|
Javid posted:Would it be possible for it to prevent image loading in already-read posts? Would make catching up in pic threads a lot easier. I believe that would be impossible to pull off correctly in current versions of Chrome, due to how extensions are implemented. Extension scripts don't have any way of intercepting the page before it is rendered, so at least some of the images will probably still be fetched, even if the script does get a chance to hide them all quickly enough.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2011 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
Hiding them would work. Or just collapsing all the previously read posts - this is how the iphone app does it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
Just enable image-to-links for read posts only. Is this what people were looking for?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
Oh hey, that does exactly what I wanted. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2011 03:04
|
|
|
Anyone know what the default thread highlight colours are for the Firefox version of SALR? For some reason Firefox and Chrome SALR have different highlight colour values and I've always preferred FF's more matte look to Chrome's neon
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2011 12:34
|
|
|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:Anyone know what the default thread highlight colours are for the Firefox version of SALR? For some reason Firefox and Chrome SALR have different highlight colour values and I've always preferred FF's more matte look to Chrome's neon I have noticed that it will vary from computer to computer for some reason. On one computer the colors are more muted, whereas a different computer that are bright neon. My biggest problem is on some computers I can't tell the difference between read and unread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2011 13:46
|
|
|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:Anyone know what the default thread highlight colours are for the Firefox version of SALR? For some reason Firefox and Chrome SALR have different highlight colour values and I've always preferred FF's more matte look to Chrome's neon When I first built the extension I tried replicating the same colors and for whatever reason Chrome refused to display them. If you find them I'd be interested to know if they work for you. Try using Firebug to inspect the DOM with the Firefox extension running, that should show you the color hex.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Ferg posted:When I first built the extension I tried replicating the same colors and for whatever reason Chrome refused to display them. If you find them I'd be interested to know if they work for you. Try using Firebug to inspect the DOM with the Firefox extension running, that should show you the color hex. It's worked fine for me ever since I started using Chrome with SALR.. Anyway I installed FF just to get the values 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
It may have been Chrome way back when that was the problem. I originally wrote the extension before extensions were available even in the beta channel, so poo poo was breaking left and right. Either way, thanks for posting the values! I'm going to use them too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
Love this extension; one quick question. I have the highlight mod posts checked but I left highlight mod names unchecked:  This works great in the threads but at the forum level it seems to highlight mod names anyhow:  Is this expected behavior? Unchecking highlight mod posts causes the names at the forum level to stop being highlighted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
AdolChristin posted:Love this extension; one quick question. Ha, I have no idea to be honest. I only ever use the highlight names feature, so for me that hasn't been tested in god knows how long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
Feature request: Tinting the post background pink (or whatever) if the poster has a negative postcount?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:Feature request: Tinting the post background pink (or whatever) if the poster has a negative postcount? Why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
FYAD posters often leak out of their homeland and start trolling threads. It would be a good way to identify them quickly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
Ferg, is it possible to integrate an option to disable SALR in certain forums? Thread highlighting makes the YOSPOS completely unreadable, so I'm forced to either disable SALR or adblock 219.css.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
While we're at it, is there any way that you can find a way to make 219.css a user selectable option in the SALR preferences? I don't mind loading it, but being able to disable it after the page loads would be fine. And yes, I realize that AdBlock should work, but for some reason it stopped :[
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:FYAD posters often leak out of their homeland and start trolling threads. It would be a good way to identify them quickly. However, just because someone has a negative postcount doesn't mean they'll troll threads. That's what the Report button is for. Then, when they get probated or banned, they'll have a new entry in the banlist, which you can pull up by the Rap Sheet link at the bottom of everyone's post -- even without SALR. The banlist is a way more reliable indicator of someone's intent than positive/negative postcount.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
LUBE UP YOUR BUTT posted:Ferg, is it possible to integrate an option to disable SALR in certain forums? Thread highlighting makes the YOSPOS completely unreadable, so I'm forced to either disable SALR or adblock 219.css. Martytoof posted:While we're at it, is there any way that you can find a way to make 219.css a user selectable option in the SALR preferences? I don't mind loading it, but being able to disable it after the page loads would be fine. Seems like a pretty simple solution. I'll take a crack at it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
Thanks! It's not a big deal if it's not possible or anything. I don't have anything against 219.css other than it makes my eyes hurt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:So you don't mind if a thread gets trolled by someone with a positive post count? ~50% of the time I have spotted a troll post the person has a negative post count. Still, if it's impossible to do it's impossible to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:~50% of the time I have spotted a troll post the person has a negative post count. Still, if it's impossible to do it's impossible to do. So half of the time it's a negative post count person and half the time it's a positive post count person? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:~50% of the time I have spotted a troll post the person has a negative post count. Still, if it's impossible to do it's impossible to do. So you assume that a very small proportion of the active forums population has negative post counts, AND that people can only post in one way ever. Good to know. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
I'm sorry I'm racist against FYAD posters 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 13:24
|
|
|
Jumping to the last unread post is a bit buggy as of late. I noticed it after I started using the fancy forums extension here: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ohlohgldhcaajjhadleledokhlpgamjm But I don't think that involves anything like what I am seeing. Chrome stable here on Windows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
I wanted the ability to turn off avatars while I browse at work, so I added that. Actually, I added the ability to turn off just the images in avatars, or the whole thing, so you can have text-only or nothing. Anyway, I pushed it to Fergs github. I know this thread hasn't been too active, but I just wanted to put it here in case anyone else wants that feature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 16:43
|
|
|
Zeph posted:I wanted the ability to turn off avatars while I browse at work, so I added that. Actually, I added the ability to turn off just the images in avatars, or the whole thing, so you can have text-only or nothing. This is awesome, thanks for this. Now if we can get youtube HD embedding I will be happy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
kri kri posted:This is awesome, thanks for this. Now if we can get youtube HD embedding I will be happy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Hasn't that parameter been in the default [video] tags for a while now? Check the bbcode page. He's talking about embedded Youtube if you explicitly link to Youtube in a post. I'm looking through the embedded API docs but all I can find is that adding ?hd=1 to the end of the embed URL is all you need. It's definitely not working though. Does anybody know how to get it to force HD res? I'll roll out Zeph's changes with this if I can find a solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
Ferg posted:He's talking about embedded Youtube if you explicitly link to Youtube in a post. [ video type="youtube" res="hd"]oz4AWjnlPvY[/video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz4AWjnlPvY&hd=1
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:This plays in 720p for me: It plays in 720p just fine but it doesn't default to 720p, and that's the feature request.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 06:10
|
|
|
In my experience ?hd=1 does absolutely nothing and the resolution the embedded player starts up in is entirely dependent on how big you make the embed. ( see: http://polsy.org.uk/tmp/yt1.html vs http://polsy.org.uk/tmp/yt2.html ) edit: I was considering doing something with creating the embed oversized and then resizing it down to force 480 on non-HD videos for my youtube embed page but I didn't even get as far as figuring out exactly when it determines the starting resolution Polsy fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Oct 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 11:21
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the ?hd=1 worked back when YT had only HD or not HD options, so quite a long ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 14:06
|
|
|
e: nevermind; didn't read a few posts up. whoops
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
When I put res="hd" inside of the [video] tag, and I click on the youtube video to play it, it plays in 720p, just like the one I linked above. Maybe it's because I'm not using SALR?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
Huh, so it does. Yeah, apparently my mistake was using current youtube embed code which adds a 'version=3' parameter which seemingly makes it ignore the hd=1 part. (actually I was using the <iframe> embed which means I can't even take that out, but you can if you're using <object> like the forums is)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
Anyone else have an issue when using live preview where nothing shows up and the preview box effectively locks up after using a smiley? It doesn't happen all the time but the text stops at the point where the smiley is (which isn't showing either) and the box won't update at all after that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 12:49
|
|
|
Is there some setting I'm missing to get "Highlight thread counts in yellow if you've posted there before" to work? I have it checked but it doesnt do anything. I read the OP, but what setting am I supposed to change in my CP?
Too Poetic fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Oct 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
Too Poetic posted:Is there some setting I'm missing to get "Highlight thread counts in yellow if you've posted there before" to work? I have it checked but it doesnt do anything. I read the OP, but what setting am I supposed to change in my CP? It's been semi broken for a while. It worked great while I was testing it and then when I pushed it live I noticed it was terribly unreliable. Turns out that the API I was using was nixed from the HTML5 spec so I'm assuming that's the culprit. I'll need to rewrite it to fix it at some point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 16:53
|
|
|
Is there anything that can be done to fix bold and italics from being misaligned?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
Frozen-Solid posted:Is there anything that can be done to fix bold and italics from being misaligned? Where are you seeing that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 02:20
|
|