Here's an idea for the Software programmers....

[BuckyXTC]

Ages ago, when I had an AOL account and used the chatrooms, I remember a very nifty feature, the "ignore" button. If some bozo came into a chatroom and tried to disrupt things, anyone bothered by it could click the ignore button and their posts wouldn't show up for the user selecting that feature. I'd like to see a feature like that in the software used here in the Message Center. It would allow those users who really want to have reasonable discussions an easy way to weed out the crap from those who seem incapable of more than insults and personal attacks. And for the latter group, they could bask in each other's mean-spiritedness and negativity. Since each user would be able to choose whom they would ignore, it seems a reasonable suggestion, though I don't know how difficult it would be from a programming standpoint. I realize this post might have been better suited to Daddy's area, but I wanted to hear what folks who use the Lounge area would have to say about it. After using the Message Center for a while, I've arrived at the conclusion that there are a number of folks whose opinions I could care less about, though they're certainly entitled to express them, and in no form or fashion am I in favor of censoring them. It would also be a great timesaver, allowing everyone to sort out the wheat from the chaff. And being that I envision such a feature as a click box next to the user names in the user profile list, you could always choose to see all the posts from everyone at whatever time you wanted.

 

Just a thought or two........

[+ deej]

I agree that would be a nice feature to have, but I doubt we'll see it any time soon. (And, sadly, I wouldn't be able to use it anyway. <sigh>)

 

In a chat room, you're filtering a live stream. Stuff can be filtered as it is created. Filter it once and the deed is done. Here, you're retrieving a stored document. Each document would need to pass through the filter every time it is read.

 

I doubt the performance overhead would be acceptable, to users or server operators.

[+ honcho]

Deej wrote:

 

>In a chat room, you're filtering a live stream. Stuff can be

>filtered as it is created. Filter it once and the deed is

>done. Here, you're retrieving a stored document. Each

>document would need to pass through the filter every time it

>is read.

 

>I doubt the performance overhead would be acceptable, to

>users or server operators.

 

First, I will ceed that this discussion probably should go in the "Daddy's Place" Forum.

 

Secondly, I will also admit that I only have the most rudimentary knowledge of HTML and databases.

 

Now, all that being said, I seem to remember that there is a provision for conditional evaluation in HTML ... After all, people write web pages that contain distinct provisions for browsers being Netscape or Internet Explorer. So, Deej, since you're an expert, can you tell us if this facility will allow you to say (in a static piece of HTML) evaluate or not on the basis of whether one string is a member of a list of strings?

 

This software seems to generate web pages on the fly. It shouldn't be to hard to include a users shit-list .... er... ignore-list *once* when generating the page, and then have each posting bracketed by conditional evaluation... or am I *totally* off the mark?

[Guest jc92103]

The best way to deal with these idiots is to ignore them. These people enjoy the attention they get from the negative posts. They will go away very fast when the postings get no response. Just overlook the posts and continue on as if they were not there. :-)

[CT Dick]

I'd pay $100 for an "Obliterate" button.

 

Dick

[SmallTownJohn]

Let's make it easy:0) To solve the vicious posts problem, posters should be required to: A) consult their physician for proper meds. dosage B) hire more escorts so they'd have less time to spend in crisis over Message Center "ratings" like its the home viewers only score at the Miss USA pageant.

 

 

John

[ready182]

If the filter is applied at the proper place in the software logic, the only performance hit would be to the user who requested the filter.

[+ Lucky]

That wa funny, Dick!

[+ deej]

HTML is a markup language, not a programming language. There are NO provisions in HTML for conditional display of elements of a document. There are provisions in HTML 4.0's Cascading Style Sheets to allow for elements to be visible or not, but that is not browser-independent.

 

There are, of course, scripting languages that can execute in SOME browsers from within an HTML document. These languages *can* conditionally control display of document elements.

 

Scripts can execute on the client side (in your browser on your machine) or on the server side (altering what is delivered to your browser). If it's client-side script, the entire document must be transmitted (including the script code), which will make delivery of the document slower. If it's server side, the server must execute the script that determines what should be delivered to your browser. Either is going to mean a performance hit. There is no such thing as executing code that doesn't require processing time in SOME way.

 

There are, of course, myriad other server-side technologies that could be used to implement a twit filter. Each would involve some sort of process that would need to run for every document retrieved. Even if the process determines that no filter should be applied, the process would still need to run.

[ready182]

Deej -- Were you replying to my post???

[adriano46]

Small Town John and CT Dick,

 

Both very funny comments!

 

Thanks

[+ deej]

No, ready, it was a reply to Honcho. Sorry.