Since my forum is mostly read only in the sense that the user just read the board entries and only seldom reply, is there in the configuration a way to deactivate the 'Quick Reply' if you click on a board entry?
Thanks for your answers
Geronimo
I believe if you cannot reply you don't see the quick reply at all.
Hi Illori
Thanks for your answer but that does not solve my problem because the forum user must be (and are) able to anwer to a post but mostly dont because there is no need to do so. It is perfectly acceptable that they have to click 'Reply' to post an answer.
Geronimo
There is no option for it, there used to be but it confused enough users that it was removed years ago early in 2.1's dev time.
You can edit out function template_quickreply() in Display.template.php (down at the bottom). Doesn't appear to break anything.
Other than pressing the quote button which may or may not work properly afterwards depending on your browser.
Works in FF, goes to reply editor. Why is it browser dependent?
worked here:
https://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=571853.0
Quote from: Sir Osis of Liver on March 02, 2022, 11:25:58 AMWorks in FF, goes to reply editor. Why is it browser dependent?
Because ripping out the editor the way you propose breaks the JavaScript for the quote button. Different browsers handle that failure state differently.
How about this?
/* Styles for the quick reply area. */
#quickreply {
clear: both;
display: none;
}
That just screws up quoting entirely because that way it will always be sent to the quick reply box - even though it's not visible.
I just commented out 'template_quickreply();' in Display.template.php as Sir Osis of Liver proposed. With this the quick reply is not displayed. Clicking on 'reply' works fine including Quote (at least in my context). So for me the problem is solved.
Thanks for your help anyway
Geronimo
I hope no one clicks the quote button on each post though... that won't behave properly (depends on your browser as to how it will misbehave)
and, as we discovered in a different thread, removing the quick reply also seems to break the quick edit
Not to be rude ( ;) ), but this is another in the short (but getting longer) list of useful 2.0 features that were removed from 2.1 for no apparent reason.
just because you may not agree does not mean there is no apparent reason. there are always reasons and they were made and we are not going back.
I was looking for a solution to this today. Found it here https://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=581225.msg4114362#msg4114362
Well, no, Arantor objects to that because it screws up quote in some browsers. Works for me in FF, and apparently also for OP.
Quote from: Arantor on March 03, 2022, 07:08:59 AMI hope no one clicks the quote button on each post though... that won't behave properly (depends on your browser as to how it will misbehave)
Quote from: Kindred on March 03, 2022, 07:50:00 AMand, as we discovered in a different thread, removing the quick reply also seems to break the quick edit
Well, since we've been told how not to do it, is there a correct way to remove quick reply?
And I've just noticed that on this forum quote is sent to reply editor, not quick reply. n/m, that happens only when js is disabled in browser. (I'm somewhat past multi-tasking. :( )
Bookmarked for future ref. Thanks.
Anyone who says 'not to be rude' knows full well they are.
It was removed because we had so many people confused about the 'how to turn it ON' interface.
Also, you should tell the XenForo team, I'm sure they'd love to hear the exact same complaint as they have for the last decade.
Is there a correct way? Not that I've had time or patience to figure out, and frankly with this kind of attitude I'm not overly enthused to try.
You'd not be doing it for my benefit, Arantor, it's the OP who requested it. My only interest is for future reference, as this issue will likely come up again in support.
Wouldn't it simply be a matter of looking at the old "pre-removal" code ... tweaking it a little ... then offering it up as a mod?
QUESTION: Isn't this site supposed to be for end-users to discuss how to make things better ... for THEM? I mean, I am guessing you all aren't putting all this work in for yourselves. I would think the users of your software are who you write for... no? Seems anti-productive to DISCOURAGE these kinds of conversation. It also seems anti-productive to get upset over such discussions.
No one is attacking anyone personally... at all.
The devs do run forums themselves, you know.
BTW... to answer the question asked "Why wasn't this brought up BEFORE 2.1.0?" ....
At least for me... the answer is simple. You folks DISCOURAGED me from updating my site until 2.1.0.
Over and over again we were told not to use the release candidates for our open forum. Unfortunately, I don't have time to "play" with forum software in the background... and most of the complaints that have come up have come up from the USER BASE who wouldn't have access to the release candidate forums anyway.
So yeah, at least for my users... this last couple weeks have been the users first experience with SMF 2.1.x simply because it was strongly suggested by the SMF team that be the case.
Quote from: Arantor on March 05, 2022, 10:01:07 AMThe devs do run forums themselves, you know.
I do know. That said, do you think they are doing the work solely for themselves? If so, I stand corrected... but somehow I doubt it.
we have encouraged our users to install 2.1 as a test install prior to it going gold to test it out and provide feedback. nothing stopped anyone from doing that.
A Test install sure... but test installs aren't live.
What you are getting today is feedback from the folks who use your product who have been getting feedback from THEIR users...
I know I wouldn't be here (nearly as much) if it weren't for my users complaints/suggestions.
Quote from: FrizzleFried on March 05, 2022, 10:04:05 AMBTW... to answer the question asked "Why wasn't this brought up BEFORE 2.1.0?" ....
At least for me... the answer is simple. You folks DISCOURAGED me from updating my site until 2.1.0.
Over and over again we were told not to use the release candidates for our open forum. Unfortunately, I don't have time to "play" with forum software in the background... and most of the complaints that have come up have come up from the USER BASE who wouldn't have access to the release candidate forums anyway.
So yeah, at least for my users... this last couple weeks have been the users first experience with SMF 2.1.x simply because it was strongly suggested by the SMF team that be the case.
That is standard procedure with any software btw, and not only with smf. Betas and rc versions should be avoided being used on a live site, unless you have the required knowledge to deal with any bugs that might pop up along the way. They are not called betas and release candidates for nothing.
@FrizzleFried, it may help to know that while Arantor and Sir Osis of Liver both have long histories in this community, neither are on the Simple Machines team. Their discussion is between the two of them, and their views and opinions are their own.
Asking about ways to change and/or disable the quick reply feature is perfectly fine. The proposals so far in this discussion have all been problematic for one reason or another, and knowledgeable folks here have explained why they are problematic precisely in order to protect others from encountering issues if they tried them. But just because the inadequate proposals to date have been "shot down" doesn't mean that discussing the matter is discouraged.
Regarding the matter itself:
It is certainly possible to change and/or disable the quick reply feature, but it will take a fair bit of work by someone knowledgeable enough to do it correctly. This is a good candidate for a mod request (https://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?board=79.0).
Quote from: Doug Heffernan on March 05, 2022, 11:27:52 AMQuote from: FrizzleFried on March 05, 2022, 10:04:05 AMBTW... to answer the question asked "Why wasn't this brought up BEFORE 2.1.0?" ....
At least for me... the answer is simple. You folks DISCOURAGED me from updating my site until 2.1.0.
Over and over again we were told not to use the release candidates for our open forum. Unfortunately, I don't have time to "play" with forum software in the background... and most of the complaints that have come up have come up from the USER BASE who wouldn't have access to the release candidate forums anyway.
So yeah, at least for my users... this last couple weeks have been the users first experience with SMF 2.1.x simply because it was strongly suggested by the SMF team that be the case.
That is standard procedure with any software btw, and not only with smf. Betas and rc versions should be avoided being used on a live site, unless you have the required knowledge to deal with any bugs that might pop up along the way. They are not called betas and release candidates for nothing.
Oh, I'm not complaining. I'm simply pointing out that the reason these complaints/suggestions are happening NOW (after release) versus during RC...
FWI: I was looking for exactly the functionality myself. To disable Quick Reply. I perused manuals, searched the admin area, and even hit a few dead ends with old conversations here before doing a search in the correct place only to discover:
"It ain't there no more."
With 1400+ views I have to assume there are more than a couple of us looking for this functionality. Yes, I am aware many of those views will be the same people, but the number looking is likely not negligible.
Totally aside, I rather like the new wizzy wig editor.
Don't forget, there are the team viewers who read every single post.....
The reality is that a non-trivial percentage of those views are search engines gathering the topic for search purposes. Wouldn't surprise me if 90% or more are such.
You would probably also find that a non-trivial percentage are just members who see this on the unread posts page every day, and are wondering what the latest popcorn is. ;)
Its clear a significant portion of them are people who want to trivialize what other people want if its not something they want.
No, it's really not clear.
I know for a fact that bots visit this site thousands of times a day, every day. I guarantee that the topic getting replies will get it seen by the bots over and over, artificially inflating the view count, distorting the real number of views.
In any case, views has never been a reliable metric for judging importance or relevance of a topic. Let's take a look at the top 10 viewed topics on this site, as of right now:
Simple Machines Forum Conference Survey - 3,717,913 views - posted in 2012
PHP security warning - 3,663,657 views - posted in 2012
SMF 1.0 Beta 1 Released! - 2,980,935 views - posted in 2003
SMF 2.0.3, 1.1.17 and 1.0.23 security patches released - 2,917,758 views - posted in 2012
End of life of SMF 1.0 - 2,874,272 views - posted in 2012
SMF Big Boards - 2,798,568 views - posted in 2008
General support topic for Aeva Media (Latest release: July 28, 2010) - 2,673,019 views - posted in 2007
SMF 2.0.1 and 1.1.15 critical security patches released - 2,530,201 views - posted in 2011
Server maintenance - 2,491,797 views - posted in 2011
SMF's ban policy and how to "appeal" it. - 2,432,542 views - posted in 2007
As you can see, there's not really a particularly great correlation with the value of a post and the number of likes it has, especially given that the most viewed topic is a discussion about a conference that was maybe going to happen if people were interested, and that was 10 years ago.
Number of views does not correlate to meaningfulness.
Also, I would point out that I am the person responsible for making the decision you are currently unhappy with and that at the time I made it in 2013, it made a lot of sense. You can be angry about it, but the decision was made with the best of intentions at the time.
I have thought about making it a mod to reinstate it but I'm fairly certain I will get a lot of hassle if I make it as a mod, more than I currently get for having removed the option in the first place.
Lets put it in a different perspective. Almost none of my users are even remotely techy. Some struggle with basic things like setting their own time zone and time display format. Quick reply is not a benefit for those people because then I get questions about how to do things that are not options with quick reply. Now I am sure because I took the time explain that there are those who will attack my premise or rationalize that its a stupid premise. If you are one of those people your feedback on that is irrelevant.
If it were a forum full of techies, programmers & nerds like this one my argument would be invalid, but it is not.
Quote from: Arantor on April 18, 2022, 02:03:20 PMI have thought about making it a mod to reinstate it but I'm fairly certain I will get a lot of hassle if I make it as a mod, more than I currently get for having removed the option in the first place.
I am sure folks will argue about anything, but personally I don't care if its built in or addon as long as its clean.
As to the correlation. Are you saying there are a couple or less people interested in this functionality. I just said I assumed there are more than a couple. Of course there is the old saw about for every X number of people who speak up there are Y more people who didn't. Again I have to make an assumption that if you refuse any credibility to my previous assumption that there must be more than a couple interested then I am sure this one won't carry much weight either.
Did I say it was a stupid premise? Did I, at any point, tell you that you wanting to disable quick reply was a bad thing? No, I did not. Please don't put words in my mouth.
In any case I am saying that thinking 1600 views on a topic is a lot of support for the topic at hand. I am saying that probably 1400+ of those views are by robots who simply don't care, and some amount of the rest is the people replying to it and those eating popcorn.
Your premise on the nature of quick reply is sound. It was not a use case I considered very strongly in 2013 when I made the decision to remove that option from SMF - there were other use cases that were more pressing to me at the time that felt more important to address, namely how much confusion there seemed to be *because* there was an option.
However, I still get asked to fix things I made 10 years ago. If I made a mod of this, I'm certain I will still be asked to support it 10 years from now. That is problematic for me, even though I am coming around to your position in general.
Quote from: Arantor on April 18, 2022, 02:18:45 PMDid I say it was a stupid premise? Did I, at any point, tell you that you wanting to disable quick reply was a bad thing? No, I did not. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED YOU SAID THAT. Don't put words in my mouth.
QuoteNow I am sure because I took the time explain that there are those who will attack my premise or rationalize that its a stupid premise. If you are one of those people your feedback on that is irrelevant.
At no point did I say anybody said anything in that regard. In fact I chose not to quote or name anybody in that post for the reason that somebody might falsely assume I was directly addressing them even though it was clearly worded in a manner that talks about future action by an indeterminate person or group of people.
See, I told you people would argue about anything.
My statement in #33 about there being a large number of bots viewing things is based on the fact that at any given time there will be about 200 bots visiting this site, at all hours of the day and night, reading every single topic.
Your point in #35 is clearly aimed at trying to suggest that I am trivialising your concerns. I'm not. I'm just trying to keep some perspective.
I get it, this is important to you. But it's not as important to *everyone* as it is to you. The developers who came before me, those who were alongside me, those who came after me, we were building this for a much larger audience.
The fact that you have a legitimate concern is not being trivialised. I'm merely trying to put it in perspective against everything else. 1600 views on a topic does not indicate 1600 people had the same question, nor does it indicate 1600 people even looked at it.
That means it's not the concern of 1600 people, but much more likely it's the concern of maybe 20 people who actually read the topic.
How I arrive at that figure: I reckoned at a guess that 90% of the views were bots. That's likely a low figure, but let's run with it, that means 160 views from actual people.
Here we are, 42 posts in, of which several are from you and me, which each means we must have viewed the topic several times to get to that point.
I realise this is important to you. I'm merely asking you to consider the possibility that while important to you, this is not as important to the rest of the community based on the likelihood of how many people *probably* actually viewed this topic. We'll never know the details to be sure, but everything I've seen of 20+ years of running internet sites would suggest this to be the case.
And yes, I realise you just want it fixed. I'm trying to give an indication of what that might realistically look like - because contrary to what you might think, I'd like to help you. I just don't want to hear about it for the next 10 years if I do. I know I am not alone in sharing this concern.
You can always ask for a mod to be developed.
I hope doing this is not a mistake.
@Sir Osis of Liver hope this helps you as well.
Don't ask me to publish it on the mod site. I'm not in that good a mood.
I'll cop to downloading it...
...though I really have no idea why.
;)
Quote from: FrizzleFried on April 18, 2022, 04:52:53 PMI'll cop to downloading it...
...though I really have no idea why.
;)
LOL
Quote from: Arantor on April 18, 2022, 04:35:45 PMI hope doing this is not a mistake.
@Sir Osis of Liver hope this helps you as well.
Don't ask me to publish it on the mod site. I'm not in that good a mood.
Seems to work. Thank you.
I will note that the way it is now implemented in 2.1 is something that people asked for, when we started on 2.1
The fact that you few people now ask for exactly the opposite is merely amusing - especially because the logic you used to justify wanting the toggle is, quite literally, the exact logic people argued to leave the quick reply always on
Quote from: Kindred on April 18, 2022, 06:06:09 PMthe exact logic people argued to leave the quick reply always on
RIGHT?
Swear to god I can't win
You can't please all of the people all of the time. Whatever you do, someone is going to grumble. :D