Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Inkbunny

Site Updates - Release 70

We've updated the site with the following changes, fixes and new features!

Beta 70

* Added: A bunch of new site banners! Many thanks to the artists who created them. Hover over the site logo to see the changer so you can cycle through them, or hit the “R” to see a random one per page load. Banners are always welcome, but we cannot guarantee if/when they will be added due to the highly manual process it takes to add them at the moment.

* Added: The artist’s name now appears when hovering over the chosen site logo/banner.

* API- Added: There is now an interface in the API to get all the users who +faved a submission. Only the submission owner or a moderator can access this information (others will receive error code 42). https://wiki.inkbunny.net/wiki/API#Submission.27s_favin...

* Changed: Donors now get to keep their sponsor badge for up to one year depending on the amount donated over a given period (it drops one level at three and six months, and reverts to the “past sponsor” leaf icon once it drops below Bronze level). See https://inkbunny.net/donations.php#details for a list of the donor levels.

* Added: Many nifty community-contributed tools have been added to the “Apps using the API” section of our Wiki. Check them out! https://wiki.inkbunny.net/wiki/Hacks,_Scripts_and_Mods#...

* Fixed: Several submissions imported using FA2IB had broken Fur Affinity username or submission links in their descriptions. These should work now.

* Changed: We’ve increased the per-connection speed limit to 2MB/s as we have the spare overhead in our bandwidth. This should mean faster page loads for people with fast internet connections.

* Security: We have dropped SSLv3 support, to protect our site and users from recently discovered exploits in that protocol. Users with very old browsers may need to update to access the site. https://inkbunny.net/journalview.php?id=153381

* Fixed: Better indication and explanation for when users banned from your account were added to your banlist by staff (which means you cannot unban them yourself).

* Changed/Added: When you unban a user you banned from your account, it now has a delay (currently 6 hours) before the unban actually takes effect. This is to prevent people unbanning people for brief periods just to comment on their accounts, then banning them again (because if you ban someone from your account, it stops you commenting on their account or replying to their comments too).

* Fixed: Better support for multibyte characters when truncating strings. Previously when text contained special characters like Chinese characters, it would sometimes break and display blank areas when we tried to cut text to a certain length such as for journal text summaries. For example we now tell the system to return “the first 100 characters” rather than “the first 100 bytes”.

* Optimised: Our PHP session files were storing a whole bunch of redundant data. We’ve trimmed them to 10% of their original size, saving disk space, memory and giving us a bit of a speed boost.

* Fixed: Formatting issues for the “Sort By” and “Date Range” options on the Search Results page caused by the addition of search options.

* Updated: Revised the list of suggested streaming services at the top of the “Advertise Stream” page.

* Fixed: Sometimes a registered Twitter account wouldn’t show automatically on the userpage contact details list when the user had turned that option on.

* Fixed: Now displaying the correct error page to guests if they try to perform some actions that require a login.

* Fixed: User icon uploads now checks if the user has overall file upload permission.

* Fixed: A bunch of little spelling and grammar issues were corrected.

* Optimised: Skip checking what users the Guest user is watching (data we cache per request for logged in users). That was redundant when Guest can never watch.

* Optimised: Don’t check for next/previous items in pools if there are no pools to display for the user account being viewed.

* Optimised: Don’t try to iterate through empty arrays in a bunch of places if no results are returned for a search. This cuts down on superfluous warning messages in the logs and gives us a little speed boost.

* Optimised: Set default values for some functions where leaving those values null was causing benign warnings in the error logs. Gives us less cluttered logs and a little speed boost.

* Optimised: A bunch of other little chunks of superfluous code, duplicate IF statement checks and other silly things removed.

* Optimised: Now using multithreaded XZ as our preferred compression method for logs. This makes log processing faster and saves disk space.

* Optimised: Stop logging every database connection via the connection pooler. This was redundant info that was filling up log files.

* Changed: The message on the Donors page now says that having your Donor Icon displayed is optional, rather than off by default. We found that most people wanted their icon turned on by default, so having it off wasn’t efficient.

* Updated: Lots of improvements to the server and web application install and maintenance documentation.

* Changed: There’s now a more helpful message in the Location pages that advises you to choose a nearby location in the same timezone if your particular city isn’t found, or no cities are found in your country.

* Optimised: We now use NR_HUGEPAGES memory option in Linux to allow more efficient use of memory space by the database.

* Optimised: Changed logging options for Piwik site activity tracker to optimise disk space usage and speed.

* Optimised: Enabled buffered logs for Apache and Postgresql, which eases the load on the disk I/O and gives us a speed boost.

* Fixed: Submission owners can now add keywords to their own HIDDEN (non-public or friends-only) submissions via the keyword suggester on the submission page. Previously it would give them the same error message that others would see if they tried to add suggested keywords to a hidden submission.

* Changed: We now use HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) on all subdomains. We were already using it on the main domain. This means subdomains such as http://wiki.inkbunny.net will always try to use https:// instead of http:// regardless of what protocol is in the actual URL.

* Fixed: The Roles Management page (a moderator tool) now remembers the settings you chose if it returns to that page to display an error, such as a mistyped password.

* Changed: Our official advertising banners have been updated so they don’t mention sales, considering that feature has long been unavailable. https://wiki.inkbunny.net/wiki/Show_Your_Support#Advert...

* Changed: Site descriptions now place less emphasis on currently disabled sales features.

* Changed: Made it more clear on user account creation that you must agree to the Acceptable Content Policy (ACP). Previously this was implicit in agreeing to the broader Terms of Service. This hopefully means new users will read and understanding the ACP before posting.

* Changed: Improved the wording of the login error message to help users better work out why their login attempt might be failing and how to fix it.

* Fixed: FA usernames containing '^' and '.' will now be correctly linked in contact details

* Fixed: Trying to log in to a deleted account will now show a more meaningful error message on the login screen.

* Changed: “Popular” page now shows top 120 submissions in the last 3 days (was top 100). 120 items divides into the 60 items per page much more nicely, plus you get to see a few more submissions in the top list!

* Changed: Donation method signup links now use HTTPS

* Changed: AlertPay has been renamed to Payza

* Changed: Since Fur Affinity, SoFurry, deviantART, Twitter, YouTube, WikiFur, Wikipedia, Flayrah, F-list, e621, Flickr, PayPal and Facebook all support HTTPS, submission descriptions, journals, comments and profiles linking to them have been changed to use it. This stops anyone on the same network (except corporate proxied networks) from determining that you were using Inkbunny when using one of these links, or what page you were going to. We strongly suggest you use HTTPS when using and linking to Fur Affinity and SoFurry, as it is not currently their default.

* Changed: da!,  fa! and sf! external links now use HTTPS. We recommend you use these shortcuts instead of bare URLs to user pages.

* Changed: YouTube, F-list, Steam and WikiFur profile links now use HTTPS.

A full list of changes to the site since it launched is available at https://wiki.inkbunny.net/wiki/Revisions, and there's a journal focusing on the impact of the above optimizations.

Thanks

IB
Viewed: 2,383 times
Added: 3 years, 2 months ago
Site News Item: yes
 
Tweaker
3 years, 2 months ago
Thanks for the updates! One thing, though:
" * Changed/Added: When you unban a user you banned from your account, it now has a delay (currently 6 hours) before the unban actually takes effect. This is to prevent people unbanning people for brief periods just to comment on their accounts, then banning them again (because if you ban someone from your account, it stops you commenting on their account or replying to their comments too).

I understand the reasoning behind this change but I disagree with the criteria. Is it not possible and more practical to incite a change like this only if a user tries to rapidly ban and unban another user in the way you've described? If I unblock someone, I don't do it by accident; 6 hours is a surprising amount of time to wait for any block to be lifted. I think AIM did a similar thing with message spamming with its rate limiting system--all you really have to do is keep track of the amount of time between the block and the unblock in those functions and prevent the unblock if the user had just been blocked like... I don't know, more than once an hour beforehand.

The way things are now, you're inconveniencing all users for a behavior that may be common enough to address, but isn't common enough to justify gimping a pretty standard function in a way that few other sites I can think of have ever tried before.
starling
3 years, 2 months ago
There may be better more complex ways to address the issue that we can implement in future. But at the moment the affected user just needs to wait to be able to access your account. If people are in the habbit of banning and unbanning people on a regular basis such that a six hour wait is inconvenient then they may need to look at their own attitude and behaviour on the site. :D
starling
3 years, 2 months ago
Hm actually I think you miss the reason for this feature too. Doing as you suggested wouldn't fix the issue we're addressing which is user A bans user B at some time in the past (could be hours or weeks or months ago). The ban means that user A can't comment on user B's stuff too (or reply to their comments) which is surprisingly effective at cutting down on the drama. User A, realising this, could previously unban user B just long enough so they could troll user B, then ban them again so user B cannot reply.

We're not checking for rapid ban and unban actions, but making sure there's a buffer time to stop people abusing/bypassing the two way blocking we implement here.
Tweaker
3 years, 2 months ago
No, I understand it, but the impression I'm getting is that they unblock the person, leave a comment and then block them again, no? I think if you unblock someone and try to immediately block them again, that's when you should be prevented from using the function. I don't think that unblocking by default should be something a user has to wait 6 hours to fully resolve.
starling
3 years, 2 months ago
Actually the reblock could occur any time later, it's the wish to comment on someone you were just blocking that we're stopping. Or at least you have to think about it, unblock, wait, then comment. Hopefully long enough for hot heads to cool down.
Tweaker
3 years, 2 months ago
See, I think it's perfectly legitimate to unblock someone and try to talk to them, though; the times I've unblocked people are actually specifically so they could communicate something I felt I was willing to hear from them. 6 hours isn't the end of the world, but it can be enough to make someone seriously reconsider what they were going to say in that point in time--not necessarily in a good way, either.

I feel like I'm not communicating what I'm saying well enough and it's kind of frustrating. I just don't want to have to wait 6 hours to talk to someone after I unblocked them! That's nearly an entire work day for most people (and definitely is for me). I get that these asshole are circumventing that and they're obviously stupid for it, but there's got to be a better way than punishing everyone else just because of these assholes.
starling
3 years, 2 months ago
Unfortunately this is the kind of behaviour it's designed to stop. There's no good reason I can see to need to unblock someone then comment on their account or reply to their comments immediately. If you blocked someone then something serious was going on between you and the cooldown period is a good thing.
Tweaker
3 years, 2 months ago
The cooldown period is the entire duration of the block, though! Why would you unblock someone if you weren't prepared to communicate with them on some level? It doesn't make sense to me.

I had someone I blocked at some point because I thought they were trying to leave defamatory comments on my profile, but at some point they tried to communicate otherwise and the only way they were able to do so was to send me a PayPal donation with a message in it. Finding spending money a compelling enough reason to think that whatever they wanted to tell me was important, I unblocked them and immediately sent them a note to figure out what was going on. I'm no longer on bad terms with this person because of that.

Yeah, you could argue that if what they said was super important they'd wait 6 hours and then tell me afterwards, but the point is that they shouldn't have to. I have honestly been racking my brain to think of another website that handles unblocking someone in this way and I just can't. I have literally never encountered anything like this and it's baffling to me. I'm not trying to sound condescending or anything, but I legitimately don't know what to say.
Salmy
3 years, 2 months ago
The point is that, if you really have something /nice/ to tell to somebody you had previously blocked, 6 hours will pass fast. You won't be in a hurry. You can wait until tomorrow to do it. You can /even/ use an alt account if it's so important. But what people do (and we wanted to avoid) is the recurring situation in which somebody unbans somebody else just to flame them, and then ban them again so they can't respond :)
Tweaker
3 years, 2 months ago
Sorry, but I still don't think that's an acceptable reason to inconvenience every user for the (reportedly infrequent) actions of a few obnoxious people, nor do I feel that particular argument is compelling enough for me to feel as if it's an okay thing to do.

"6 hours will pass fast"? Really? That's not only totally subjective but pretty presumptuous. Also I'm kind of shocked one of your solutions is to just make a new account, which is ironically also the quickest way of completely defeating the point of this particular change in behavior in the first place.

I understand the reason for this change and I agree that it's a problem worth acknowledging, but this solution and the explanations I've seen for it really aren't satisfactory to me and fail to convince me that it's the best way to address the problem. That being said, I suspect continuing to argue is a losing battle, so if you want me to stop trying, I will.
Salmy
3 years, 2 months ago
Well, what do you suggest, then? :) we never said we're in the posession of truth! xD
Tweaker
3 years, 2 months ago
Honestly, if it were my decision, I would have addressed something like that on a case by case basis--when it happens, not before it happens. Problem users will continue to be problem users regardless of whether you try and incite preventative measures or not. I'll admit that after thinking about it I don't really have a better solution (other than this vague notion of an algorithm that might detect that specific sort of behavior that I clearly haven't worked out properly), but I feel as if making the entire system inconvenient for everyone doesn't fix the problem either.

You guys mentioned that you'll occasionally force users to block each other in cases where they clearly can't get along--why not do this in those cases? Admittedly, people could just make new accounts to get around the blocks and harass other users anyway, but they're going to do that even with the behavior you guys just changed. I feel like it has no long-standing benefit in tackling the issue and, ultimately, you'll have to directly intervene no matter what happens, deterrent or not.
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
The problem is that it doesn't scale. We're trying to design a site which doesn't require staff intervention except in the most extreme cases. As the number of users grows, this need only increases.

We could, for example, decide on and enforce all bans. But this would be extremely impractical given the number of personal interactions - in the end it would mean more people getting kicked off the site because it isn't worth our time to keep everyone else happy with them on it. The reason we can cope with so few staff is that the site largely runs itself.

User bans aren't perfect, but they're effective in dealing with (say) 95% of problematic interactions. This change won't perfect them, but maybe it'll get it up to 97% - and if so, it'll have been worth it.
Tweaker
3 years, 2 months ago
I understand the desire to minimize staff intervention, but that policy doesn't necessarily scale either--the more people you have on the site, the greater chance that this problem will escalate to a point beyond a 6 hour wait doing anything significant to deter problem users. This is my problem--to anyone who wants to be malicious, it's completely useless, but to a legitimate user it's a hassle. People who want to break the rules will do it regardless.

I have no desire or intent to break the rules, but I was just told by a staff member to make a new account this mandatory six hour wait--essentially, from my view, breaking the rules in circumventing a site function in the same way that a problem user would to harass a person without retaliation. Is that really an acceptable solution to you?
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
I disagree with "completely useless". A percentage decrease is still significant, even if it is eventually defeated by scale. Otherwise, bans themselves would be useless. :-)

As other staff have tried to explain, our concern is not just malicious users who troll people who they banned, but members such as yourself, who may have "correctly" banned someone (in the sense that you are incompatible personalities), yet just can't resist trying to talk to them, or hear to what they have to say. This has a significant chance of resulting in a disruption, because it turns what had been a stable situation - two people not talking to each other - into an unstable one. In some cases you may be able to work things out, but in most we think banning is still the right decision.

We hope that in those six hours members will re-evaluate whether they really want to talk to the person who caused the stress that led to the initial ban, rather than making a snap decision triggered by a comment they read on another journal, or a third-party PM.
Tweaker
3 years, 2 months ago
I can't really say anything to most of what you stated because it's basically the same thing both of us have been saying since the start and I assume at this point we're just going to have to agree to disagree. However:
" members such as yourself, who may have "correctly" banned someone (in the sense that you are incompatible personalities), yet just can't resist trying to talk to them, or hear to what they have to say

There's a whole lot of assumptions here and I don't like any of them.

Determining whether a ban is "correct" or not (I'm not even sure what that means) seems to be totally irrelevant--people have any right to ban someone for any reason they determine appropriate. I might block someone because I heard they rip people off; I might block another person because they left a bunch of harassing comments on my submissions. I might even block someone because of the reason you just stated, but assuming that the "correct" reason for banning is because of "incompatible personalities" is kind of baffling and makes me think that you don't really understand what people use the ban system for.

Whether a person decides to listen to someone who they previously had blocked or not shouldn't be a concern to you. If I decide to unblock someone who is trying to appeal to me in some way and I decide to listen to what they have to say, I don't see where you have any room to make judgments on the nature of that decision. I don't need admins to tell me what decision I'm making in a personal conflict (or even lack thereof) is the right one. If I decide to unblock someone and decide I want to talk to them, that's my decision and I'm responsible for it.

I don't understand why you feel you need to take responsibility and hand-hold people who opt to communicate with someone they decided they once didn't want to talk to. You don't know why I blocked people and you don't know why I'm unblocking them. How could you possibly think that assuming the reasons people block and unblock each other is a rational incentive in altering site policy?

If you're really trying to run a site that policies itself, a big part of starting is to keep yourselves fully out of the conflicts of your users except in cases where users are violating site policy and functionality. If they violate those things, remove them from the site. The site runs itself except for the times it doesn't, and when personal conflict between two individuals is becoming disruptive of their ability to enjoy themselves while using the site, you either get involved or you don't. You shouldn't opt to meet halfway at the sacrifice of the legitimate users' expectation that a basic site feature will work in a reasonable, predictable way.
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
You might be right if only one person were affected by its removal. In our experience, interactions in the wake of a hastily-considered ban removal often negatively impact other members, and increase the risk of policy violations. It's in our interest to discourage this - just as we discourage hastily-considered account deletions by providing a two-day timeout.

As mentioned, we occasionally impose bans for the sake of the site; this is a minor, automatic version of this. We will monitor its impact, both positive and negative, and make further revisions if necessary. We have removed features in the past that did not have the desired effect, but we have to see how it works first.
Tweaker
3 years, 2 months ago
" GreenReaper wrote:
We will monitor its impact, both positive and negative, and make further revisions if necessary. We have removed features in the past that did not have the desired effect, but we have to see how it works first.

That's completely fair. I don't have a lot of optimism regarding its effectiveness and I still heavily object to most of your earlier points, but I respect your desire to directly observe how it affects the site.
finticemo
3 years, 2 months ago
" Tweaker wrote:
all you really have to do is keep track of the amount of time between the block and the unblock in those functions and prevent the unblock if the user had just been blocked like... I don't know, more than once an hour beforehand.


Unless I misunderstand, this is not as effective as what has been implemented. If you only measure block->unblock time, this still allows users to go "oh, that idiot I blocked the other day? Let's give them a hard time!" and immediately act on that. A mandatory cooldown reduces the set of abusers down to those few who are really determined, rather than merely bored.

In regards to the inconvenience, how common a task is unbanning, for an ordinary user?
starling
3 years, 2 months ago
Well yeah that's what we're hoping, Unbanning is rare (so is banning actually) so the cooldown shouldn't be that much of an inconvenience. There may be more complex ways to achieve what we want but this is good enough for now imo.
Tweaker
3 years, 2 months ago
Well if you're approaching things in those terms, people can easily circumvent any form of prevention for harassing a user and unblocking/reblocking them at some nondescript point, including the changes made in this update.

I'm not saying that unblocking someone is this absolutely essential feature that everyone is going to use every day--hell, I barely ever block people and I unblock them even less. But I think that isn't a feature that should be time-restricted based on how a few people are abusing the system so they can leave snarky comments or antagonize people and prevent them from responding back. If you unblock someone, leave a comment and then try to reblock them, I think the system should keep you from doing that and find some way of recognizing that specific behavior instead of trying to make it a catch-all that inconveniences people using the system legitimately. That's all I'm saying.
starling
3 years, 2 months ago
Rare though it is for people to abuse the feature, I think it's even more rare that anyone absolutely needs someone they unblocked to be able to access their account within 6 hours. :P
finticemo
3 years, 2 months ago
" Tweaker wrote:
Well if you're approaching things in those terms, people can easily circumvent any form of prevention for harassing a user and unblocking/reblocking them at some nondescript point, including the changes made in this update.

Of course they can. This change simply means that premeditated intent is required, since abusers -must- wait 6 hours before they can carry out their abuses. This reduces the pool of possible abusers massively.

" If you unblock someone, leave a comment and then try to reblock them, I think the system should keep you from doing that and find some way of recognizing that specific behavior

As a user, I agree.
As a programmer, I cannot agree. Writing usable heuristic routines is in general difficult,  and heuristics also tend to break in surprising ways when a corner case comes up. A simple exploit for what you describe is for the abusive user to simply implement the inverse policy
("I'll reblock them after 6 hours, and ignore any comments they make in the meantime").


"
 instead of trying to make it a catch-all that inconveniences people using the system legitimately. That's all I'm saying.

I asked about frequency of unblocking because that is how to get a realistic measurement of inconvenience. If you visit IB 30 times in a month, and exactly one of those times you want to unblock someone, then you have been inconvenienced for ((6*60) * 1/30 == 12 minutes, assuming that you did want to communicate with the unblocked user ASAP; if you didn't, then you have not been inconvenienced at all.
CeilYurie
3 years, 2 months ago
Why would an admin ban somefur from my account?
starling
3 years, 2 months ago
On rare occasions admins might enforce bans between users that are causing a disruption to the site but which refuse to ban each other. It's teacher's way of breaking up the classroom fight. :3
CeilYurie
3 years, 2 months ago
Ah.
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
To add to what Starling said: these are extremely rare (20 of 12545 bans in total).
CeilYurie
3 years, 2 months ago
Will this also fix, AUTO-unwatching? i had that happen to me...
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
Not quite sure what you mean, can you be more specific? Or maybe a trouble ticket?

Banning another user will remove friend linkages, but not watches. However, if a user is banned from your account, you will not receive notifications when they watch you or when they +fav something of yours, and they cannot ask to be your friend.
CeilYurie
3 years, 2 months ago
No..I mean like I was watching
Rethex
Rethex
and then after a few weeks of not being able to really get on..I get on and find that somehow I wasn;t watching him, but neither of us blocked or banned each other.
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
Literally the only place in the code that adds or removes watches is the watch link.
CeilYurie
3 years, 2 months ago
Huh...
BunnyFoxglove
3 years, 2 months ago
Awesome work!

I had to giggle when I read all the HTTPS stuff, then at the end BAM here's a normal HTTP link you can go to! XD
starling
3 years, 2 months ago
Oh haha, yeah well that's what HSTS is for. Your browser won't have tried the http link if you clicked it. It would have used https right away.
Drizzt248
3 years, 2 months ago
I wonder when (or If) you will implement a Mobile Version of the site,I have been wanting this to happen for a while now but never actually spoke up. I use my phone very often (more often than the computer) plus my time and ability to use this site on the computer is limited because of the location of the computer and the age of the inhabitants here (2 persons exceeding Retirement age) limiting the times I can be on the computer and the location of the computer limits what I can view on the site and im sure the same goes with other people the persons may be too young in some cases (ages 3 and 17 for A rated files)
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
We're not going to promise something that we can't deliver yet, but it's definitely an area for us to improve on. I see people browsing FA on their phones at every meet I got to.

We're expect that as the site gets even more popular, developers will be interested in making more native apps for Inkbunny (we need to add some API features for this, notably comment reading and posting). But we could also make a mobile stylesheet that would work better.
HydroFTT
3 years, 2 months ago
Can I just say I love that this site actually get updates? Unlike some other furry sites I think I need not name.
Grimster101
3 years, 2 months ago
Love these changes <3
elmind
3 years, 2 months ago
I still see no "Hide My Account from Guests" or "Hide My Account details". You know, the stalker I had been talking about has been scanning my IB...
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
At this time we suggest using a guest-blocked or friends-only journal to address such concerns.
That doesn't mean we're not going to do anything else in the future, but we don't have a date for it.
Update: We did something about it a few months later; profiles can now be hidden from guests.
billmurray
3 years, 2 months ago
good work  @w@

Please consider more options for the front page!! Sometimes I just want to see suggested submissions from the past 3 days instead of popular submissions;  in the last year, there has been less and less variety in the "Popular submissions" default section as some artists begin to pull away from all the others...

Perhaps allowing users to change how they see the front page might be easier (and less controversial) to implement than changing the algorithm to favor newer / less popular (by watch count) artists~
GreenReaper
1 year, 4 months ago
A late comment, but it's worth mentioning; we've doubled the scope of Popular since then. We're also considering other means of improvement, such as a "rising stars" section (+favs / submitter watches).
billmurray
1 year, 4 months ago
I did notice when the pops were increased to 3 pages, and now 4  uwu

Thanks!
JeffyCottonbun
3 years, 2 months ago
Thank you for all the amazing work you guys are doing for everyone in this community! ♥
Chatin
3 years, 2 months ago
All without a go-fund me page... *cough*FA*cough*
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
Well, to be fair, we have our hat out 24/7, and we'll be asking for a bit more soon. But we wanted to show what we can do first! :-)
MightBeFurry
3 years, 2 months ago
Thank you for the optimisations, changes and fixes y'all! It's appreciated!
tanukeki
3 years, 2 months ago
ooh i love the new banners! kinda wish i would have know you were looking, i'd have given a shot on making one. Maybe another time.. now i cant decide which i like best X3
starling
3 years, 2 months ago
We're always happy to accept them! We just can't be sure when the next round of updates for banners will be so it could be a little while before it is added once you give it to us.
fxear
3 years, 2 months ago
What I find very cool about these updates is that they're all software- and feature-focused, and not hardware-focused.  It's refreshing to see that!

Thank you for updating the site and keeping it relevant.
fxear
3 years, 2 months ago
As a quick update:  It's not that hardware-related news is a bad thing... it's just that I've seen a history of certain sites (well, just one, really) that only seem to talk about hardware updates as the solution to all performance problems.  It's nice to see competent tuning taking place, instead of just screaming "MORE POWER!" when performance tanks.
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
Mo' hardware, mo' problems! We'll be talking about that in a day or so. :-)
JTPF
3 years, 2 months ago
" * Changed/Added: When you unban a user you banned from your account, it now has a delay (currently 6 hours) before the unban actually takes effect. This is to prevent people unbanning people for brief periods just to comment on their accounts, then banning them again (because if you ban someone from your account, it stops you commenting on their account or replying to their comments too).


Can you ban again in the 6-hour delay?
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
No, but that's something we're going to change real soon now (or at least next revision, after some internal debate about how best to do it :-). Will essentially just clear the scheduled un-ban.
EcchiNemi
3 years, 2 months ago
This site gets even better with every update :3
Nice work :)
ralesk
3 years, 2 months ago
You guys always do great stuff with this site :)
MajikBear
3 years, 2 months ago
Banners? This site has banners? I don't see any banners.

http://i.imgur.com/sC6EHka.png

Also RSS pls.

Also keyword-based post filtering so I can block every submission and journal with the word(s) "stream" and/or "patreon".
starling
3 years, 2 months ago
That screenshot looks super broken. What browser are you using?

There's already keyword filtering for submissions (see Blocked Keywords under Account menu). Journal keywords and blocking is a proposed feature in our wishlist. :P
MajikBear
3 years, 2 months ago
It's not broken, it's fixed.

I removed all the garbage I don't need to look at porn.
starling
3 years, 2 months ago
But the thing you left behind in the top left is the banner. If your edits haven't affected the JS, hovering mouse over the bunny will let you select from a wide range of other choices. :P
MajikBear
3 years, 2 months ago
Yup. I only removed CSS classes. Thanks for not stacking invisible divs on top of elements like FA does.
starling
3 years, 2 months ago
Oh yeah and RSS is in the wishlist already too! :D
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
Inkbunny's internal term for the images used for the pink rabbit mascot image is a "banner".
Utanith
3 years, 2 months ago
I'm glad to see such attention to security! You guys rock.

On a related note, is there any chance we'll get to see some PGP features at some point down the line? Maybe allow for signature files to be uploaded with submissions or a clean way to attach signatures to journals that doesn't make the uninitiated go, "What is all this gobbledygook?" One-time passwords delivered with PGP encryption, perhaps?
axlegear
3 years, 2 months ago
MEANWHILE, AT FA:

$17k.  Optimizations?  ....none.
DizziMorhlis
3 years, 2 months ago
hah! XD
DizziMorhlis
3 years, 2 months ago
Lookin good guys! Love to see the site actually updating and changing...unlike some others >>

Also where can we submit banners?
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
Drop us a ticket. It's not an instant process, but we should be able to fit you into the next revision. :-)
DizziMorhlis
3 years, 2 months ago
Sweeeeet - Will do ;3
Krechevskoy
3 years, 2 months ago
Thank you kindly for the continued work and advancement from the administrative staff!
Vladimir
3 years, 2 months ago
Sounds like:
"Good news everyone! "
In the voice of Hubert J. Farnsworth
XD
Rakuen
3 years, 2 months ago
Sounds good!
TrickyPup
3 years, 2 months ago
Is there any way to hide your favorites from being seen by anyone but yourself? If not I hope it could be added. ^u^
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
I'm afraid there isn't yet, but it is in our list of feature requests! For now, you could try using a separate account (perhaps logged in on a different browser) to keep track of those you don't wish to display.
TrickyPup
3 years, 2 months ago
Alright, thank you very much!
MaDrow
3 years, 2 months ago
" * Fixed: Better support for multibyte characters when truncating strings. Previously when text contained special characters like Chinese characters, it would sometimes break and display blank areas when we tried to cut text to a certain length such as for journal text summaries. For example we now tell the system to return “the first 100 characters” rather than “the first 100 bytes”.
I guess you're talking about the database here?

" * Added: The artist’s name now appears when hovering over the chosen site logo/banner.
Not to nitpick, but it fails to work on FF 31.2.0 ESR.

Salmy
3 years, 2 months ago
How does it fail? I'm using FF 33. Which icon are you using? We've detected already a bug in that and the fix will be released soon.

And about the first question, no, in this case it was the php coding when truncating strings so they'd fit in the database's field or when pulling them from them to present them in the screen.
MaDrow
3 years, 2 months ago
I get it at SunnyNoga's / (ChibiTracy's) logo.

Also wow funny php behaviour there. But not surprising since PHP started as a wrapper around C and still lacks Unicode support  |=(:3
Salmy
3 years, 2 months ago
You're right! There was a bug for that logo in particular. Thanks for the heads-up! It will be fixed soon :)
MaDrow
3 years, 2 months ago
You're welcome~! |=(:3
Edward
3 years, 2 months ago
" * Added: The artist’s name now appears when hovering over the chosen site logo/banner.


Can you make this toggleable on user settings? Knowing which artist make this beautyful logo is good, but I use logo to go main menu, and every time I hover over it this thing pops up. I started to got annoyed. -_-
GreenReaper
3 years, 2 months ago
I think the best solution is a delayed display, like most tooltips. Try now, after a Ctrl+Shift+R?

It took longer to figure this out than I expected, but I learnt a few things about CSS transitions. :-)

P.S. IE 8/9 users are out of luck. No transition love until IE 10.
Edward
3 years, 2 months ago
It's okay now. Thanks!

For browsers without CSS3 this can be used as fallback:
" <a href="https://inkbunny.net/"; title="Inkbunny mascot art by Xxxxxxxx"><span>&nbsp;</span></a>
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.