Collapsible Merit Received in threads and replies (Show more/less...)

[MusaMohamed]

I mean, don't you want those really rare posts that very many people have appreciated to stand out? How often do you organically land on posts like that, anyway? A couple times a year?

I don't get it. What am I missing here?

Default, these rare posts display with forum default settings because theymos did not approve these userscripts.

If people already use userscripts, they can co use different user scripts and this one can help to calculate and display sum of merit to a post. With it, rare posts with very high number of merit will be known. They don't disappear under the mud.

Bitcointalk Post Merit Sum coded by @hatshepsut93.

Code:

// ==UserScript==
// @name     Bitcointalk Post Merit Sum
// @version  1.0
// @grant    none
// @include        https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=*
// @run-at         document-end
// ==/UserScript==

;[...document.querySelectorAll(".td_headerandpost")].forEach(post => {
    try {
        let sum = [...post.querySelectorAll(".smalltext i > a")]
            .map(e => {
                return parseInt(e.nextSibling.textContent.match(/\((.*)\)/)[1])
            })
            .reduce((acc, e) => acc + e, 0)
        if (sum > 0) {
            let sumElement = document.createElement("span")
            sumElement.textContent = `Total merit: ${sum} | `
            post.querySelector(".smalltext i").prepend(sumElement)
        }
    } catch (e) {
        console.error(e)
    }
})

[PX-Z]

I often like  to see all who merited those mega merit threads is great though but sometimes it may be bulky, especially when you're on a mobile device and so I stand with both sides.

Exactly, mega merit threads like the one i mentioned almost shows half of the page in mobile browsers so yeah...


I have updated the code, it will now show three rows/lines of received merits instead of two, i guess three rows in fine. Some bugs were fixed too.

[Upgrade00]

I mean, don't you want those really rare posts that very many people have appreciated to stand out? How often do you organically land on posts like that, anyway? A couple times a year?

The default can be to view the full merits given to the post and have the option to collapse it to less than 3 lines. This way the threads stand out historically and can also be read easier.

I happen to revert to such posts often to check one thing or the other, so it's more than a couple of times a year for me. New members are also directed to such threads when they join the forum, so it gets visited often.

One of the best fix suggestions we've had in a while? And one that you think that either theymos or I should push to the front of the queue?

I actually do. There has been a lot of great fixes recently which impacted majority of members. This may not matter to nearly as many and isn't solving an actual problem, just an inconvenience, so it's not as useful... Now I'm making arguments for why it's not one of the best  
But I do think it should be moved up the queue if it isn't much of a hassle to add.

[SatoPrincess]

Thanks OP for the suggestion. I didn’t realize we had so many users who were programmers. Theymos probably has his hands full with patches from PowerGlove. I hope this one is added soon. For the mean time, I will be adding this thread to my list:
List of Meta suggestions for Bitcointalk Improvement

[PowerGlove]

This may not matter to nearly as many and isn't solving an actual problem, just an inconvenience, so it's not as useful... Now I'm making arguments for why it's not one of the best  

Haha, yeah. I can't see myself tackling this one. Usually I'm for things (no matter how small the improvement). But, I guess something that I've never explicitly stated is that I always try to keep an eye on whether or not suggestions will carry their own weight complexity-wise. That is, if something is a really, really small improvement, then it had better involve a really, really small patch...

Bulking up the forum's code with many things that don't add (at least) equivalent value is just not a smart way to proceed. I mean, in general that's not a smart way to develop (or maintain) software, but in SMF's case specifically, it's especially dangerous considering what a mess the codebase is and how much attack surface is exposed by its technical design.

One thing that would be really cool (and I may work on this at some point), is if SMF had a way for users to configure their own client-side modifications. That way, neither myself nor theymos would be the bottlenecks for suggestions like the one OP is making and people wouldn't have to mess around with browser extensions. Basically, users would be able to go into their account settings, add a "mod slot", give it a name, maybe adjust the load order (relative to other slots), and then paste some (possibly signed) JavaScript that they'd like to have embedded into their future page loads.

[God Of Thunder]

Basically, users would be able to go into their account settings, add a "mod slot", give it a name, maybe adjust the load order (relative to other slots), and then paste some (possibly signed) JavaScript that they'd like to have embedded into their future page loads.

And then uninstall and reinstall their browser. Right? 
I was talking about myself. LOL. I don't know how often I messed up with the coding because I am not a coder, but I wanted to modify some things on my websites multiple times. Then, I ended up with errors and had no way to fix them. So, I created a backup file every time before I started doing my stupid things. I am glad I did not drop any table from the database. I remember having a forum like a webmaster forum, and I tried to play with the codes to make some changes but ended up reinstalling the script or re-uploading the specific file. LOL.

[Upgrade00]

Bulking up the forum's code with many things that don't add (at least) equivalent value is just not a smart way to proceed. I mean, in general that's not a smart way to develop (or maintain) software, but in SMF's case specifically, it's especially dangerous considering what a mess the codebase is and how much attack surface is exposed by its technical design.

I'm not tech savvy so I do not know the implications of adding changes like this or which qualifies as a minor or major change. Definitely if this isn't a very minor change, it isn't worth it based on the effect of the results. But I'ld have loved to see it implemented.
I wonder if perhaps with the updates going on here of recent, the update to a new forum software has been abandoned. It's been eons we heard any official info about that. The parts in italics are directed to theymos.

One thing that would be really cool (and I may work on this at some point), is if SMF had a way for users to configure their own client-side modifications.

I'll be sure not to try any modifications for the fear of messing up how the forum looks for me. This can however be useful for those who are more tech savvy than I am.

[ibminer]

Probably I'm in a ratty mood, and a little frustrated at seemingly never being able to get theymos to merge what I consider to be worthwhile fixes, so please factor that into what I'm about to say, but...
~

Never?!  You've gotten way more patches through than I ever thought would happen, and in a relatively small period of time... so that's notable.   Should you check with theymos first before writing patches or does theymos need to see the code to even make a determination?

As far as the "show more/less" idea, I don't really think it is needed at this point. IF something like this eventually becomes enough of an issue that would lead to collapsing the merit list, which is probably unlikely, I would think there would then need to be some indicator of a total merit count and a unique merit senders count per collapsed post, to still help highlight them for what they've received, which probably adds more complexities.