A few things I've noticed:

-Image drag/drop is glitchy with multiple images. When dragging/dropping 2 (or more) images (back-to-back), the [img] tags get created, but in preview it usually doesn't show the 2nd image at all, if you post it, it clears out the 2nd [img] tag. I've found I had to hit 'enter' at least once or twice between each drag/drop to get it to post correctly.
-Also related, drag/drop of one or many images with no text doesn't allow 'send reply' to be hit.

-No drafts capability for new messages.

-Also with new messages, when moving to 'preview', the window gets the focus (hitting the delete key will close the window, wiping the message). Same thing happens when switching back to 'compose', the window itself stays with the 'focus', not the text box, and hitting the delete key (thinking you're deleting text) will close the message window entirely, wiping the message, due to the aforementioned lack of draft capability.

-New threads or replies by the user themselves shouldn't be seen as "new" under recent threads or other areas.

http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5393/53931739.html

^^ Dude.... do you just blindly type shit without reading and processing anything?

EDIT: adding in post this reply was meant for. 

The weekly run through of all flags seems to have failed during the process this week, so I've manually ran the job today, which went through.. so I'm not entirely sure why the scheduled one failed (yet), but will be running some tests before next week's scheduled run.

I had thought about it at one point, but I don't think theymos would like it:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215892.msg53590278#msg53590278

I believe I was pretty straightforward with what I was saying... the edits came because you had edited your post sometime before I had finished/posted my reply. Your edit was so you could include 4 archive links which compared you and I, in an effort to archive the fact that we were not equals:

I felt I should put those archive links back into the quote I had done with your post, so you wouldn't label me trying to "cover up" your archives.  
(2nd edit was obviously to state I had added the question marks to the profile page.)

Now you're saying this:
I don't understand your logic.


Mob mentality?... tinfoil hats?.. There are valid reasons to be concerned with Google drive/doc links, it only takes a google search to see some of the more obvious ways Google docs/sheets have been used as attack vectors in fairly hard to detect manners, and could even be used as information collectors (invisible image pixel to collect IPs) which people may not want... so it was a general warning, and I had specifically stated I didn't know anything about your particular document.

As for politeness, the help was appreciated: I had sent you 3 smerit for your post, I said thank you for pointing out a piece of confusion, and then I had in detail replied stating the calculation for recognized was using earned merit, to clear up any confusion. You once again repeated the same confusion ~3 days later -- at the same time making an insinuation that we were manually calculating ranks (not very polite). I made a straightforward reply, and then went out of my way to add the question marks into the profile page to further clear up any confusion.

Are you insinuating suchmoon is not mature now? or is this just a backhanded compliment? .. BTW - neither are very polite.


I'm not sure where you see me being hostile? Maybe my post came off more harsh than I intended, due to other frustrations I've had to deal with (a treasurer of this forum spreading lies about me), so I'll apologize to you for that, but it certainly wasn't a polite thing to see you making an accusation about manually manipulating ranks, especially after I had already explained where your confusion on most recognized was coming from.

I was trying to be helpful with the arrows because it didn't seem like you saw them. Honestly, you really didn't need the arrows, nor to even look at any BPIP page, to know it was using the earned merit rank.. because I had already stated it in this post several days before you posted the same comment about your recognized score.

---

No offense, but no thanks. You're welcome to take a screenshot of a portion of it, and post the image, but we shouldn't really need your spreadsheets when all the numbers are available on BPIP, and the formulas being used are known and clearly visible now.

Wrong formula == Wrong value.

I don't think it is extremely paranoid if you consider the types of things that can be embedded into these documents, and the type of information one could potentially get from people accessing them.

I didn't create the formula for Most Trusted, but I'm good with the way it's calculated at this point, although there could potentially be room for improvements as we collect more data.

I'm just saying from a subjective point of view, if you fully trust another person, then it might be OK to expose yourself to these types of links.
Otherwise, I'd personally advise against it, no matter where a person is ranked under "Most Trusted".


EDIT: Updated your quote to include your egotistical archive links.

EDIT #2: OK, to further try and clear up any confusion for anyone who hasn't read my posts or visited the front page, these questions marks have been added to the profile page as well.

You're using incorrect numbers. Are you trying to create cans of worms?  Just look at the question mark over top of "Most Recognized" and try using the correct numbers (the links are included to the numbers being used).. have you been reading my posts?  

Also should mention, everything is using a formula, there are no "manual calculations".

** I'd also urge others to not click on or use google drive links by anyone, unless you fully trust the member or know what you are doing. Just my opinion, not saying anything in particular about this link, which I have not verified or looked at. This is just a general rule I follow, for good reasons.

Hey look, teeGUMES is back! Spoken like a true 12 year old. I'm surprised you know what a pussy is.

Careful teeGUMES, you're calling your boy OgNasty a pussy!




Now, teeGUMES, you wanna stop being a pussy and avoiding my question or would you like to go quiet again?

No, I think I've been clear, I want you to apologize for saying I ordered you to remove a signature and because of that, you claim I started attacking you. Then I'd like an apology for you insinuating I stole a miner from you. Is it hard to understand?.. And you're calling me the idiot?

For someone who claims to protect this community so much, it's kinda messed up that you wouldn't have left feedback for someone who stole a miner from you & NastyFans. There shouldn't be a "oh I got you confused with someone else", give me a break, who is this someone else you let go free after they stole a miner from you and NastyFans?

Just be a man and apologize.

These are complete. Decided to go with question marks instead of a little "i" icons, the questions marks can be hovered or clicked (to stay, so links can be used), might try to change the clicking behavior at some point but they're there!   Had to put the most trusted calculation under the Support page, it was too long for a tooltip.

I asked OgNasty to apologize for, once again, lying about me.. and he sent me bully PMs filled with nonsense, then blocked my PMs so I couldn't respond. LMAO.

Be a man Og, and stop trying to act like a high school bully.. it's getting real old, real quick.

Am I going to have to waste my time proving you are lying again?... or can you be a man here and apologize like you should?

There had been confusion with the ranks/numbers shown under "Most Merited" on the front page earlier in the thread. I explained that the tooltip had indicated the Most Merited report had been including initial merit, as it has, and that those numbers/ranks are calculated using initial merit + earned merit to reflect & rank the merit numbers that are shown on a users profile on bitcointalk.

However, the "M" above it, which was linked to the r=mostmerited report did not match the information being displayed on the front page. So I corrected this report to match the front page ranks/numbers, and then moved the prior report to r=earnedmerit, so it would clearly indicate it is showing earned merit. I've also recently noticed that the "M"(merit) area under the MATR section on the profile page is also using the incorrect rank, but displaying the correct value. This rank will be fixed as soon as I get time today/tomorrow.

Recognition is based off of the r=earnedmerit rank/calculation, which does not include initial merit. The earned merit ranking may not be shown on the front page, but it makes sense to base the Most Recognized rank off of it because a Most Recognized profile would likely be one that has more earned merit.

As soon as I can, I'm also going to be setting up little "i" icons next to each of the main page ranks to provide more info on the calculations, and will provide a link to the earned merit report under the tooltip for Most Recognized.

Thank you LoyceV, it contains useful information but we're looking into some privacy aspects of this before we commit to anything.

Thank you Timelord2067, there is an issue on the profile page also related to this, and potentially some confusion which I may have caused when trying to clear up the confusion that Quickseller's (likely) alt had previously , I'm looking into this and will have an update done soon to hopefully clear up any confusion!

You really don't increase your credibility with me when you continue to make up stuff.

You are more than welcome to post the PM where I "order" you to remove a signature, and do it with *all* of the context. And then, please explain to me how I "attacked" you because of this?  I know you can't, because none of this happened. Therefore, you're lying about me... AGAIN.

I've been giving you time to edit this since it was Friday, and maybe you just had one too many?.. but if you'd like me to defend myself here, I will, since this is a blatant lie, almost as bad as when you lied about me stealing a miner.

Or, would you like to apologize for once again lying about me?  I never got an apology for the lie about me stealing a miner, either. I'd like an apology for that as well. It seems like a reasonable thing to do here, does it not?

After that, you're welcome to move back to providing full context evidence of your claims in the OP.

---

And what happened to teeGUMES?

*crickets*  *crickets*  

I got the context on one of the PMs I questioned Vod about because I felt I had a right to know about that one, and he gave it to me. I've already posted the context in the past, which IMO showed you to be misrepresenting the PM. So I have more reason to believe the rest is the same.


Well, I'm not a dick riding troll, so I'll assume you are calling me an idiot... to which I'd respond with:

1) That's a pretty asshole move to call someone an idiot who questioned a situation where you only gave them a piece of the context for the "evidence" you are presenting for large accusations.. then you expect them to come to an educated decision?  Or are you just hoping they believe your stories behind them?

2) I can understand why you'd think I'm stupid because....--I'll omit a comment about your organization here to try and be nice... but trust me, it was a witty mixture of embarrassment and humor.--  

I've tried publicly and privately to get you to back up your chopped-up PMs and you've made up excuses and provided more claims without any evidence. You're the one making the accusations, so I'd expect you to present the evidence in context.

Um, didn't you ask for this?... to prove you were not a hypocrite?


To answer the question, yes..

Based on the standards in your guild, you should already be excluded from your own trust list!!

This seems impressively hypocritical.

Do you even know what the word "objective" means?  And then, do you know the trust system is meant to be a subjective system?  

Just because a subjective collection of viewpoints exists by multiple people, and conflicts with your viewpoint, doesn't make them a "mob" out to get you. It's bound to happen in a forum this large, which accommodates people from around the world, they're going to have multiple subjective viewpoints among many groups of members, and it doesn't instantly make them a "mob".

Subjectively, you're a tool. That's just my opinion though.

Objectively, you're a hypocrite, because you routinely preach about objectivity, but then you consistently act from subjectivity... which is fine, but if multiple people don't agree with your subjective opinion and hypocritical nature, you can't claim "mob". Suck it up and move on, you've lost no freedoms.

BTW, how did you come up with that image??
Looks a bit like a QS (QuickSeller) and OG (OgNasty) combined in the logo.. lol  are they the leaders of this "guild"??  

I reported it a few hours ago... but it is still here.    Mods be slackin'   

I take it you won't be answering the question? .. Your biased nature in the situation is showing teeGUMES. I'm surprised someone so animate about being against deception wouldn't be saying *anything* to OgNasty?

So again, do you believe the way OgNasty portrayed the chopped-up PMs in the OP of this thread is accurate and truthful?

It is quite clear to me what happened here, because I've actually been reading and comprehending since day 1 (well before this thread), but I'd rather not instigate more hate and drama -- like you're doing.