General support topic for Aeva Media (Latest release: July 28, 2010)

[mark7144]

Bug

Posting BBC link gives "The message body was left empty" on my forum. I've tried it on Noisen and it gave this error when you post the URL via the Quick Reply form, "Your session timed out while posting. Please try to re-submit your message. "

Example URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8196143.stm

Suggestion

While we are on the subject of BBC, I have a suggestion: Only embed BBC videos when a direct link is used. Every BBC video has a direct link and usually an indirect link, unfortunately because AEVA works with both types of link, people keep posting videos when they only want to post a link to a written article.

Direct: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8196152.stm
Indirect: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8195740.stm

It's really easy to get the direct link as well, just click 'Share' on the video.

[Shinakeme]

Hey i have a question i am trying to get this certain embed to work on my forum but it won't show the vid even after i installed the new version of aeva

Code Select Expand

<object width="940" height="425"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="AllowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><param name="movie" value="http://ufragtv.com/public/flash/Viewer.swf"></param><param name="FlashVars" value="showId=20777&showChat=1&advertisment="></param><embed AllowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" FlashVars="showId=20777&showChat=1&advertisment=" src="http://ufragtv.com/public/flash/Viewer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="940" height="425"></embed></object>

[Nao 尚]

While we are on the subject of BBC, I have a suggestion:

Are you kidding me? I already told you I'm no longer dealing with BBC links AT ALL!
I got bored having to fix their stupid links every other week because they decided I couldn't do this or that...
Just ditch them.

[mark7144]

Fair enough but do you intend to fix that bug that stops people posting the link at all? I think that's just an AEVA issue rather than relating to the BBC.

[Mayhem30]

How come this mod adds a link to the authors site on the bottom of the forum?

Is it ok for me to remove it?

I'm not 100% happy with giving a unauthorized free 'one way link' with a high PR ranking to his/her site. I understand the author did this for SEO purposes for that site - but if I can't remove it, I'll just uninstall the mod.

I wish there would have been some sort of a warning before installing the mod.

[perro88]

Any idea what module or setting the server have to  have in order to work the lookups.
sorry for my english and thanks again for the mod.

[Kindred]

Mayhem,

1- no... you can not remove the copyright (although Nao has mentioned that he is willing to discuss payment for removal permission)
[side note: This is common for many mods these days, all of the portal and gallery mods have copyrights as do many others]

2- It is clearly stated in the FAQ for this mod and has been mentioned a number of times in this thread...   don't complain about "no warning" if you didn't do your homework by reading about the mod before installing it.

Perro....    What do you mean?   As far as I know, the lookups work correctly after installing the mod.

[Mayhem30]

Pay to have the copyright link removed? Are you kidding?

The mod author should have stated (during the install process) that it does in fact put a link to his site - instead of trying to sneak one in at the bottom of the forum without any notification.

I'm sure if he did that, there would be a lot of sites that would pass on this mod. This is just an example of bad business practice in my opinion.

[TurtleKicker]

I have an SMF 1.1.10 forum currently running Aeva 5.2.50. I'm a bit behind in the version, I see. Actually I don't have any experience upgrading mods on my forum since SMF makes the procedure so messy and difficult.

I'm confused about the proper upgrade steps in my case. There's bolded text that shouts "All previous versions of this mod MUST be uninstalled BEFORE installing this version" but then there's the bit that says if you're running 5.2 or higher you can take an easier route.

Can someone please confirm:

1) That if I'm on 5.2.50 I don't have to uninstall?
2) The "overwrite" procedure in better detail so I don't accidentally bring down my forum jumping a whole major version?

Thanks!

[Nao 尚]

@mark> Oh, for crying out loud... There's already a fix for it and it's specified in the changelog... I guess you installed v6.9.100 manually without checking for the new entry in the install script?

@mayhem> Nope, it's not for pagerank... Otherwise I wouldn't have used Javascript to show that link (I don't think Google follows Javascript links). Also, it's silly to expect PR benefits from giving a link named "noisen"... I mean, if you're typing noisen in Google, chances are that you ARE looking for my site The link doesn't say "free blogs" or anything like that.

The link only appears if the mod is actually called on the page (hence the Javascript). If you want to use its features, it's a fair trade. It's only a small link in your copyright footer anyway... What's wrong with it?

@perro> You need to have Apache 3.0 and PHP 7.0 for it to work. Also, it will run best on a Core i8 with 16 cores and 64GB Ram. It's state of the art, you know.
Seriously, the lookups work on 99.9% of all servers. If yours isn't in the list, make sure to have php safe mode disabled, or cURL installed. Or file_get_contents enabled or something.

[mark7144]

@mark> Oh, for crying out loud...

Nao, I always treat you with respect so please, there's no need to talk to me like that.

There's already a fix for it and it's specified in the changelog... I guess you installed v6.9.100 manually without checking for the new entry in the install script?

I did not manually upgrade to .100, I installed fresh and did not notice any option regarding this bug, can you elaborate?

I don't think Google follows Javascript links

That used to be the case but Google now crawls and indexes links within JavaScript's "onClick" events.

[Akyhne]

Pay to have the copyright link removed? Are you kidding?

He's entitled to do what he wants, including adding a copyright.
Use the mod as it is, or don't use it. It's your call.

And that's the end of that discussion. This issue has been talken up so many times.

[perro88]

well it was disabled at the server I had to ask -,- . seems the problem was that the server had curl disabled for security reasons(well thats what they said) but they enabled it by request. thanks for the help

[Mayhem30]

Ok fair enough. I had a bad day and that just really bothered me.

I'm sorry for going off the deep end on this matter.

[Nao 尚]

Nao, I always treat you with respect so please, there's no need to talk to me like that.

When did "for crying out loud" start being insulting? No one told me...

I did not manually upgrade to .100, I installed fresh and did not notice any option regarding this bug, can you elaborate?

Read the changelog... And the old topic, towards the end, mentions it (around the release of v99's silent re-release, that would be in July.)

That used to be the case but Google now crawls and indexes links within JavaScript's "onClick" events.

I'm not aware of that, really. And again, having "noisen" as the link title isn't going to give me any PR I think. (I'm not a specialist though...)

[mark7144]

When did "for crying out loud" start being insulting? No one told me...

Depends when it is used. In the UK at least and in this circumstance it is rude because it's an expression of unfair frustration and anger aimed at me. If I actually did something that warranted such a response then I would understand.

Read the changelog... And the old topic, towards the end, mentions it (around the release of v99's silent re-release, that would be in July.)

The bug you fixed that was mentioned in the changelog is different to the one I'm experiencing. The bug I have reported is not about a video link being submitted on its own, it's happening when the BBC link is with other content in the post as well. This is a bug that exists in the latest version of AEVA and it seems to be a problem with the AEVA code rather than anything the BBC are responsible for.

For example, try posting this via Quick Reply on your Noisen forum:

Code Select Expand

[size=15pt]Baby P trio's security put at £1m[/size]

The extra cost of providing security for the three people identified as allowing the death of Baby Peter could rise to £1m
a year, a union has said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8196143.stm

On my forum (1.1.9), you can't post it via Quick Reply or the standard post form.

Can some other AEVA users please confirm this as an issue?

[Nao 尚]

http://aeva.noisen.com/dev/5060/tests-video-embedding/msg233410/#msg233410

And "for crying out loud" is the equivalent to my "Par pitié..."
It's nothing insulting. Not like "for f*ck's sake" or something like that.

[jimlunsford]

No unsolicited PMs.

May I please pm you? This is not in regards to this mod.

[mark7144]

And "for crying out loud" is the equivalent to my "Par pitié..."
It's nothing insulting. Not like "for f*ck's sake" or something like that.

Cool, so it's just a misinterpretation due to the whole different country thing, no problem then. In the UK it does mean FFS based on the context it was used in this thread

http://aeva.noisen.com/dev/5060/tests-video-embedding/msg233410/#msg233410

Strange, maybe it's a 1.1.9 only issue. When I put [noembed] around the link, it posts successfully which leads me to think it relates to AEVA.

Please can someone using 1.1.9 confirm whether this bug exists?

See if your forum gives you an error when you try and post this:

Code Select Expand

[size=15pt]Baby P trio's security put at £1m[/size]

The extra cost of providing security for the three people identified as allowing the death of Baby Peter could rise to £1m a year, a union has said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8196143.stm

[Akyhne]

"for crying out loud" and "frigging" used in a previous post are not the nicest terms to use. They are both very negative. But we are getting offtopic now. Let's just continue in a positive way.