patrick.net

I don't see real duplication, just quotes.

Patrick says

I don't see real duplication, just quotes.

Exactly.

^^^^ @WookieMan

The real problem is that ppl are too lazy to check if a thread for a topic already exists. So we end up with multiple threads of the same topic. Especially recently.

Patrick says

I don't see real duplication, just quotes.

The meme image is duplicated 3 times, doesn't matter if it was quoted. Not sure what's hard to understand here. He made a comment with the same image 3 times on 3 different threads. If people want to read it they can follow it. The site is becoming unusable with all the images and screen shots and image.

Maybe don't allow duplicate threads then? There's plenty of those. The image was in 3 different threads. Go post it on another site I guess?

I've requested this before before, you should be able to ignore shitty and repeatative threads. Not the people but the individual thread itself. Put ignore by the pin, NSFW and flag line. The same image does not need to be put on 3 different posts with the same topic. It would be nice to ignore repeated stuff. Covid is a biggie here.

Or have a way to merge threads. The duplication or even 10x's the same topic gets annoying. I have other ideas but it involves more development that's probably not reasonable.

I won't ever leave the site, but posting (quoting... eye roll) is childish on 3 threads I could find. I know there were more. Just post a comment on one thread or 4th grade image on a thread and call it a day.

DOGEWontAmountToShit says

The real problem is that ppl are too lazy to check if a thread for a topic already exists. So we end up with multiple threads of the same topic. Especially recently.

That doesn't mean you have to post in all of them. By default you're admitting guilt to this tactic. It's annoying as fuck.

WookieMan says

The meme image is duplicated 3 times, doesn't matter if it was quoted.

That's how the quoting works.

I try to reduce the size of the image each time it's quoted, to reduce annoyance.

Patrick says

WookieMan says

The meme image is duplicated 3 times, doesn't matter if it was quoted.

That's how the quoting works.

I try to reduce the size of the image each time it's quoted, to reduce annoyance.

I still don't understand the need or WANT to post it in three different threads. It then gets bumped up on all three threads and I thought there might be something worth a shit to read. Nope. Same damn comment or quote. He does it all the time. Just post it once.

WookieMan says

That doesn't mean you have to post in all of them. By default you're admitting guilt to this tactic. It's annoying as fuck.

I am not posting, I am quoting. A concept you have admitted to not understanding.

WookieMan says

still don't understand the need or WANT to post it in three different threads.

It's NOT POSTING. That's the part you don't get or refuse to.

DOGEWontAmountToShit says

It's NOT POSTING. That's the part you don't get or refuse to.

personal

WookieMan says

personal

Ooooooohhhhh. The baby cries. Hold on let me post this in 3 threads.

WookieMan says

Ooooooohhhhh. The baby cries. Hold on let me post this in 3 threads.

????? I didn't flag it. I dunno even what you originally said before it got flagged.

DOGEWontAmountToShit says

WookieMan says

Ooooooohhhhh. The baby cries. Hold on let me post this in 3 threads.

????? I didn't flag it. I dunno even what you originally said before it got flagged.

I never said you or your username either.

Not sure who flagged it. They're likely gay. We may have issues here and there and I think we're both assholes, but I don't think I posted anything personal.

Whatever as well. Let's just leave this thread to suggestions. I'm game for that.

WookieMan says

but I don't think I posted anything personal.

For what it's worth, I suspected that you didn't either. Oh bitched and moaned more about the quoting - yes. But that's it.

Here's an alternative to my current quoting system:

Instead of actually quoting, there would be a "reply" button which would paste a link back in the comment box to the comment you're talking about. That link back would be labeled "In reply to Username's comment:"

So the site would be less cluttered, but you would have to click that link back to the comment to see what the original comment said. Slightly more work in reading.

Should I do it?

Patrick says

Here's an alternative to my current quoting system:

Instead of actually quoting, there would be a "reply" button which would paste a link back in the comment box to the comment you're talking about.

So the site would be less cluttered, but you would have to click that link back to the comment to see what the original comment said. Slightly more work in reading.

Should I do it?

The current system is better

I suppose the current system also has the advantage of freezing the text you are replying to. Someone could edit the original comment, but not the quote.

Patrick says

Should I do it?

I vote no. it works great as is.

Less work for me is definitely easier.

Patrick says

Less work for me is definitely easier.

My complaint was multiple quotes and posts. No issue with quoting. Make your statement in one thread and move on. Don't quote yourself in other threads. That's gay.

mell says

Patrick says

Here's an alternative to my current quoting system:

Instead of actually quoting, there would be a "reply" button which would paste a link back in the comment box to the comment you're talking about.

So the site would be less cluttered, but you would have to click that link back to the comment to see what the original comment said. Slightly more work in reading.

Should I do it?

The current system is better

That would only pertain to a single thread, contextually.

Also, unless the person gets very specific as to what they are replying exactly about, ppl won't know what it is, which the current system of quoting provides.

Patrick says

I suppose the current system also has the advantage of freezing the text you are replying to. Someone could edit the original comment, but not the quote.

Bingo on that, too.

Whatever happened to quoting whole posts? is there a reason, or is this a glitch?

I ask because sometimes, I get the "too large" (it reminds me of fucking virgins) rejection, but sometimes, if I do the same thimg, it goes through. Is this an example of PatNet ASD post resistance :)

@stereotomy You should be able to quote a whole post if it's small enough. Too big and it disrupts the flow of comments.

What's ASD?

ASD = Anti Slut defense

E.g., a turbo slut will keep the pussy locked up when she needs to appear like a "good girl."

Suggestion:

Dump the random feature and replace it with a ranking feature that shows the week's top ten or so users rated by likes on their posts/comments combined.

@OkDOGEisAmountingToSomething

OK, that's possible, though a bit of work.

What would I call it, in one or two words?

People might try to game it though, by creating bogus users and then using them to like their own comments, for example.

Patrick says

OkDOGEisAmountingToSomething

OK, that's possible, though a bit of work.

What would I call it, in one or two words?

People might try to game it though, by creating bogus users and then using them to like their own comments, for example.

Call it Rankings or User Rankings.

It will have it's link down in the footer.

Patrick says

richwicks Thanks for this.

The downside is that I would need to allow script tags from Twitter, which would give them absolute control over patrick.net, including the ability to read and report back anything on that page, and the ability to alter or censor content.

All 3rd party javascript can read and change anything on the page where it is included. I was just complaining about this issue on tax prep websites:

https://patrick.net/post/1381117/2024-04-03-taxact-and-taxhawk-give-google-open

Can't you embed the thing in an iframe, which it won't be able to see out of?

It could be partially weighted by likes, but this could also be abused. Also, there are periodic bot intrusions, so a popularity-based metric is probably not a good idea.

stereotomy says

It could be partially weighted by likes, but this could also be abused. Also, there are periodic bot intrusions, so a popularity-based metric is probably not a good idea.

As a regular user here, I just want to see the data.

The problem that Patnet has is that it's against mainstream propaganda and Project Mockingbird type shit. It's practically impossible to make things easier for legitimate users while defending against blob NSA/Deepstate attacks.

There are also a bunch more security problems with 3rd party iframes:

could get a malicious web form disguised to look like this site, phishing for personal data
a malicious user can run a plug-in
a malicious user can change the source site URL
a malicious user can hijack users' clicks and keystrokes

I'm not sure that Twitter allows their site to run within an iframe anyway. I think it's possible for them to detect and refuse to serve content into an iframe.

But the biggest problem with embedding tweets is that X can erase or block them at any moment. They can't do that with a screenshot hosted on this site.

The rather brutal simplicity of this site minimizes the attack surface. It also makes the site easy to maintain and alter in response to user suggestions.

@OkDOGEisAmountingToSomething

I think I can have that page done in a few days. I'll call it "users" and let it be sortable by likes, date of registration, name, and other things.

You're right about "random". No one uses that link, not even myself.

@OkDOGEisAmountingToSomething

OK, I have a first pass deployed. See footer for "users" link. It's a bit slow because I have to scan the whole users table for now. Can optimize later.

Currently presents only by fields in the users table, and likes is not in there yet, because likes are stored with comments or threads.

Patrick says

for "users" link. It's a bit slow because I have to scan the whole users table for now. Can optimize later.

Currently presents only by fields in the users table, and likes is not in there yet, because likes are stored with comments or threads.

Can we just display users with activity for the past three or so years?

OkDOGEisAmountingToSomething says

Can we just display users with activity for the past three or so years?

Agreed. I'd even push for active users 6 months or under. Nostalgia is great, but I don't need to see inactive users from 1-10 years ago.

OK, that wasn't hard. I limited the users page to users who have commented within the past year.