Forum Suggestions / Issues

[LurkerPatrol]

I mentioned this earlier but then deleted my post because I felt like I was spamming or requesting too much. Now I wanna put my suggestion out again.

A while ago I was posting a picture in the beat the person above you thread, when all of the sudden the website converted the image to its "don't hotlink from this site ever again". Unfortunately the picture was of a... *ahem*... female..... downstairs and I was out for the entire day so I didn't know what happened until it was too late.

So I was given an infraction, making my total come to 2.

I've been sooooo careful ever since, and I've been uploading all my findings on google onto my photobucket just so I don't get hotlinked like that ever again. But photobucket is a piece of you-know-what so I was wondering, if it's not too much to ask, whether phyrefile could have a direct uploader? Meaning we paste the web location and it uploads it directly from that site.

Thanks a bunch.

[IceBone]

LurkerPatrol, my photomajig has that, and then has a direct upload to phyrefile, so in a sense phyrefile already has url upload, just not a properly established one.

[LurkerPatrol]

Yay! Sweet. Thanks a bunch Ice

[Jupix]

Originally Posted by LeMans GTR

For some reason the Youtube embeds don't seem to be working for me

The only show the "Youtube" bar at the top and not the actual player/tracker thingy

If it's any help, I'm running Firefox 3.

Same here, except I'm getting:

ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

instead of the video. Obviously I have Flash installed and youtube works fine outside of this forum (including embeds on one of my phpBB forums). I'm running Firefox 3.0.1 on XP.

[Viper007Bond]

Odd, I'm just doing a standard embed...

+ YouTube Video

Clear your browser cache?

[Jupix]

I really doubt it's got anything to do with my browser.

You aren't really doing a standard embed, what you've got is a weird <OBJECT> with an even weirder URI. Above you're linking to

http://www.youtube.com/v/stdJd598Dtg&hl=en&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&ap=%2526fmt%3D18

whereas in an implementation of the same feature my phpBB would merely link to

http://www.youtube.com/v/stdJd598Dtg

using <EMBED>, as befits an embed flash video. Compare:

Your "embed":

			<object width="425" height="355" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/stdJd598Dtg&amp;hl=en&amp;rel=0&amp;color1=0x5d1719&amp;color2=0xcd311b&amp;ap=%2526fmt%3D18">
				<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/stdJd598Dtg&amp;hl=en&amp;rel=0&amp;color1=0x5d1719&amp;color2=0xcd311b&amp;ap=%2526fmt%3D18" />
				<param name="wmode" value="transparent" />
				<em><strong>ERROR:</strong> If you can see this, then <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/">YouTube</a> is down or you don't have Flash installed.</em>

			</object>

My embed:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/stdJd598Dtg" wmode="transparent" style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars=""></embed>

I'm not sure why the <OBJECT> method fails on my client specifically, but it does, whereas <EMBED> doesn't. If I may make a request, please try and see with a temporary tag if the <EMBED> method would work here, and then maybe even completely replace the <OBJECT> thing.

[IceBone]

Well, it must be your browser, since you're the only one complaining. Tried disabling adblock? That proved to be the reason that it broke for some people here. Replacing it with adblock plus fixed the issue.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally Posted by IceBone

Well, it must be your browser, since you're the only one complaining. Tried disabling adblock? That proved to be the reason that it broke for some people here. Replacing it with adblock plus fixed the issue.

I have the same problem at home as well, Viper's ablock change didn't do anything either.

[Jupix]

Originally Posted by IceBone

Well, it must be your browser, since you're the only one complaining.

OK... I might have incorrectly worded my thoughts. What I meant was I doubt there's anything wrong with my browser cache or other such temp files. Obviously this is because of my browser or configuration or mix of apps, but I doubt they're faulty in any way, and I think what's causing this is a bug somewhere. In any case, what I described earlier should prove a good workaround to make the youtube thingy function correctly for everyone. And before you dismiss what I'm saying with "you're the only one complaining", bear in mind, if you had my exact configuration, I bet you'd be experiencing this issue too.

Tried disabling adblock?

Yes. Still broken with Adblock disabled.

[Viper007Bond]

Originally Posted by Jupix

You aren't really doing a standard embed, what you've got is a weird <OBJECT> with an even weirder URI. Above you're linking to

http://www.youtube.com/v/stdJd598Dtg&hl=en&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&ap=%2526fmt%3D18

whereas in an implementation of the same feature my phpBB would merely link to

http://www.youtube.com/v/stdJd598Dtg

There's nothing wrong with my URL. I am merely customizing the look and feel of the embed, as allowed by YouTube. Here is code copy/pasted from YouTube's page for example:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/stdJd598Dtg&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd 311b"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/stdJd598Dtg&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd 311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Originally Posted by Jupix

My embed:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/stdJd598Dtg" wmode="transparent" style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars=""></embed>

Your "HTML" fails XHTML validation on so many levels. Hell, <embed> isn't even a real HTML tag -- it was made up by Netscape.

I have tested my code in both Firefox 3 and IE7 and it works fine.


EDIT: Further proof: http://browsershots.org/http://forum...be-test-29792/

The only problems I see are with old versions of some browsers (Firefox 2.x, old Opera, etc.), but that shouldn't be a problem as you should be up to date. I will look into that though.

[Jupix]

Originally Posted by Viper007Bond

Hell, <embed> isn't even a real HTML tag -- it was made up by Netscape.

True, but since you brought up W3C, on their website they do give out <EMBED> as an option. As out of these two it's one that I know from experience will actually work, I suggest you go with it, unless you wish to try and debug the unnecessarily complicated ball of markup that is the youtube default. The feature could be implemented with a lot less code.

[Viper007Bond]

Originally Posted by Jupix

unless you wish to try and debug the unnecessarily complicated ball of markup that is the youtube default.

It's not complicated at all. It uses an <object> code to display the video and if that fails (i.e. old crappy browsers no one cares about), it falls back to the internal item which in my case is text but in their case is the <embed>.


I'm probably just going to redo the whole thing via SWFObject though. Been meaning to give it an overhaul.

[CyberMonkey]

Something about the reputation points: is there a specific reason why there is no automatic nick-showing? I find it very annoying that I have to add my nick every time I give out reputation and it's a shame I can't see who gave rep to me if he/she forgot to add his/her nick. Also, it would prevent anonymous random negrepping.

I hope there isn't some option to turn it on or another thread concerning this that I overlooked...

[Viper007Bond]

No, I cannot turn nicks on (that I know of) and I wouldn't even if I could. It's just lead to automatic return neg repping regardless of validity.

[CyberMonkey]

wth, that's weird. I'd suppose its something very simple to store and program. Anyway... If you would stumble upon the function, it might maybe be interesting to hold a public poll about the subject, as it is some kind of "ethical" question

[Viper007Bond]

We have, many times. People decided it was best it was hidden.

[CyberMonkey]

ok, sorry

[IceBone]

Someone respectable will sign even their neg rates.

[Jupix]

Originally Posted by Viper007Bond

I'm probably just going to redo the whole thing via SWFObject though. Been meaning to give it an overhaul.

So how's this coming?