9Az.png]

Reply

RE: Hide tags #25
(12-01-2017, 05:49 PM)Vespei Wrote:
(12-01-2017, 06:05 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote:
(12-01-2017, 06:03 AM)mothered Wrote: The minimum post requirement can be set In a manner where It warrants a quality reply. That Is, an equilibrium of nothing too excessive yet a figure that's not classed as spam. The OP can Increase It (If need be) according to the quality of his/her thread.

Having the option of Increasing the requirement, will encourage HQ posts.


As long as It's well within reason, this may In fact work quite well.

Seems like we've hammered it out then. If staff/@Oni is open to this, I'm happy to make the necessary modifications to the standard hide tag plugin

Its quite easy to modify honestly. Wouldn't be much work.

If it was too hard, he likely wouldn't have offered.
+++++++++[>++++++++++>>++++++++++<<<-]>+>>+++<<<++++[>>++++++++++>>++++++++++>++++++++++<<<<<-]>>+++++>>+++>++++++[<<<<<,[>>>>.<<<<-]>>>>>.<<<<.>.>.>>]

[Image: duwskq.gif]

Reply

RE: Hide tags #26
(12-01-2017, 07:35 PM)Ender Wrote:
(12-01-2017, 05:49 PM)Vespei Wrote:
(12-01-2017, 06:05 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote: Seems like we've hammered it out then. If staff/@Oni is open to this, I'm happy to make the necessary modifications to the standard hide tag plugin

Its quite easy to modify honestly. Wouldn't be much work.

If it was too hard, he likely wouldn't have offered.

Indeed.
[Image: d1wl9Az.png]

Reply

RE: Hide tags #27
(12-01-2017, 07:35 PM)Ender Wrote:
(12-01-2017, 05:49 PM)Vespei Wrote:
(12-01-2017, 06:05 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote: Seems like we've hammered it out then. If staff/@Oni is open to this, I'm happy to make the necessary modifications to the standard hide tag plugin

Its quite easy to modify honestly. Wouldn't be much work.

If it was too hard, he likely wouldn't have offered.

This guy is on to something
I will keep that list up to date at all times. Check often for new materials!

Reply

RE: Hide tags #28
(12-01-2017, 09:19 PM)phyrrus9 Wrote:
(12-01-2017, 07:35 PM)Ender Wrote:
(12-01-2017, 05:49 PM)Vespei Wrote: Its quite easy to modify honestly. Wouldn't be much work.

If it was too hard, he likely wouldn't have offered.

This guy is on to something

Indeed he is.
[Image: d1wl9Az.png]

Reply






Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)