Forum Issues

[lenz]

Stewart: I understand the site is being redesigned so maybe the new fonts are temporary, but I find the small font sizes and especially the italicized quotes very hard to read. Could you make them bigger and not so thin and cramped (like me)?

 

[lionel]

Stewart: I understand the site is being redesigned so maybe the new fonts are temporary, but I find the small font sizes and especially the italicized quotes very hard to read. Could you make them bigger and not so thin and cramped (like me)?

How about Ctrl-+ ?

BLOG

 

[Bubba]

Stewart: I understand the site is being redesigned so maybe the new fonts are temporary, but I find the small font sizes and especially the italicized quotes very hard to read. Could you make them bigger and not so thin and cramped (like me)?

Like Lenz, I find the forum harder to read than before. I suppose I'll get used to it.

What I'd like to know as well is what happened to the preview button. It appears when I reply to the thread without quoting an earlier post, but not, it seems, when I use the quote function. Okay, never mind; I found it after clicking on the go advanced button.

 

[accidie]

I logged in, submitted a post, and got a message saying that it could not be posted for one of three reason, none of which applied ( I double-checked having logged in). A new logging-in form was shown; I completed it and was re-directed to a blank page headed 'new reply'. When I finally was able to navigate away from it, my post was lost. This happened once before, but today it happened after I'd spent the better part of an hour typing up my reading list, so I'm asking what I should do to ensure this never happens again. . .Thanks.

 

[Bubba]

In WLF's previous incarnation I could do a search for a term and turn up results either by post (often more useful) or by thread. Now, it seems search results for posts don't turn up, only for threads. When the thread is long it's discouraging. Am I missing something obvious? I didn't see any field for "posts" in the advanced search form.

 

[lionel]

Like Lenz, I find the forum harder to read than before. I suppose I'll get used to it.

I can't understand this at all. Why don't you just hold down Ctrl and press + as many times as you want to make it a size confortable enough for you to read? It's just a conventional Windows shortcut - surely everyone uses it?

BLOG

 

[Mirabell]

In WLF's previous incarnation I could do a search for a term and turn up results either by post (often more useful) or by thread. Now, it seems search results for posts don't turn up, only for threads. When the thread is long it's discouraging. Am I missing something obvious? I didn't see any field for "posts" in the advanced search form.

Open the advanced search, click on the "search single content" tab and, magically, at the bottom of the form the option to show the results by post will appear.

 

[Bubba]

Open the advanced search, click on the "search single content" tab and, magically, at the bottom of the form the option to show the results by post will appear.

You're quite right, Mirabell. There it was. Thanks. I'd have had a hard time finding it on my own.

I can't understand this at all. Why don't you just hold down Ctrl and press + as many times as you want to make it a size confortable enough for you to read? It's just a conventional Windows shortcut - surely everyone uses it?

BLOG

I don't know about Lenz, Lionel, but for me the unreadability of the new WLF has less to do with the size of the lettering on the screen--as you say, just hit command + until you get a size you like--than with the page layout, the seemingly greater clutter. I've yet to get used to this new format.

 

[lenz]

I can't understand this at all. Why don't you just hold down Ctrl and press + as many times as you want to make it a size confortable enough for you to read? It's just a conventional Windows shortcut - surely everyone uses it?

BLOG

It's not just the size - the fonts are thin and ugly. Italics are unnecessary for the quotes and just add a difficulty factor. And what was wrong with the old design? And those question marks for accented letters are really annoying. Sorry, Stewart, I think the whole thing needs a rethink.

 

[lionel]

It's not just the size - the fonts are thin and ugly. Italics are unnecessary for the quotes and just add a difficulty factor. And what was wrong with the old design? And those question marks for accented letters are really annoying. Sorry, Stewart, I think the whole thing needs a rethink.

Ah, that makes more sense! Italics are indeed unnecessary with captured quotations, but existed before and caused confusion with originally italicized words.

However, I've blown these things up, and you're right: as I see it, there's a problem with italicized words: for me, the main problem is in the tracking, or character-spacing, which definitely comes out in the italics. Yes, there's a tracking problem that should not be a problem at all to adjust.

BLOG

 

[Stewart]

I've just authorised a bunch of posts. Sometimes posts will get picked up by the spam capturing system I installed. It probably sees a couple of links and scoops up the post to a holding area. I put it in to try and beat the amount of spam that was occurring.

 

[waalkwriter]

I've just authorised a bunch of posts. Sometimes posts will get picked up by the spam capturing system I installed. It probably sees a couple of links and scoops up the post to a holding area. I put it in to try and beat the amount of spam that was occurring.

Yeah, it seemed like this new format really attracted undue amounts of spam. Really annoying. I think it's a trashy thing to do.

 

[accidie]

Can anyone please tell me why apparently at random I am told my post cannot be shown because either it's not allowed or I've not logged in when I ruddy well have? I've just written 3 posts: the first 2 went through and the third once again was refused, telling me that I needed to log in.

 

[Eric]

I get what accidie mentions as well. Must be a technical glitch.

 

[accidie]

Eric, if it's happening to two people odds are it's affecting others as well. Doesn't sound a big deal, but if one's given any time or thought to a post it's annoying to try to remember exactly what one's said, re-type it, and try once again to post.

 

[accidie]

Now I'm more than a bit annoyed as I've had to log in three times for one post. The latest admonition advises me that I'd entered wrong info when logging in. Okay, so there was a typo in my password: Whyever wasn't I shown that message immediately after logging in rather than after having spent time running to bookshelves for info and devoting a bit of thought to a post that wouldn't go through?

 

[miercuri]

I tried posting in the film thread last night and it said that my post had to be approved by a moderator first, or something of the sort... It still hasn't popped up. What's up with that?

 

[Mirabell]

I tried posting in the film thread last night and it said that my post had to be approved by a moderator first, or something of the sort... It still hasn't popped up. What's up with that?

It's because Björn%Stew don't trust you. You are one highly suspicious lady!

 

[Eric]

There are one or two new names with numbers (not us regualrs) who seem to have appeared recently and post what looks like spam, advertising things which have nothing to do with literature. The postings include words that seem to be relevant, but they seem really to be selling something. I hope such people are got rid of (their postings, not their persons) so that those of us involved in debate can debate freely.

I haven't seen any input whatsoever from Stewart for a long time. Is he still active here?

 

[Bjorn]

I tried posting in the film thread last night and it said that my post had to be approved by a moderator first, or something of the sort... It still hasn't popped up. What's up with that?

Sorry about that, should be fixed now. That stuff is automated somehow, it's supposed to keep spam out, but apparently it's a bit overzelous sometimes. Let us know if that happens.