New moderator: Daniel73

questions, corrections, complaints, suggestions

Postby Other Creator » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:34 pm

Daniel73 wrote:More changes on McDuck International, 24 October 2006:
[...]
Other creators
Santiago Ceballos, William Van Horn, Paul Murry, Don Rosa, etc.

Why am I not mentioned? Am I just part of the "cetera"? :mad:

--An other creator
Other Creator
 

Postby Sander » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:52 pm

Daniel73 wrote:And, as a test, I've added a picture on top of the forum-page:

Nice idea! It could have been mine. :)
I don't know what it looks like in Internet Explorer, but in Mozilla Firefox the layout is a bit distorted:

[...]

You could try setting the image height, by adding something like height="90" to the <img> tag.

[Images removed. --Sander]
Last edited by Sander on Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sander
Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:04 pm


I get a safety warning from on this forum-page now, and the pictures don't open.
You and your Google! How can I keep the forum tidy this way? :O
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:08 pm

Here's the tag I've used:
<IMG SRC="http://img.mcduck.nl/personage/meerdere/cbpg-1977.png" WIDTH="500" HEIGHT="170" ALIGN="RIGHT"><BR>About Disney comics. Moderated by <A HREF="http://discussion.mcduck.nl/profile.php?id=20">Daniel73</A>.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Sander » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:15 pm

Daniel73 wrote:I get a safety warning from on this forum-page now, and the pictures don't open.
You and your Google! How can I keep the forum tidy this way? :O

Apparently even Google doesn't like hotlinking anymore... :(
Another attempt: click here for screenshots.
You can remove the images from my previous post if they are causing warning messages.

Daniel73 wrote:Here's the tag I've used:
<IMG SRC="http://img.mcduck.nl/personage/meerdere/cbpg-1977.png" WIDTH="500" HEIGHT="170" ALIGN="RIGHT"><BR>About Disney comics. Moderated by <A HREF="http://discussion.mcduck.nl/profile.php?id=20">Daniel73</A>.

You don't need to set width and height for images in HTML. So you can remove width and set height to another value. Try this:
Code: Select all
<img src="http://img.mcduck.nl/personage/meerdere/cbpg-1977.png" height="90" style="float: right"/><br />About Disney comics. Moderated by <a href="http://discussion.mcduck.nl/profile.php?id=20">Daniel73</a>.

I'm not sure whether 90 pixels is small enough, you can try entering different sizes there.
Sander
Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:28 pm

Sander wrote:You can remove the images from my previous post if they are causing warning messages.

I would if I could. I don't understand the tags you've put there. Can you edit them to URLs yourself?

Sander wrote:You don't need to set width and height for images in HTML. So you can remove width and set height to another value. Try this:
Code: Select all
<img src="http://img.mcduck.nl/personage/meerdere/cbpg-1977.png" height="90" style="float: right"/><br />About Disney comics. Moderated by <a href="http://discussion.mcduck.nl/profile.php?id=20">Daniel73</a>.

I'm not sure whether 90 pixels is small enough, you can try entering different sizes there.

As far as I know the size is important in HTML. It helps the browser to leave room open for the loading picture, in the layout of the page.
Using a value other than the image's real size, tends to make a picture look crumbed.

If you prefer a smaller picture then it should be edited, I guess. And wouldn't this particular picture loose too much detail?
Do you find the current size too big, or is it just a technical advice?
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Sander » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:58 pm

Daniel73 wrote:
Sander wrote:You can remove the images from my previous post if they are causing warning messages.

I would if I could. I don't understand the tags you've put there. Can you edit them to URLs yourself?

Yes, and I've done that now. But I'll explain what code I used, so that you can change it as moderator. I used something like:
Code: Select all
[url=http://example.com/image.png][img]http://example.com/image-thumbnail.png[/img][/url]

It displays a 'thumbnail-sized' version of the image in a hyperlink referring to the full-size version. I removed both images now to avoid dead links.

Daniel73 wrote:As far as I know the size is important in HTML. It helps the browser to leave room open for the loading picture, in the layout of the page.

I don't consider setting the image size very important, as most people have fast internet access now. Leaving room open for the picture can be a disadvantage if the picture can't be displayed -- for example because the server is down, the user has pictures disabled, or an offline version of the page is loaded and the user hasn't got internet access. Then a lot of the user's screen space is wasted.

Daniel73 wrote:Using a value other than the image's real size, tends to make a picture look crumbed.

It's a better temporary solution than distorting the forum layout, I think. Besides, this picture looks a bit crumbed anyway, as it was made for use on a light background. You can see light-coloured pixels in front of the dark blue bar.

Daniel73 wrote:If you prefer a smaller picture then it should be edited, I guess. And wouldn't this particular picture loose too much detail?
Do you find the current size too big, or is it just a technical advice?

It's just technical advice. You're experimenting with placing a picture at the top of the page, so I'd suggest that you also experiment with resizing the picture. You could also try not using align="right", so that the forum layout isn't distorted (but the header would probably be too big). Nothing can go wrong if you edit a little HTML.

Maybe this picture is too big indeed, but as you say it's probably not a good choice for this forum anyway.

Also, please don't count on me for resizing pictures for use on this forum. Editing images can be a lot of work and I'm not really fond of it...
Sander
Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Sander » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:08 pm

Reply to #3:

Daniel73 wrote:Preferably the rules should be compitable with the Dutch section.

The main priority should be defining good rules. We can look at the other forums afterwards.

Maybe if we succeed to create nearly perfect rules, they could be put at an external web page (like www.forumrules.org) so that they can be used for other forums too. I think it's strange that so many web forums all have different sets of rules, but share the same goal (creating a nice forum where users want to contribute to).

Daniel73 wrote:{No discrimination.}

Literal translation: No racisme or other forms of discrimination.
Racism (racisme) is a form of discrimination.

You're right.

Daniel73 wrote:{No (links to) sexual explicit contents or rude pictures/texts.}

Debatable: What are rude pictures/texts? I guess pictures of corpses, injuries, etc.

That was what I was thinking of too. You could add a "for example" to this rule.

Daniel73 wrote:Literal translation refers to porn instead of sexual explicit contents. I think "sexual explicit contents" is a better definition.

I agree. But I'm not sure whether it should be "content" or "contents"...?

Daniel73 wrote:{No warez or other illegal matters.}

You might consider removing "warez", just like you removed "racism" from the anti-discrimination-rule. Warez is probably not commonly written about on a Disney comics forum anyway.

Daniel73 wrote:{Hotlinking, linking to pictures of other sites without permission of the owner, is forbidden and these pictures can be removed.}

I'd see this as a warning, emphazing the rights of owners and their servers. For a moderator it's often difficult to judge if permission has been given or not. I'd say the rule means that complaints will be taken seriously and (of course) in benefit of the owners and their servers.
Owners themselves can avoid abuse by replacing their pictures for something else. So, practically speaking, it's also important to be aware that hotlinking means using someone else's service. Pictures can be changed or removed. An advantage of asking permission first, is that the owner might be willing to keep the picture online for you.

I agree again. It's hard to put all that explanation in one small rule though... Maybe it's a good idea to put it in a new sticky topic "Putting images in forum posts" and only add a rule that if a Web content owner complains about hotlinking, the image will be removed.

Daniel73 wrote:{Publication of (your own or someone else's) private address information and private phone numbers is forbidden. Exceptions are your own email adress and location, but there's of course no obligation to make them known.}

I'd rather write the last sentence as: Exceptions are your own email adress and location, but it's (of course) fully your own free decision to make them public.

That looks better indeed.

Daniel73 wrote:And I want to add that for a moderator it's terribly difficult, if not just impossible, to undo that decision for you. Internet is like Pandora's box. Therefore I'd recommend anonymity as default on McDuck. Practically speaking: Don't make your identity known because someone uses a real name, or expects you to tell more about yourself.

I think it's clear enough to state that it is your own decision whether you reveal your own identity.

Daniel73 wrote:{Misuse of someone else's name/identity is forbidden.}

This includes the names of guests.

Of course. It includes people who have never visited the forums too. Do you think that have to be mentioned in this rule?

Daniel73 wrote:{If you want to comment to someone, use his/her given nickname (alias/user name).}

I'm not sure, but isn't "their" the same as "his/her" in English? You could also describe the last part as "the name he/she (they?) use at this forum".

I'll continue this reply another time. It is really taking a lot of time from me, while I should be doing (a lot of) homework and programming stuff, like the forum backup thing...

*EDIT* boardlinking updated to McDrake
Last edited by Sander on Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sander
Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:24 am

Changes, 26 October 2006:

I've added the category 'Outside McDuck', containing links to external services:
- COA: Search Engine for I.N.D.U.C.K.S. Disney Comics Database
Disney comics search-engine
- O.U.T.D.U.C.K.S.
World-wide archive of Disney comics

After this change, the title of the forum 'Internet sites' is a bit confusing. Suggestions are welcome.

Other Creator wrote:
Daniel73 wrote:More changes on McDuck International, 24 October 2006:
[...]
Other creators
Santiago Ceballos, William Van Horn, Paul Murry, Don Rosa, etc.

Why am I not mentioned? Am I just part of the "cetera"? :mad:

--An other creator

You're right, Other Creator. The text is a draft, by lack of better. I want to avoid writing "creators other than Barks", which would name Barks once again.

Suggestions are welcome.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:47 am

About the forum-picture, added on 25 October 2006:
Sander wrote:
Daniel73 wrote:And, as a test, I've added a picture on top of the forum-page:

Nice idea! It could have been mine. :)
I don't know what it looks like in Internet Explorer, but in Mozilla Firefox the layout is a bit distorted: [...]
You could try setting the image height, by adding something like height="90" to the <img> tag.

Here, in Internet Explorer 6 the layout looks good to me. According to PunBB's explanation, the field ("Board description") allows HTML and what I use is very basic. Or is adding a picture a way of "hacking" the intentions of PunBB?
I get the layout I expected. The picture on the right, on the same height as the text description on the left. ("About Disney comics. Moderated by Daniel73.") Both the text and the picture are shown in a light, blanco field.

Sander wrote:Apparently even Google doesn't like hotlinking anymore... :(
Another attempt: click here for screenshots.

Let's see...

Distorted forum layout at discussion.mcduck.nl

For: McDuck International / New moderator: Daniel73

Image
Image

Both look very wrong, with the picture over the menu. :O Your layout order is different from mine. How come? I have the navigation bar under the picture.

I expect that the "ALIGN=RIGHT" tag of the picture is causing the problem.
How can I properly put a picture on the right in exactly the way of the forumfox-picture on your "secret" PunBB-schoolforum?

Sander wrote:
Daniel73 wrote:
Sander wrote:You can remove the images from my previous post if they are causing warning messages.

I would if I could. I don't understand the tags you've put there. Can you edit them to URLs yourself?

Yes, and I've done that now. But I'll explain what code I used, so that you can change it as moderator. I used something like:
Code: Select all
[url=http://example.com/image.png][url]http://example.com/image-thumbnail.png[/url][/url]

It displays a 'thumbnail-sized' version of the image in a hyperlink referring to the full-size version. I removed both images now to avoid dead links.

Can you give a working example? You say that Google doesn't hotlink, but so far I get the pictures displayed from Google. While you didn't. :P
If a picture is too big, I give an URL.

I don't understand your code as it is displayed. Apparently, PunBB has changed some img-tags to url-tags. PunBB does that when quoting.

Sander wrote:
Daniel73 wrote:As far as I know the size is important in HTML. It helps the browser to leave room open for the loading picture, in the layout of the page.

I don't consider setting the image size very important, as most people have fast internet access now. Leaving room open for the picture can be a disadvantage if the picture can't be displayed -- for example because the server is down, the user has pictures disabled, or an offline version of the page is loaded and the user hasn't got internet access. Then a lot of the user's screen space is wasted.

When the image size isn't defined, you get jumping texts on HTML-pages. The browser has to re-define the screen space.
I disagree that "most people have fast internet access". Servers maybe slow or down.

Sander wrote:
Daniel73 wrote:Using a value other than the image's real size, tends to make a picture look crumbed.

It's a better temporary solution than distorting the forum layout, I think. Besides, this picture looks a bit crumbed anyway, as it was made for use on a light background. You can see light-coloured pixels in front of the dark blue bar.

Internet Explorer gives it on a light background. That's why I didn't see it.

Sander wrote:
Daniel73 wrote:If you prefer a smaller picture then it should be edited, I guess. And wouldn't this particular picture loose too much detail?
Do you find the current size too big, or is it just a technical advice?

It's just technical advice. You're experimenting with placing a picture at the top of the page, so I'd suggest that you also experiment with resizing the picture. You could also try not using align="right", so that the forum layout isn't distorted (but the header would probably be too big). Nothing can go wrong if you edit a little HTML.

I'm curious if it's Mozilla Firefox or PunBB that is to blame here. Using align="right" is valid basic HTML for showing an image. Almost as old as the (digital) way to Rome.
Anyway, the fact that you show me distorted examples, means that there is a problem. :(

Sander wrote:Maybe this picture is too big indeed, but as you say it's probably not a good choice for this forum anyway.

I'm thinking of a logo. A forum figure. Comparable with your forumfox.

Sander wrote:Also, please don't count on me for resizing pictures for use on this forum. Editing images can be a lot of work and I'm not really fond of it...

Did I ask? What I need to know is how to copy your schoolforum-layout. Can you learn me that?

Sander wrote:Reply to #3:

Daniel73 wrote:Preferably the rules should be compitable with the Dutch section.

The main priority should be defining good rules. We can look at the other forums afterwards.

Okay.

Sander wrote:I'll continue this reply another time. It is really taking a lot of time from me, while I should be doing (a lot of) homework and programming stuff, like the forum backup thing...

The discussion is also taking a lot of time for me, but I expect that it's just a matter of starting up. Discussing annoying, unexpected surprises like the forumpicture overlapping the menu in Mozilla (and who knows where else).

I'll discuss your comments on the rules later. As for now, I'll remove the forum picture. With pain in my heart. Who needs homework and programming stuff, like the forum backup? I want a picture on the right!
Life is unfair to me. I was so happy until you destroyed my fun with those crappy, distorted Firefox-layouts! :(

Back to the worry room.

*EDIT* boardlinking updated to McDrake
Last edited by Daniel73 on Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:59 am

Changes, 26 October 2006:
Forum-picture replaced by a cold tekst saying "our forum-picture is temporary removed, for technical reasons"

PunBB says:
Board description
A short description of this bulletin board (shown at the top of every page). This field may contain HTML.

A short description excludes a picture in this field, I guess.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Sander » Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:17 pm

Daniel73 wrote:Or is adding a picture a way of "hacking" the intentions of PunBB?

It is, but there's nothing wrong with hacking HTML code.

Daniel73 wrote:How can I properly put a picture on the right in exactly the way of the forumfox-picture on your "secret" PunBB-schoolforum?

Take a smaller image and learn writing CSS, so that you can understand the code I used:
Code: Select all
<img src="img/vos6.gif" alt="[vos]" style="float:right;margin:-16px -2px 0 8px;_margin-top:0" />

I use "margin" code to put the picture exactly where I want it. Also I didn't use the "forum description" field but changed the HTML code directly, but I cannot let you do that and it should work when using the "forum description" field too.

Daniel73 wrote:Can you give a working example?

Image

Daniel73 wrote:If a picture is too big, I give an URL.

I create a thumbnail version and use that as a hyperlink to the original version.

Daniel73 wrote:I don't understand your code as it is displayed. Apparently, PunBB has changed some img-tags to url-tags. PunBB does that when quoting.

Then read the code in my original post.

Daniel73 wrote:
Sander wrote:I don't consider setting the image size very important, as most people have fast internet access now. Leaving room open for the picture can be a disadvantage if the picture can't be displayed -- for example because the server is down, the user has pictures disabled, or an offline version of the page is loaded and the user hasn't got internet access. Then a lot of the user's screen space is wasted.

When the image size isn't defined, you get jumping texts on HTML-pages. The browser has to re-define the screen space.
I disagree that "most people have fast internet access". Servers maybe slow or down.

Fine. I still think the disadvantages of defining the image size I mentioned are worse than jumping texts when loading the page.

Daniel73 wrote:I'm curious if it's Mozilla Firefox or PunBB that is to blame here.

Neither are. There is a set of open standards for the Web (mostly created by the W3C) like HTML and CSS, to make sure that Web pages are displayed the same way in every browser. Internet Explorer doesn't adhere to those standards at many points, mainly because of commercial reasons. Most other common browsers put more effort in supporting Web standards, like Firefox and Opera. So they have made agreements on how they will display a right-aligned image, while Internet Explorer has it's own, non-standard way to do that.

Being a Microsoft fanboy, you might disagree with my explanation. I don't want to discuss it here, so if you're really interested you can read more in "Criticisms regarding support of open standards" in Wikipedia or search for "web standards" + "internet explorer" on the Web.

Anyway, webmasters should test their sites with multiple browsers, if they want their visitors to see their sites correctly. You can download and install any other browser next to Internet Explorer to do that.

*EDIT* boardlinking updated to McDrake
Last edited by Sander on Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sander
Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:36 pm

Changes, 26 October 2006:

By error I've used too much text from a private email send to me, placed under 'Different versions of Barks stories'. A request not to include the text (in the text) has been overlooked by mistake. I had to be pointed at that.
http://bb.mcdrake.nl/engdisney/viewtopic.php?p=1620#p1620

Reason for this editing is that I submitted the email under my maintainer-profile, when I consider myself to be in function. If the text would have been submitted under a non-editor profile or as guest, I would have kept the mistake in. If only to tease myself for overlooking a sentence, showing how careless I am.

This accident all the more proves that I'd better get away from private emails, in the sense that I should advertise not to send me anything that shouldn't be used. I can't keep track of what should or shouldn't be included from the email submissions I get. People shouldn't tell me too much. I only have one memory. Even if I wouldn't have overlooked a request to leave out texts, I still would have memory of what is written. That's confusing.
I really have to make that transparant both here and on my website 'A Guidebook'. Otherwise I would have to give up my online maintaining and my email address. If only because the emails are too much for me to handle all alone. I would need a secretary and that would mean sharing the information with "third parties", in order to keep the information private... See the problem?

Maybe I should advertise: If you want something on internet or in the paper, send it to... (and then my email-address). Signed: Daniël, the clumsiest webmaster/maintainer in the w-w-world.

*EDIT* boardlinking updated to McDrake
Last edited by Daniel73 on Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:45 am

Changes, 29 October 2006:

Announcement box added:
"Welcome! When replying or adding topics, guests only need to fill in a (nick)name."

For the record, Sander's old announcement message that appeared months ago in the beginning was:
Welcome! Please read the <a href="http://discussion.mcduck.nl/viewtopic.php?id=2">welcome message</a> if you are new here.

Forum added in category 'Off-topic':

Off-Topic
subjects that are really off-topic
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:25 am

Some notes, if only for myself.

Differences between members and guests are, that:

members
- need an email-address, for the password
- have a registered (nick)name
- have a few extra options to keep track of new messages

guests
- only need to use a (nick)name

For the rest, members and guests are the same. Both can reply and add topics.

The only higher rankings on this forum are:
- Technical maintainer (Sander)
- moderator (Daniel73)
Only the maintainer and moderator have edit-options. The technical maintainer limits himself to technical edits only, AFAIK.

McDuck International started on 12 April 2006, with Sander and Dukka as moderators, and Sander as technical maintainer.
Daniel73 is moderator since 15 October 2006. Sander has since then turned from moderation to technical maintainer only, and Dukka from moderator to member. (Dukka is moderator of the Dutch sections.)
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to About McDrake International

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron