i just lost text cuz it sed it had too many images, so. . .

[vulcantouch]

. . .i need to perform a test here to see how many emoticons Are allowed; were limits just imposed? was i the cause? ;(
:) :( :o:D;)

[SirSteve]

Yes, 5 is the limit. That is all that is needed in my opionion. Otherwise, it gets out of hand and doesn't look good.

[vulcantouch]

oh Man, how'm i sposed to xpress myself effectively & succinctly without my diarrhea-of-the-emoticon?? :crazed: "doesn't look good's" subjective so i won't bother arguing that (i'd guess you don't like sunflower fields either ;) ), except to point out that my "badlookin" posts don't reflect on you or ssg, i.e. if i don't care if my posts "look bad" who they hurtin?
i'm currently watchin the bbc documentary The Human Face (hosted by john cleese & liz hurley; comin soon to a smiley-infested hump (http://sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2216&pagenumber=1) near you), which makes the salient point that emoticon use developed in response to the problem of the fast, informal, impersonal character of emessages often giving rise to misunderstandings (cuz reader couldn't observe author's face for clues about intent). i know from experience that the kind of things i say frequently provoked out-of-proportion reactions before i began using emoticons as blow-softening punctuations.
ever mindful of the fact this is an e-medium, in which every letter i type increases download & comprehension time (which increases viewer eyestrain), i always strive to express myself here as efficiently as possible. emoticons help me with that; they're so direct each one i use helps me forgo about a dozen words of text :cool:
as you can see, there has always been discipline and thought behind my apparent indulgence, so plz reconsider. emoticons were created and are options on forums for a reason. otherwise, i'll have to express myself so long-windedly that my posts'll take so long to download and will lack their usual punchiness that no one'll want to bother sloggin thru em, thus depriving themsleves of my superwit, which would be a True shame :cry: i'll adapt if i must, but i won't enjoy it, and neither will those who read me-
vt

[jeddah]

..having just coincidentally experienced the selfsame anomaly..it's all very well imposing restrictions such as this, but how about ensuring the text is still there when you go back to re-edit. :frus:

It seems a little disingenous to direct the poster back to the previous page to do so bearing in mind the blank messagebox.

Also, I enjoyed the human face series when we had it and agree that expression is formed of words and, well, expressions so the only option I can think of is to divide your post up into compartments containing 5 smilies and post several times. Alternatively you could add an 'O' to denote a nose as I used to do on the GalooBB, hence :) would become :O)

I'm guessing SS would prefer the latter as the aesthetics of the former compart-a-posts suggestions would be in question too.

jeddah

NP. Aaliyah - More than a woman MAW mix

[vulcantouch]

:confused: :zzz: :o :eek: :dead:

[vulcantouch]

C'MON! :( :cry: :frus: :mad:
hey jdah, how're them aaliymaws? i ain't been hearing good things about em (http://www.mastersatwork.net/bb/showthread.php?threadid=441) (insert disallowed emoticon here)

[JediTricks]

Is there any way to remove the NO-CACHE from reply pages so they don't erase all the data in case this sort of thing happens? (I know, I've been asking that for 5 months now)

Also, I think 5 smilies is not enough for longer posts, any way the filter can be deactivated if more than 5 smilies are not within 10 characters of each other?

[vulcantouch]

:mad: :frus: :Pirate: :dead:
btw, creative solution jt : )

[SirSteve]

JT, I can remove them but they are not just removed for replies but for the entire Forums system. As for the smilies, I changed it to a limit of 10.

[good shot jansen]

hey we takes what we can gets!:evil:

thanx fer list'enin' sir steve! we truely appreciate it! :happy:

[JediTricks]

Obviously caching the whole forum system wouldn't be reasonable, which is why I asked about JUST the reply pages. ;) Remember, we have this problem on the registration pages as well, if you fill out all that stuff and there's some data that doesn't jive for the system (like, for example, they pick a name that's taken), it tells them to go back and the page is totally blank, all that work down the toilet... and some newbies aren't gonna take to that.

[vulcantouch]

your nigglin pickiness about emoticons is now forcing me to make an absurd choice between boldfacing the titles of the flix i hump (http://sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?postid=30824#post30824) and using any smilies at all :mad:
what IS it with you powers-that-be? every time i pay yall a compliment (http://sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?postid=29152#post29152) yall almost immediately make me regret it. are you Tryin to get me to leave? just say the word, cuz i'm gettin fed up-
vt
p.s. thanx for support jt, i didn't expect it :)

[JediTricks]

Well, I've run into this problem on other sites and losing all that work can be VERYYYYYYYYY annoying. For now, what I suggest you do is simply tick the "Disable Smilies in this Post" every time you post until we get this sorted out.

Without a more advanced filter or that "no-cache" somehow removed just from form-posting pages like "reply", I think the limit should be one-line's worth. I've RARELY seen the smilie issue abused here on SSG and longer posts shouldn't get accidentally deleted just because we're trying to keep the site clean. I dunno, it IS an issue worth addressing, but losing one's hard-worked post over a slight mistake is too extreme IMO.

[vulcantouch]

i even conscientiously limited my emoticons & hyperlinx to under ten. fat lotta good it did me :mad: the only other feature i was using that might trigger rejection was boldfacing, and without boldfacing flix titles the e-z scanning of a dozen Humps is badly hindered :(
before all this i was about to remark that this was prolly the perfectest forum i ever contributed to. i better not say so now, cuz who knows what Else'd get screwed up if i did :dead:
vt
np: robert downey jr, "smile" from Chaplin score

[JediTricks]

Ok, what are you talking about? I can't figure out your new complaint at all, why should you have to bold the titles of the movies you've been watching and talking about? You're gonna need to be clear and precise for me to figure this one out, so easy on the VT-speak.

[jeddah]

Over at the Hump thread, we like to bolderise the movies we've seen bullet-style. I think VT's worried that he can't do more than 10 bold-ers for the same reason that we cannot exceed 10 saddies :D

any clearer? If I'm wrongo, you'll have to wait till VT gets ol

jeddah

[vulcantouch]

rather than answer with a perfectly-obvious and reasonable "why Shouldn't i be able to bold the titles?", i'll illustrate. it ain't simply, as jdah sez, about "like". (i'm also not sure what the current boldafce upper-limit is or how said limit impacts on emoticon limit.) compare readability & scanability of current hump (http://sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2216&pagenumber=1) vs. hump's previous location, which subsequently removed emoticon & boldface options (http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.asp?threadID=1764&forumID=1) :(
the whole idea behind the Hump is to provoke discussion, esp. when someone else has seen the same flik. but considering the number of flix out there & the ocean of commentary about same one might scroll thru in search of a conversation about any one of them, the boldface helps the reader quickly discern between what he's seen & what he hasn't, & what might be intriguing to read about or comment on whether he's seen it or not, depending on what he's in the mood for.
as Hump's first post sed, "my comments on each mentioned film are designed for punchiness, speed of digestion and maximization of recognition". these initial thrusts may or may not lead to more in-depth discussion of a given film or related topic, but it All depends on initial ease of accessibility-
vt

[JediTricks]

There is no bold limit that I know of:
bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold bold no bold

No hyperlink limit either:
test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1) test (http://test.com/1)

[JediTricks]

Originally posted by JediTricks
why should you have to bold the titles of the movies you've been watching and talking about?That should have read "shouldn't" as in, where do you get the idea that there's a limit on using bold? As far as I know, there isn't one.

BTW, 37 smilies in that first SSG "flix" thread, I think it's a record in terms of non-consecutive smilies.

You must explain your problem VT, I still can't figure out why you threw a hissy in posts 12 (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?postid=30828#post30828) and 14 (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?postid=30992#post30992) of this very thread. 10 smilies is better than 5 smilies, but that's not really what I don't understand. I don't see why you are treating smilies and boldface as if they are mutually inclusive/exclusive, i.e. you can't have bold since you can't have smilies. Just because you're limited to 10 smilies doesn't mean you're limited on use of italics or bold or whatever.

[vulcantouch]

plz chek out my 400th post (http://sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?postid=31226#post31226); as you can see it uses both emoticons and hyperwhatevers. what you may not be able to see is that before it would post i had to limit the number of icons to five. more than that, together with the one hyperlink, was disallowed.
my experience on this end indicates the emoticons' new limit impositions don't mix well w/hyperlinx or textual mods. yet another reason to repeal said arbitrary limits, arrrrhhh :Pirate:
vt

[good shot jansen]

i was posting a reply to the humps thread, i was very careful to count my smilies (i had 9), but i did have about 7 bold text sections and one hyperlink, and after typing my post, (which was rather lengthy, and took me about a half hour to compose), i get the message telling me that i have over stepped my allotment of fun, and wiped me clean!:mad:

of course shame on me fer not using the "work around" you suggested jt, but i will tell you this, as a long time poster, as well as a moderator, it did not make me very happy to have this happen. i can guarantee, if i was a newbie who was just coming to this board for the 1st time, i would probably make like dionne warwick and just walk on by :frus:

if you're taking any votes on this, count mine as not liking these limits at all.

after sticking with this board through the years regardless of countless format swaps, as well as the ise (snow, and mud), i was very happy with how the forums were humming along of late, up until this new little tweak that is.

[JediTricks]

Ok, I didn't know about this, so I've asked SirSteve to deactivate the filter.

[SirSteve]

I removed the smilie limit. :D

[vulcantouch]

i'll play it safe and go with one :kiss: ;)