[TRN] Discussion Preview [Deleted]

Alfa1 said:
Just an idea: when someone submits an obviously malicious review shouldn't the person be blocked from reviewing the same resource?

I have not seen the original review so I don't know if it's applicable to this situation. I know Google automatically removes reviews from users who behave maliciously.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. From a community standpoint, if you leave an obvious spiteful, nasty review, your privileges should be revoked.
 
Chris D said:
...
As it stands, the request to delete your account is denied. If necessary take a few days away to reflect on things and if you still feel the same after that then get back in touch with us and we will remove your account. Should you want your resources to be restored, we will be happy to do that (and we'll delete the last few messages, too), just let us know.
Click to expand...

Thanks @Chris D

I'd be glad to have my resources restored. I don't think the last few messages in this thread needs to be deleted. They are all Off Topic of course but I believe many wise words have been said here.

I thank all of you who were giving me support when I really needed it.

I've been spending a few hours to manually reenter all old order details into FetchApp. I've done my best and hope that all details are correct. I'd need to send an order update to allow downloading new orders. Thanks for understanding.




 
Chris D said:
I don't necessarily agree that a review should be based on only the current features it has. If I buy a car, and when it is delivered if I find out it isn't shipped with a steering wheel, I think it would be fair to express my disappointment at that.

By the way, XenForo occasionally gets reviews similar to that. Is that review fair? Yes. If it's true. Is charging back fair? Well we're not talking about chargebacks, here, that's a completely different thing.
Click to expand...

Yes sir, but that is if you have not seen the car that you bought and assumed that it had a steering wheel. But if you saw that car before you bought it and it did not have the steering wheel, then you will not buy it. But if it had it, then you will buy it. When someone buys a car, all options are listed. After the car is bought, the customer can not express their disappointement that it did not have airco for example, when airco was not listed in the first place in the options that were available.
 
wang said:
Yes sir, but that is if you have not seen the car that you bought and assumed that it had a steering wheel. But if you saw that car before you bought it and it did not have the steering wheel, then you will not buy it. But if it had it, then you will buy it. When someone buys a car, all options are listed. After the car is bought, the customer can not express their disappointement that it did not have airco for example, when airco was not listed in the first place in the options that were available.
Click to expand...

It's a nice analogy.

This discussion deserves it's own thread, I find it very interesting actually.

When it comes to this add-on it clearly states in the overview page that

This add-on shows a preview of the first post alternatively the last post (individually selectable per thread listing type) of threads in various places of your forum.
Click to expand...

...

Supported thread listings:
  • Forum list (When listing threads for a specific forum)
  • New posts/Recent topics
  • Watched Threads
Click to expand...

Immediately after the offending initial review was rejected by the staff, the reviewer submits the following claiming that:

This addon doesn't work in some important templates like tag_view and search_results [important].
Click to expand...

I'm not a native English speaker as You probably noticed but for me the phrase "Doesn't work" equals malfunction. I believe the statement is both problematic and irrelevant to what my add-on is supposed to do.

wang said:
For example, if someone says that this add on sucks because it does not support x or y other add on, then it is irrelevant. The review should be done for the current features that the add on has, how it is working, and for the support of the author.
Click to expand...

I agree with that.

Where shall we draw the line? IMHO the review is irrelevant. It's written because of disappointment with the price I gave for some custom development. I actually offered to do the job for free but I'd have to wait for some spare time. I'm in a busy period with much regular work. However it was urgent and must be made immediately. Then my time estimation was in the range of 3 to 8 hours. I was asked for a fixed price so that my price could be compared to what some other "reputable" developers had offered. Then I had to say 8 hours.

I will try to forget about this now and look forward. Please start a new thread if further discussions is required. As I said I find the discussion interesting but this is the wrong thread. Thanks! ;)

I'm taking a few days vacation now. (y)
 
farang said:
It's a nice analogy.

This discussion deserves it's own thread, I find it very interesting actually.

When it comes to this add-on it clearly states in the overview page that



...



Immediately after the offending initial review was rejected by the staff, the reviewer submits the following claiming that:



I'm not a native English speaker as You probably noticed but for me the phrase "Doesn't work" equals malfunction. I believe the statement is both problematic and irrelevant to what my add-on is supposed to do.



I agree with that.

Where shall we draw the line? IMHO the review is irrelevant. It's written because of disappointment with the price I gave for some custom development. I actually offered to do the job for free but I'd have to wait for some spare time. I'm in a busy period with much regular work. However it was urgent and must be made immediately. Then my time estimation was in the range of 3 to 8 hours. I was asked for a fixed price so that my price could be compared to what some other "reputable" developers had offered. Then I had to say 8 hours.

I will try to forget about this now and look forward. Please start a new thread if further discussions is required. As I said I find the discussion interesting but this is the wrong thread. Thanks! ;)

I'm taking a few days vacation now. (y)
Click to expand...

I am sorry sir, if I was a bit off topic. I agree, this discussion merits its own thread. My last post on the subject, this looks like that user had a personal issue with you and his review was completely out of line and irrevelant and it should have been deleted imo.

Anyways, enjoy your vacation :)
 
I am very glad your back.
I have a small problem, on a couple of threads, the preview is not shortened as it should. I shows the whole first post. The only similarity I find is in both the not working threads there are a < in the text.
I don't know if having a number after the < has anything to do with it.
This is a bit of the text from the first
"privatstall (<10 boxar)."
the second
"mig <3 Jag"
 
ge66 said:
I am very glad your back.
I have a small problem, on a couple of threads, the preview is not shortened as it should. I shows the whole first post. The only similarity I find is in both the not working threads there are a < in the text.
I don't know if having a number after the < has anything to do with it.
This is a bit of the text from the first
"privatstall (<10 boxar)."
the second
"mig <3 Jag"
Click to expand...

Please start a private conversation with me (swedish is OK) and give me the URL address so I can have a look.
Thanks!
 
farang updated [fgX] Discussion Preview with a new update entry:

Version 3.7.3 released

Fixed in version 3.7.3

  • Fixed an issue that could cause wrong preview length when the option "Make the Discussion Preview Text Clickable" wasn't set to disabled.
If You have the option "Make the Discussion Preview Text Clickable" set to disabled and your add-on version is already on 3.7.2, you site is not affected by this issue and there is actually no need for you to install this update.
Click to expand...

Read the rest of this update entry...
 
ge66 said:
I am very glad your back.
I have a small problem, on a couple of threads, the preview is not shortened as it should. I shows the whole first post. The only similarity I find is in both the not working threads there are a < in the text.
I don't know if having a number after the < has anything to do with it.
This is a bit of the text from the first
"privatstall (<10 boxar)."
the second
"mig <3 Jag"
Click to expand...

The problem is fixed in the latest update. Thanks for Your help! ;)
 
@farang can you add an option to show only 1-2 thumbnails in mobile view? 3 or more isn't ideal for mobile but great for desktops.
 
vij said:
@farang can you add an option to show only 1-2 thumbnails in mobile view? 3 or more isn't ideal for mobile but great for desktops.
Click to expand...

Hi @vij

If You have Responsive Design enabled in XenForo, this add-on has 4 different options for setting the number of previewed images for "Larger than Wide", Wide, Medium and Narrow width. The number of images will be the result of the actual device screen width rather than whether or not the device is mobile.

In Style Properties: Responsive Design You can define the maximum width in pixels of the screen where the narrow responsive layout will be used. This will generally be used for phones in portrait orientation.

Would that be a solution for You @vij?
 
  • Like
Reactions: vij
farang said:
Hi @vij

If You have Responsive Design enabled in XenForo, this add-on has 4 different options for setting the number of previewed images for "Larger than Wide", Wide, Medium and Narrow width. The number of images will be the result of the actual device screen width rather than whether or not the device is mobile.

[/USER]?
Click to expand...

Indeed! Thankyou :) Don't know how I missed that.
 
If this has been answered then sorry :)

Is there anyway to stop images showing in the preview? I'm a fan of this add on but I don't like the images showing, a couple of members of my site have said the same
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom