inthe00s
The Pop Culture Information Society...

These are the messages that have been posted on inthe00s over the past few years.

Check out the messageboard archive index for a complete list of topic areas.

This archive is periodically refreshed with the latest messages from the current messageboard.




Check for new replies or respond here...

Subject: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 06/03/08 at 10:55 am

Figured I'd start a sticky thread so people have one spot to record things, and to make sure I'm less likely to overlook things.

If the site were a real business, or something I got paid for, this probably wouldn't be as necessary since I'd spend more time tracking down issues.

Then again, it's almost 100,000 pages in size now, kind of easy to overlook stuff on a site that size.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 06/03/08 at 10:57 am

Issues mentioned recently that I will investigate in the next week:

1) missing most recently added sections in the artist summary pages

2) Parody submission form (FAQ?) mentions that it could take a week to review a parody

3) Comment has been recorded response should be more generic for the non-comment sections (Thank you for your submission, etc)

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 06/03/08 at 11:12 am


Issues mentioned recently that I will investigate in the next week:

1) missing most recently added sections in the artist summary pages

2) Parody submission form (FAQ?) mentions that it could take a week to review a parody

3) Comment has been recorded response should be more generic for the non-comment sections (Thank you for your submission, etc)


Number 2 is because it uses the same message as the other sections on the site.  Not really a necessary to fix even though that section is reviewed daily during the week.

Number 3 is changed.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: karen on 11/14/08 at 8:47 pm

There's something weird on the front page at the moment.  Where it has the latest submission the Song Fragments look odd.

Song Parody Fragments:
"Town Fair Tire Jingle" by Commercial
Better Lyrics:
She's a brick house.
Original Lyrics:
Name brands at discount prices-
Town Fair Tire!
Submitted by: Dylan Baranski

"So what?" by Pink
Better Lyrics:
Ho, ho, ho, It's magic you know Never believe, It's not so.
Original Lyrics:
The waiter just took my table
And gave it to Jessica Simpson
I guess I'll go sit with drum boy
At least he'll know how to hit
Submitted by: Flash Flood

When you click on the link to Song Fragments they display properly i.e. the better lyrics bear some resemblance to the original!

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: kevin on 04/17/09 at 8:43 pm

http://www.amiright.com/parody/70s/ledzeppelin113.shtml
please remove
although it makes me have more parodys!!

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: lpg_unit on 05/12/09 at 5:33 am

I had some snags in the Recordings Submission form; tried entering the correct CAPTCHA code but it displays an incorrect security code error...  :-\\

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Mountain Ashley on 01/09/10 at 12:49 am

The "days since last update" feature on the right hand links on the home page seems to have quit working. A few pages are stuck on "0" days, regardless of when updates occur, while other pages continue to show some old number of days since updates, though newer updates have occurred to some of those pages.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Mountain Ashley on 01/23/10 at 6:54 am

Thank you for addressing the last issue I posted about on this thread.

Another think I've noticed -- Artist summaries almost always give wrong submitter names for Literally Impossible Song Titles.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 01/23/10 at 7:24 am


Thank you for addressing the last issue I posted about on this thread.

Another think I've noticed -- Artist summaries almost always give wrong submitter names for Literally Impossible Song Titles.


fixed that one too...

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 02/02/10 at 9:51 pm

http://www.amiright.com/sitemap.shtml

Under "Parodies", second entry:
Parody Author Contact Directory
Actual album covers that parody other album covers


The link works correctly, but the description below it seems to refer to a different section entirely. It appears to have been copied accidentally from the third entry above it,

Album Cover Parodies
Actual album covers that parody other album covers

Subject: Parody comments are accidentally bolded through HTML error

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/07/10 at 12:56 am

http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/thebyrds27.shtml

At Adagio's comment, the font becomes bold and stays that way for the rest of the comments.
Viewing page source shows the following after the intended smiley in Adagio's comment:

&58; D<B><BR>

Clearly, this was intended to be a :D smiley and two line breaks, and so should read

&58; D<BR><BR>

The user typo or server glitch on the first BR ends up as a "bold" tag, <b>. Since this tag is never closed, (</b>), the page and all further comments will always be in bold. When you have a moment, could you please correct the source code of the page back from the bold tag <B> to the intended line break, <BR>, so the page displays correctly?

Thanks ... and here are the two Karma points I meant to give you for implementing the default-enable-comments suggestion and for banning mAximo's hate-speech parodies. Props for the speedy deletion of mAximo's *fourth* consecutive re-posting of the same deleted comment -- does that Karma go to CG or to Red Ant?

EDIT: I just realized that I DK how to award Karma points. Expected a button or something. Had to do a Google search of the archives to find an old FAQ (no longer active? Seems a good idea) that says you need to have 100 posts here to award karma, and I'm only halfway there. Guess the 340 song posts (420, if co-written are included) and thousands of comments at AIR don't count, but I understand the reasoning.... anyway, consider yourself Karma'd, and if I ever get the required 100 posts here (barely have time to write/read/vote/comment at AIR about 1/10th as much as I'd like to), I won't forget to award them then. Cheers.

Subject: Re: Boldface comments due to HTML error

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/07/10 at 6:56 pm

Thanks for correcting this so quickly. Another Karma point when I become eligible.  8)

Subject: Re: Boldface comments due to HTML error

Written By: karen on 03/07/10 at 7:11 pm


Thanks for correcting this so quickly. Another Karma point when I become eligible.  8)


Is this karma for Chucky?  I'll give him some on your behalf.

Subject: Re: Boldface comments due to HTML error

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/07/10 at 7:30 pm


Is this karma for Chucky?  I'll give him some on your behalf.

Yes, I'm pretty sure. Only Chucky has banning authority, right? -- and so gets a point for banning the hate-song poster.
Surely only he can change the sw, so implementing moi's suggestion about auto-enabling comments goes to Chucky.
I assume the correction of the HTML error in the most recent post was by Chucky, so that would be three.

I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd award those, and if there's some sort of "comments" in the award or log, mention that they came from me and why. Thanks, karen.

Also, this issue hasn't been fixed yet. It's a simple change of description that should take 30 seconds. I'd do it myself if I could.  :D Thanks, and a point to yourself if you take care of it!

Cheers,
TT

EDIT: Beautiful poem in your sig. Original, or who is the source?

Subject: Re: Boldface comments due to HTML error

Written By: karen on 03/07/10 at 7:59 pm



EDIT: Beautiful poem in your sig. Original, or who is the source?


I found it on-line when searching for palindromes.  It is assumed to be by J A Lindon.  ANd on rechecking the site I found I have the title wrong!

http://www.brownielocks.com/palindromes.html

Subject: Re: Boldface comments due to HTML error

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/07/10 at 8:24 pm


Yes, I'm pretty sure. Only Chucky has banning authority, right? -- and so gets a point for banning the hate-song poster.
Surely only he can change the sw, so implementing moi's suggestion about auto-enabling comments goes to Chucky.
I assume the correction of the HTML error in the most recent post was by Chucky, so that would be three.

Also, this issue hasn't been fixed yet. It's a simple change of description that should take 30 seconds. I'd do it myself if I could.  :D Thanks, and a point to yourself if you take care of it!


don't worry about karmal... it's only for play anyways...

I haven't banned the IP yet, because I keep forgetting.  Part of the reason is that when it gets reported, the report screen me and Red Ant would see didn't display it (even though it's always recorded).  So tonight I fixed it, and next time I'll write it down so I remember to add it to the ban list.  I usually don't bother banning many IPs because frankly it's not very effective.

Subject: Palindromic poem

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/07/10 at 8:32 pm


I found it on-line when searching for palindromes.  It is assumed to be by J A Lindon.  ANd on rechecking the site I found I have the title wrong!

http://www.brownielocks.com/palindromes.html

I'd never seen a palindrome of words before. Only of letters: "Able was I ere I saw Elba" (Napoleon), where it reads the same backwards and forwards, letter for letter.
"A man, a plan, a canal - Panama!" etc. The reversal of the words in the entire poem is a new one to me!

Subject: Re: Boldface comments due to HTML error

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/07/10 at 8:40 pm


don't worry about karmal... it's only for play anyways...

I know, but everyone likes a pat on the back once in a while. People always gripe when things go wrong, but not so many give a shout-out for someone handling something promptly and well.

<snip>  I usually don't bother banning many IPs because frankly it's not very effective.

Yeah, there are lots of easy ways to get a new IP (simplest: go to a friend's house or to the library), but it *does* seem to have stopped mAximo from posting any more *song parodies*. -- at least, haven't seen any since he was banned. So, maybe he decided it wasn't worth the effort to change IPs when the song will just be deleted anyway.

Also, it's a concrete statement that "you are no longer welcome here", which may get the message through, or convince them that it's not worth the effort to change IPs even for a comment, which will be deleted anyway. But no problem, we can just keep reporting them as fast as he posts them. I  just hate to keep taking up the Admin/staff time, when there are so many more important things to do. Thanks.

Subject: Re: Boldface comments due to HTML error

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/07/10 at 10:16 pm


I know, but everyone likes a pat on the back once in a while. People always gripe when things go wrong, but not so many give a shout-out for someone handling something promptly and well.Yeah, there are lots of easy ways to get a new IP (simplest: go to a friend's house or to the library), but it *does* seem to have stopped mAximo from posting any more *song parodies*. -- at least, haven't seen any since he was banned. So, maybe he decided it wasn't worth the effort to change IPs when the song will just be deleted anyway.

Also, it's a concrete statement that "you are no longer welcome here", which may get the message through, or convince them that it's not worth the effort to change IPs even for a comment, which will be deleted anyway. But no problem, we can just keep reporting them as fast as he posts them. I  just hate to keep taking up the Admin/staff time, when there are so many more important things to do. Thanks.


I never added an IP block for his parody submissions... just weren't approved anymore.  If I had, he wouldn't have been able to post comments either.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Rex on 03/08/10 at 6:10 pm

The new layout is rendering fine in IE, but is rendering incorrectly in Firefox. It's as though the browser thinks the heading and the body both should start at the top of the page.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/08/10 at 6:13 pm


The new layout is rendering fine in IE, but is rendering incorrectly in Firefox. It's as though the browser thinks the heading and the body both should start at the top of the page.


which version of Firefox?  I tested it in 3.5 and 3.6.

it may be that you need to hold your shift key and hit refresh.  The old style sheet might be getting cached.  I need to change how the style sheets are referenced across the entire site so that doesn't happen anymore, but unfortunately it's in hundreds of pages.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Rex on 03/08/10 at 6:23 pm


it may be that you need to hold your shift key and hit refresh. 


that was it.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/08/10 at 6:30 pm


that was it.


yeah... bad choice of design on my part.  Way back in 2003 when style sheets were still very new, I didn't know about adding a ? to the name of it to prevent caching, or even think I might want to just rename it sitewide when a major change comes through.  I'm going to start working through the spots where I reference it and try and remove as many as I can so that the next time I don't have to explain all this >grin<

Subject: Preview pane broken

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/09/10 at 1:42 am

The preview pane seems to be broken, for the past hour (starting @ 1:30 am ChuckyTime). Clicking "Preview" does nothing. I sent a "test" parody in, and the "send" button works fine. (Please, Mr. Postman, Please don't post the "test"!)

I don't know JS, only a little HTML. I'm sure you can find the issue faster than I can. But for curiosity's sake (always willing to learn), I googled parts of the following source code from the preview page.

<input type="button" value="Preview" onclick="this.disabled=true; xmlhttpPost('http://www.amiright.com/parody/displayPreview.php', 'result'); this.disabled=false;  return false;">

Google suggests things like
"there should be a close quote after "this.disabled=true;
or "there shouldn't be a return false; it prevents the form submission."
or that the implication of the code is that clicking the preview button disables it, just as you properly disable the comment button after someone posts a comment, to prevent them from duplicating or flooding. 

I really have no clue. I'll take a chance on thee  (that's a rotten pun on TOS) and will submit it without previewing.

FWIW, I can't ping the submission page, 207.69.131.9, though that's probably an un-ping-able subpage. I can ping amiright itself easily, @ 64.38.51.50 (about 58 ms).

Subject: Re: Preview pane broken

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/09/10 at 7:34 am


The preview pane seems to be broken, for the past hour (starting @ 1:30 am ChuckyTime). Clicking "Preview" does nothing. I sent a "test" parody in, and the "send" button works fine. (Please, Mr. Postman, Please don't post the "test"!)

I don't know JS, only a little HTML. I'm sure you can find the issue faster than I can. But for curiosity's sake (always willing to learn), I googled parts of the following source code from the preview page.

<input type="button" value="Preview" onclick="this.disabled=true; xmlhttpPost('http://www.amiright.com/parody/displayPreview.php', 'result'); this.disabled=false;  return false;">

Google suggests things like
"there should be a close quote after "this.disabled=true;
or "there shouldn't be a return false; it prevents the form submission."
or that the implication of the code is that clicking the preview button disables it, just as you properly disable the comment button after someone posts a comment, to prevent them from duplicating or flooding. 

I really have no clue. I'll take a chance on thee  (that's a rotten pun on TOS) and will submit it without previewing.

FWIW, I can't ping the submission page, 207.69.131.9, though that's probably an un-ping-able subpage. I can ping amiright itself easily, @ 64.38.51.50 (about 58 ms).




I don't think the problem is with that particular piece of code, it hasn't changed in years.  the return false is to keep the preview button from submitting the form, and the reason no " is following true; is because two more statements follow it.

It's more likely something related to the style sheets or the javascript at the top of the page.  I'm going to try a few things before I head off to work.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/09/10 at 8:39 am

no luck so far this morning  >:(

I thought maybe the ads or the extra style sheet were interfering with it, but even their removal didn't make any change in the functionality.

I'm going to play it with it later (maybe not until I get home tonight).  At least the regular submission still works.  Quite a mystery to me.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/09/10 at 6:31 pm

Quite a mystery to me.
Aren't they always? :(


On top of that, my "latest comments" page has no style at all, and the elements are all jumbled and overlapping each other at the top. Does it look that way to you?
http://www.amiright.com/parody/parodyAuthorLatestComments.php?author=tommyturtle

View > Page Style shows "Basic Page Style". Should this be your "currentStyle" like at the other?

On the "author song page",
http://www.amiright.com/parody/authors/tommyturtle.shtml
everything is beautiful ;) and Page Style indeed shows as "currentStyle", called in the source:

<style type="text/css" title="currentStyle">
@import "http://www.amiright.com/amiright.css";
</style>

I couldn't find any similar call to import the style in the source of the "latest comments" page, though I think I'll retire from coding suggestions, since I batted .000 on the last one. :)

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/09/10 at 7:51 pm


Aren't they always? :(


On top of that, my "latest comments" page has no style at all, and the elements are all jumbled and overlapping each other at the top. Does it look that way to you?
http://www.amiright.com/parody/parodyAuthorLatestComments.php?author=tommyturtle

View > Page Style shows "Basic Page Style". Should this be your "currentStyle" like at the other?

On the "author song page",
http://www.amiright.com/parody/authors/tommyturtle.shtml
everything is beautiful ;) and Page Style indeed shows as "currentStyle", called in the source:

<style type="text/css" title="currentStyle">
@import "http://www.amiright.com/amiright.css";
</style>

I couldn't find any similar call to import the style in the source of the "latest comments" page, though I think I'll retire from coding suggestions, since I batted .000 on the last one. :)


no you're probably correct, the style sheet reference might be missing.  I'll look at it next.  I tried to do the parody section over completely last night, so if there are mistakes anywhere, they'll be there.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: nally on 03/10/10 at 12:24 am

Okay, now it's time for me to use this thread...

It appears that the "Band/Song names" sections appear with the text unformatted (at least in Firefox). All the text and links seem to overlap here there and everywhere.

I'd show a screenshot to display what it looks like, but I can't get it less than 128kb for an attachment. (Might as well settle for a link.) The point is that any such page displays erratically on my browser.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/10/10 at 1:31 am


It appears that the "Band/Song names" sections appear with the text unformatted (at least in Firefox). All the text and links seem to overlap here there and everywhere.

Looks like that to me as well. I'm pretty sure that it's the identical issue that I described at my "latest comments" page a couple of post above, and probably the same cause: when Chucky made all of these changes, some of the "style sheet" references were dropped accidentally. Same fix, just add that in the code, but there are a lot of pages for him to go over...  8-P

I'd show a screenshot to display what it looks like, but I can't get it less than 128kb for an attachment.

Tips to get your screenshots smaller: (Windows, I hope)

1] Screenshots in Windows generally default to being bitmaps, .bmp, which can easily be 2-3 MB or more.  First step: If you can get by with just a portion of it, say, the upper left corner, open the screenshot with MS Paint and crop out what you don't need, then shrink the size using the "Image" > "Attributes" tool. Experiment with shrinking the # of pixels until it just fits your cropped pic. OR

2] Select the desired portion of the pic with the "rectangle" tool on the left, dragging the crosshairs to make a rectangle that captures your desired portion. Right-click inside that and click "Copy". Open a new blank MS Paint (File > New), click in the white space, right-click and "paste" (or Edit > Paste). Save that, with the desired title.

3] Either way, or even if you can't crop it, open the .bmp screenshot in Paint, then click File > Save as, and instead of the default choice, "24-bit bitmap", choose .jpg, .gif, or .png. All three are in the list of "allowed" here -- bitmaps aren't, undoubtedly because they're so bulky. GIF is the smallest, compressing a 2.92 MB bmp of a very complex shot into 109k, under the limit, though you'll get a warning about some color loss (who cares?). JPG is the next smallest. The same complex shot went from 2.92 MB to 179k, over the limit. But a full-screen shot of just my desktop, much less complex (this shot has all the text that is in this window), compressed from the same 2.92 MB to 52k.

So use whichever format fits the limit, and crop or select the illustrative parts as needed.

Cool?

You can also host them at some place like imageshack (free), and put a link or a thumbnail here. Then they get stored over there, eating up their disk space and not ChuckyG's.  :)

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/10/10 at 5:48 am


Okay, now it's time for me to use this thread...

It appears that the "Band/Song names" sections appear with the text unformatted (at least in Firefox). All the text and links seem to overlap here there and everywhere.

I'd show a screenshot to display what it looks like, but I can't get it less than 128kb for an attachment. (Might as well settle for a link.) The point is that any such page displays erratically on my browser.


fixed it... again, guilty of trying to fix more than I should at the same time >grin<  at least this one was easy to figure out.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: nally on 03/10/10 at 12:14 pm


Looks like that to me as well. I'm pretty sure that it's the identical issue that I described at my "latest comments" page a couple of post above, and probably the same cause: when Chucky made all of these changes, some of the "style sheet" references were dropped accidentally. Same fix, just add that in the code, but there are a lot of pages for him to go over...  8-P Tips to get your screenshots smaller: (Windows, I hope)

1] Screenshots in Windows generally default to being bitmaps, .bmp, which can easily be 2-3 MB or more.  First step: If you can get by with just a portion of it, say, the upper left corner, open the screenshot with MS Paint and crop out what you don't need, then shrink the size using the "Image" > "Attributes" tool. Experiment with shrinking the # of pixels until it just fits your cropped pic. OR

I tried that, and saved it as a JPEG image. But I couldn't get it down to less than 143.5 kb, which exceeds the limit for attachments on here. I wanted to show a relevant portion of it.



2] Select the desired portion of the pic with the "rectangle" tool on the left, dragging the crosshairs to make a rectangle that captures your desired portion. Right-click inside that and click "Copy". Open a new blank MS Paint (File > New), click in the white space, right-click and "paste" (or Edit > Paste). Save that, with the desired title.

3] Either way, or even if you can't crop it, open the .bmp screenshot in Paint, then click File > Save as, and instead of the default choice, "24-bit bitmap", choose .jpg, .gif, or .png. All three are in the list of "allowed" here -- bitmaps aren't, undoubtedly because they're so bulky. GIF is the smallest, compressing a 2.92 MB bmp of a very complex shot into 109k, under the limit, though you'll get a warning about some color loss (who cares?). JPG is the next smallest. The same complex shot went from 2.92 MB to 179k, over the limit. But a full-screen shot of just my desktop, much less complex (this shot has all the text that is in this window), compressed from the same 2.92 MB to 52k.

So use whichever format fits the limit, and crop or select the illustrative parts as needed.

Cool?

Yes; in fact, I often save images as JPG since they are usually the best in quality. I suppose I could've tried it as a GIF; maybe I'll try that next time if something else comes up.



You can also host them at some place like imageshack (free), and put a link or a thumbnail here. Then they get stored over there, eating up their disk space and not ChuckyG's.   :)

I've done that with some of my pictures, including a few recent ones that I've posted on the photo threads. Thanks for all your tips; I really appreciate it. :)

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/10/10 at 1:18 pm


I tried that, and saved it as a JPEG image. But I couldn't get it down to less than 143.5 kb, which exceeds the limit for attachments on here. I wanted to show a relevant portion of it.

Yes; in fact, I often save images as JPG since they are usually the best in quality. I suppose I could've tried it as a GIF; maybe I'll try that next time if something else comes up.

I've done that with some of my pictures, including a few recent ones that I've posted on the photo threads. Thanks for all your tips; I really appreciate it. :)


a screen shot of a web page doesn't need to be at best quality.  50% to 70% is more than really needed.

I have snagIt at work, which is fantastic for screen shots, because you can grab just the browser window.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/10/10 at 2:52 pm



I have snagIt at work, which is fantastic for screen shots, because you can grab just the browser window.

That's not needed in Windows. (for novices:) Press Alt+PrtSc  and it will capture only the *active* window, whether that be a text, pic, program GUI, whatever, Just make sure (in this case,) that the browser windows is "active", i. e., blue on the very top bar rather than gray.

Or did you mean that your program eliminates the browser's toolbars and status bars and captures only the actual contents of the web page or whatever being viewed? That would save cropping. (Your screenshot showed some of the status bar.)

Still think cropping what's not needed is best; if whole page needed, .gif works fine, as Chucky said.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/10/10 at 5:04 pm


That's not needed in Windows. (for novices:) Press Alt+PrtSc  and it will capture only the *active* window, whether that be a text, pic, program GUI, whatever, Just make sure (in this case,) that the browser windows is "active", i. e., blue on the very top bar rather than gray.

Or did you mean that your program eliminates the browser's toolbars and status bars and captures only the actual contents of the web page or whatever being viewed? That would save cropping. (Your screenshot showed some of the status bar.)

Still think cropping what's not needed is best; if whole page needed, .gif works fine, as Chucky said.


yeah, snagIt let's you just select the browser window, or even just the part of the browser without the chrome.  You can save to dozens of formats.  Where I work they need to do lots of screenshots and it's a huge time saver (plus it means people who aren't graphic designers don't need Photoslop)

Subject: Dollar sign still not being escaped properly

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/15/10 at 5:34 am

The tip about, "When you are in the preview box for a long time, send the parody without a security code, to refresh the timer", has been very effective and useful. Saves having to fill in all the form fields again.  :) However, doing so still eats $ as a text character. I caught this instance in time, and so the final version submitted for today is fine.

I've seen a couple of php scripts recently, and I see what you mean about how often $ are used as tags. I know that with the site redesign and all, this isn't the highest priority, but whenever it could be fixed, that would be great.

(I'm kinda' surprised that the preview window would parse user-submitted php code at all. Possible attack vector by someone "submiitting" a malicious php script?)

Subject: Re: Dollar sign still not being escaped properly

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/15/10 at 8:59 am


The tip about, "When you are in the preview box for a long time, send the parody without a security code, to refresh the timer", has been very effective and useful. Saves having to fill in all the form fields again.  :) However, doing so still eats $ as a text character. I caught this instance in time, and so the final version submitted for today is fine.

I've seen a couple of php scripts recently, and I see what you mean about how often $ are used as tags. I know that with the site redesign and all, this isn't the highest priority, but whenever it could be fixed, that would be great.

(I'm kinda' surprised that the preview window would parse user-submitted php code at all. Possible attack vector by someone "submiitting" a malicious php script?)


I just tried that in both IE and Firefox though, and the dollar signs made it through fine. 

I escape out the dollar signs, so it's not really able to be used for an attack.

Subject: Poli-tick-ly Incorrect

Written By: kilgore523 on 03/15/10 at 12:40 pm

The parody author "Poli-tick-ly Incorrect" has always had a grudge against me for being a Democrat and being critical of his/her overuse of racist jabs at the president and First Family in his/her parodies. Today, s/he left this comment on my parody of "Purple Rain" by Prince that was featured today:

"Poli-tick-ly Incorrect - March 15, 2010 - Report this comment
Talk about a load of crap!! The pacing was terrible and it's not that funny. "Somethin's stinkin' up the bathroom", as they say. It must have been from Andria vomiting up her third helping of haggis."  ::)

Seemingly because I mentioned that like the president not eating fried chicken and watermelon every day just because he's black, I don't eat haggis every day even though I'm largely of Scottish descent, PI has started using haggis as a means of attacking me. This author has left similar comments, with and without mentions of haggis, on my parodies, his/hers/its own parodies and other people's as well. While the 1-1-1 votes left by this person don't bother me too much, PI's comments about me do.  I sincerely hope that s/he doesn't decide to write an attack parody about me or start stalking me like TSB did with Alvin Rhodes a few years back. Probably won't happen, but given this author's disdain of me, it might just happen.

Editors, if this is worth looking into, please do so.  :)


Andria

Subject: Re: Dollar sign still not being escaped properly

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/15/10 at 5:05 pm


I just tried that in both IE and Firefox though, and the dollar signs made it through fine. 

I escape out the dollar signs, so it's not really able to be used for an attack.

I wonder why it's not working for me?
Scripting from amiright.com is allowed. Is this preview function dependent on any other functions or runtimes not already in the browser?
I'm curious, so if you have any ideas, please share. If not, don't worry about it.

@ Andria: You don't have to defend yourself. Whether you eat haggis is irrelevant. The personal attack alone is sufficient ground for removal.

"Bad pacing and not funny" would probably pass, but as soon as he got to "vomiting", game over.

What bothers me is that I've written several parodies aimed at Obama, (as well as at GW Bush and B. Clinton -- "equal opportunity satirist", lol), and irresponsible attacks discredit those of us who try to base our political satire on facts, ideology, actions, and issues.  Please keep reporting such, so that those of us who try to stick to facts and issues will not be drowned out. Thank you.

Subject: Re: Dollar sign still not being escaped properly

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/15/10 at 6:17 pm


I wonder why it's not working for me?
Scripting from amiright.com is allowed. Is this preview function dependent on any other functions or runtimes not already in the browser?
I'm curious, so if you have any ideas, please share. If not, don't worry about it.



the only scripting used is some AJAX style stuff to call up the preview window. PHP renders the actual HTML.  I tried it in both IE and Firefox, and even left the browser open for an hour before hitting the preview and the submit buttons.  No difference, the dollar sign is still there in every field.  So you've got me totally puzzled about this one.

Subject: Re: Dollar sign still not being escaped properly

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/16/10 at 3:43 am


the only scripting used is some AJAX style stuff to call up the preview window. PHP renders the actual HTML.  I tried it in both IE and Firefox, and even left the browser open for an hour before hitting the preview and the submit buttons.  No difference, the dollar sign is still there in every field.  So you've got me totally puzzled about this one.

OK, then it's another idiot-syncrasy on my end, like the color display settings were.  ;D
The machine is heavily customized and tweaked, in addition to security stuff, so again, sometime I'll just play with the backup machine, various settings, etc., and if I can isolate anything, will let you know. Otherwise, forget about it.  :)

Subject: Re: Dollar sign still not being escaped properly

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/16/10 at 6:57 am


OK, then it's another idiot-syncrasy on my end, like the color display settings were.  ;D
The machine is heavily customized and tweaked, in addition to security stuff, so again, sometime I'll just play with the backup machine, various settings, etc., and if I can isolate anything, will let you know. Otherwise, forget about it.  :)


it might just be a very distinct set of steps you are performing as well. 

Subject: Re: Dollar sign still not being escaped properly

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/16/10 at 7:31 am


it might just be a very distinct set of steps you are performing as well. 

I've gotten in the habit of watching the time in the preview pane, and after about 15 minutes, if it's not ready to go, using the "refresh" trick.
I don't know when I'll be using a $ again, but when I do, I'll try to remember to keep a detailed, time-stamped event log of what text was previewed at what times, when the $ disappeared, etc. so that hopefully, it becomes reproducible.

Until then, don't worry about it.

Subject: I have a standard test to reproduce the $ error at will

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/16/10 at 2:55 pm

I tried it in both IE and Firefox, and even left the browser open for an hour before hitting the preview and the submit buttons.  No difference, the dollar sign is still there in every field.  So you've got me totally puzzled about this one. ..... <combined>
it might just be a very distinct set of steps you are performing as well.


Did your steps include "send with no security code"? I just discovered that the same behavior occurs if you "send" without a valid password OR without a valid security code OR without either of them. These are the kickers, and I can reproduce this at will, with *no* time interval (that will speed up your tests  ;D), on both Fx 3.6 and Fx 2.0.0.20. The latter can be ignored, as it's obsolete, but just to narrow down the possibilities, since they made substantial changes to the Gecko rendering engine from F2 to F3.

The reason that the "timeout" red herring was raised is that it caused the same behavior on "Preview" if the preview weren't "Sent" for 20-30 minutes or whatever. With the "refresh" tip, that situation no longer occurs. So it is apparently *not* a timeout issue, or at least, that isn't the only issue. It doesn't hit me anymore since I started using the refresher.

XP SP 2, Firefox 3.6. with NoScript add-on, amiright.com is whitelisted (all scripts from that domain are auto-allowed).

Test procedure: Open submission form
Fill in all required fields, including valid username and password (but see above re: password)
Top and bottom comments were left empty -- irrelevant.

Decade = misc
Original Performer = test
Original Song = test
Parody Song = test

Parody Lyrics = test $40 test

Preview = successful (see screenshot)

"Send" (immediately) *without security code".

Result = Message: "No security code entered" OR "Password does not match password on file".
Parody Lyics now =" test test" - the entire "$40" disappeared.  (see screeenshot)

To be certain, I went from the heavily customized 2005 machine to the 2008 backup machine. It's not exactly OOB, but the tweaks are mostly cosmetic and user-function for convenience, etc. -- nothing that I can see possibly interfering with rendering php-driven HTML or XML.
Have MSXML 6 Service Pack 2 installed.

You said no MS runtimes required, right? I can provide the version # of the C and C++ runtime libraries if needed, but it doesn't sound like they are in the picture at all.
Now *I'm* stumped. Hope you can at least reproduce it, as this is about everything I could think of.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/16/10 at 3:51 pm

I just tried it exactly as you did... and still don't see the behavior.  it was exactly how I tested it before too... I thought maybe the password was the key change, but I've tried it both empty, with an invalid one, and with a valid one.

I guess I can try installing noscript and then enable scripts on the site.  maybe that's causing some funky behavior.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/16/10 at 3:57 pm

no script with all the scripts enabled saw no change...

even with all scripts disabled it still works.... well, until you block the amiright scripts.  Then it breaks the preview, but only the preview.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 03/16/10 at 9:13 pm


no script with all the scripts enabled saw no change...

even with all scripts disabled it still works.... well, until you block the amiright scripts.  Then it breaks the preview, but only the preview.

Right, as you said, the preview and some other stuff is js-powered, whether in Ajax form or otherwise.

On the NoScript > Options > Embeddings page, I usually run with everything checked, for safety. I didnt' think that any of the things on that page were involved (iFrame, etc.), but I unchecked "Apply these restrictions to whitelisted sites, too". amiright.com is a whitelisted site. So *everything* listed on that page was allowed. Same result.

Last gasp: on the NoScript > Options > Advanced page, default is "Block JAR remote resources being loaded as documents". I didn't see that you were doing that on the page, but unchecked it anyway. Same result.

I think we've eliminated NoScript as an issue.

It didn't matter whether I used Firefox 3.6 in Safe Browsing mode or not.
(It shouldn't. So long as your cookies, etc. are allowed for the session, deleting them later shouldn't affect anything. I do that on F2 anyway, and also use SafeHistory and SafeCache to prevent history-stealing attacks, etc., but since everything is coming from the same origin, it should all be trusted and given full access to everything else from that origin.)

Frankly, I'm stumped.

I'll see if anything else comes to me or if I can experiment in any other way. Don't spend your time on it anymore, please.

*CAN ANY OTHER FIREFOX USERS REPRODUCE THIS PROBLEM?*

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Rissy on 07/05/10 at 7:32 pm

I'm the author of one of the parodies on the site, called "I Kissed a Nerd." The song was attributed to a performing group called "Willie's Wenches," which has since split up. One of the other members and I joined a new comedy group called The Damsels of Dorkington, and we just released a music video for the song. I was hoping the author credit could get changed on the website, to "Blythe and Rissy of the Damsels of Dorkington."

The listing for the lyrics:

http://www.amiright.com/parody/2000s/katyperry10.shtml

Please and thank you!

Subject: Dollar signs being eaten again

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 09/03/10 at 6:40 pm

Per previous post, the same issue occurred at this post today (Fri 3 Sep 10). Footnotes 7, 10, and 23 all had the dollar signs eaten, and in some cases, adjoining figures got swallowed, too. I *think* that it's the first two figures after the $, but a comma makes it OK:

$2,000 became ,000
$11 billion and $40 billion both became simply "billion" (no $, no numbers)
$144,800 became 4,800, no dollar sign.

Weird that it eats exactly two digits, unless a comma appears first, as in the first example. View > Page Source shows the same things missing.

Guess until the root cause is discovered and rectified, it's safer to spell out the dollar amounts than to use the sign. Added a comment to correct, but that was pretty late in the day.

Sorry to dump this on you before a long weekend, but don't worry about it now. Enjoy the weekend, and if I have any more dollar figures, will just spell them out. TIA

Subject: Re: Dollar signs being eaten again

Written By: ChuckyG on 09/04/10 at 8:04 pm


Per previous post, the same issue occurred at this post today (Fri 3 Sep 10). Footnotes 7, 10, and 23 all had the dollar signs eaten, and in some cases, adjoining figures got swallowed, too. I *think* that it's the first two figures after the $, but a comma makes it OK:

$2,000 became ,000
$11 billion and $40 billion both became simply "billion" (no $, no numbers)
$144,800 became 4,800, no dollar sign.

Weird that it eats exactly two digits, unless a comma appears first, as in the first example. View > Page Source shows the same things missing.

Guess until the root cause is discovered and rectified, it's safer to spell out the dollar amounts than to use the sign. Added a comment to correct, but that was pretty late in the day.

Sorry to dump this on you before a long weekend, but don't worry about it now. Enjoy the weekend, and if I have any more dollar figures, will just spell them out. TIA



I just don't get it though.  I've submitted stuff with dollar signs in every field, done previews, etc.  Never duplicated it in IE or Firefox on different machines even.

Subject: Re: Dollar signs being eaten again

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 09/04/10 at 9:44 pm


I just don't get it though.  I've submitted stuff with dollar signs in every field, done previews, etc.  Never duplicated it in IE or Firefox on different machines even.

Confirming: You *do not* see the dollar signs and figures in that parody properly? IOW, does *everyone* not see them, or can anyone here see the missing $ and numbers after?

I have no clues to help you. I submitted the song with a different machine from the one used in the older complaint (old puter fried, as mentioned in "Redundant Updates" thread - probably a hw issue. New HD installed a few months ago, "infant mortality".  :\'(

I've viewed it now with both Firefox 2.x and 3.x branches. Just tried it with IE 6 - no good - so I'm assuming that everyone sees it as I do -- missing.

The only thing I remember from the previous thread was that it happened if the preview pane timed out. Which is pretty often. No matter *how* many times I proofread my text document draft, there's something about seeing it in a WYSIWYG editor, with the nice pastel b/g, that makes hitherto unseen errors become apparent. And for some reason, last-minute improvements - better subs, puns, matches, etc. Plus obsessive-compulsive perfectionism. :wink:

But we solved that by hitting "send", *without* password or security code, which refreshes the cookie or the timer or whatever. (IIRC, you said the cookie should last the length of the session, but I do get an error, "You must have cookies enabled to post a song" or similar. So something's expiring.) I had to do that a couple of times here, given a post of 3,249 words and 19,374 characters, including 25 footnotes. Maybe I forgot to re-check the previews for the dollar-eating, and re-enter them as I used to do the last time we discussed this.

But that's still only a work-around, and doesn't help with the cause. I'd like to enjoy the holiday a bit myself, but when I can, I'll see if I can reproduce it *in the preview pane* (via timeouts), and if so, give you an as thorough and exact as possible set of steps to reproduce, with system info, messages, settings, etc. The fact that you can't reproduce it on various machines and browsers is very weird -- and discouraging for troubleshooting. So, let it go until I can come up with something always reproducible. ... and until then, I'll spell out dollar amounts.  :D

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 09/04/10 at 10:39 pm

OK, got it.

1) Start with a completely blank submission form. Leave *all* fields blank, except:

2) In "Parody Lyrics" box, type:

$100,000

(Edit: Forgot to mention: Preview > shows perfectly; $100,000)

3) Go do something else for an hour or more (shouldn't take that long, but just to be sure).

4) Hit "send".

5) Result: Error message as attached; empty fields properly turn red; and the dollar sign and the *first two digits* after it - no more, no less, disappear -- as shown in pic.

(Uh, this is the first time I've attached anything; don't see them, but saw in Help: "Although most forums are likely be configured to display attached images as part of the post, it's not possible to preview attachments so you should always browse to and attach your files just before you finally post your message." Hope they show OK.)

Win XP SP2 on Firefox 2.0.0.20 (both obsolete, but let's not go there  - it happened when both were current, too).
NoScript add-on to Firefox; amiright.com is in the Whitelist -- all scripting from amiright 2LD is allowed. All other plug-ins prohibited (Java, Flash, Silverlight, etc. but surely not relevant.)

Ask me anything else that you think might help....

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 09/08/10 at 11:02 am


OK, got it.

1) Start with a completely blank submission form. Leave *all* fields blank, except:

2) In "Parody Lyrics" box, type:

$100,000

(Edit: Forgot to mention: Preview > shows perfectly; $100,000)

3) Go do something else for an hour or more (shouldn't take that long, but just to be sure).

4) Hit "send".

5) Result: Error message as attached; empty fields properly turn red; and the dollar sign and the *first two digits* after it - no more, no less, disappear -- as shown in pic.

(Uh, this is the first time I've attached anything; don't see them, but saw in Help: "Although most forums are likely be configured to display attached images as part of the post, it's not possible to preview attachments so you should always browse to and attach your files just before you finally post your message." Hope they show OK.)

Win XP SP2 on Firefox 2.0.0.20 (both obsolete, but let's not go there  - it happened when both were current, too).
NoScript add-on to Firefox; amiright.com is in the Whitelist -- all scripting from amiright 2LD is allowed. All other plug-ins prohibited (Java, Flash, Silverlight, etc. but surely not relevant.)

Ask me anything else that you think might help....


ok.  I can duplicate this with just disabling cookies entirely with Firefox... I should be able to track this down.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 09/08/10 at 11:07 am

even odder... it only happens when it's a numeric value.  I did stuff like $test and it was fine.  I put in a dollar amount like yours, and it breaks in all the fields...

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 09/08/10 at 11:27 am

fixed it.  this was originally PERL code I converted to PHP, and was one of the first things I wrote in PHP... so I did a few things I wouldn't even dream of doing in it now.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 09/08/10 at 7:19 pm

Thanks.

Disabling cookies completely was a clever diagnostic tool to avoid the wait, and also tells me what's happening in my case:
IIUC, *any* server will drop an HTTP connection if there's no communication from the client within some preset time, usually about 20-30 minutes, I think.

*And* the previews probably don't count, because your JS is running them entirely in the browser itself, not through the server, right? (figured that from the fact that I don't think repeated previewing prevents the cookie error, though I could be mistaken.)

Whether or not the second conjecture was true, the long periods in the submission form caused the server to drop the connection.  Hitting "submit" merely establishes a new HTTP connection. Since the cookie is good only *for the session*, the server thinks the previous session is over, and hence doesn't recognize the "old" cookie (or maybe Firefox recognizes the "end of session", and so won't send a session-only cookie.)  Either way, that's why I get the "You must have cookies enabled.." message, even though they're in the permanent allow-list, albeit session-only.

Big time-saver, to disable cookies so you could reproduce without the wait. Thanks for fixing, and Karma to you.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 09/08/10 at 8:44 pm


Thanks.

Disabling cookies completely was a clever diagnostic tool to avoid the wait, and also tells me what's happening in my case:
IIUC, *any* server will drop an HTTP connection if there's no communication from the client within some preset time, usually about 20-30 minutes, I think.

*And* the previews probably don't count, because your JS is running them entirely in the browser itself, not through the server, right? (figured that from the fact that I don't think repeated previewing prevents the cookie error, though I could be mistaken.)

Whether or not the second conjecture was true, the long periods in the submission form caused the server to drop the connection.  Hitting "submit" merely establishes a new HTTP connection. Since the cookie is good only *for the session*, the server thinks the previous session is over, and hence doesn't recognize the "old" cookie (or maybe Firefox recognizes the "end of session", and so won't send a session-only cookie.)  Either way, that's why I get the "You must have cookies enabled.." message, even though they're in the permanent allow-list, albeit session-only.

Big time-saver, to disable cookies so you could reproduce without the wait. Thanks for fixing, and Karma to you.


it was a bug in the script that would occur anytime you'd forget to fill out a field and hit submit, or a wrong security code or a cookie issue.  Anything that caused it to hit the server and refill in the page.  Only happened with dollar signs and numbers though, not with a dollar sign and a letter, so if you wrote Micro$oft it wouldn't effect it. I don't think I was testing all the variations (the most common one) with $100, I'd do a single dollar sign or put it in with a word or something.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: WarrenBaker on 10/13/10 at 6:55 pm

From today, many of us were not able to vote. Below is a sample from the Explorer error:

Webpage error details

User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6.3; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; InfoPath.2; Tablet PC 2.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Timestamp: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:47:36 UTC

Message: Object expected
Line: 146
Char: 1
Code: 0
URI: http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/strawberryalarmclock12.shtml

Message: Object expected
Line: 146
Char: 1
Code: 0
URI: http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/strawberryalarmclock12.shtml

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/13/10 at 8:11 pm

Adding to Warren's info: Error console:

Error: isValidRadio is not defined
Source File: http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/strawberryalarmclock12.shtml
Line: 1


Cookie appears properly:
Site= amiright.com
Cookie name = PHPSESSID

Result: Page freezes with the three radio buttons checked, but can still comment as usual. Will reload page with new comment, but buttons still checked and vote not tallied.

Edit: Add'l info: Intermittent -- the worst kind of bug.  8-P
I was able to vote at the first song looked at today, but not the next.
On the off-chance that voting once now foobars something, restarted browser, which dumps *everything* (cookies etc.) Still couldn't vote at the one described in above error message.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/13/10 at 8:23 pm


Adding to Warren's info: Error console:

Error: isValidRadio is not defined
Source File: http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/strawberryalarmclock12.shtml
Line: 1


Cookie appears properly:
Site= amiright.com
Cookie name = PHPSESSID

Result: Page freezes with the three radio buttons checked, but can still comment as usual. Will reload page with new comment, but buttons still checked and vote not tallied.

Edit: Add'l info: Intermittent -- the worst kind of bug.  8-P
I was able to vote at the first song looked at today, but not the next.
On the off-chance that voting once now foobars something, restarted browser, which dumps *everything* (cookies etc.) Still couldn't vote at the one described in above error message.


I was messing with the parody templates today, and I think I removed some code that handled the voting validation.  I'll have to go digging to see if I can find a backup copy.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/13/10 at 8:51 pm

archive.org to the rescue... my backups are so big I can't even open them in less than 20 minutes.  Anyways, when I was writing the new code to handle the show/hide navigation area link today, I must have accidentally pasted the new function over the function used for the voting scripts. I do remember being a bit confused by some of the behavior of the editor around that time (something highlighted that I didn't intend to, etc). 

hopefully I'm done breaking things for awhile now.  I changed the "Latest Entries" pages for the parodies tonight to have smaller tables which should be the last of the overlapping issues outside of the parody author pages.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/13/10 at 9:56 pm


archive.org to the rescue... my backups are so big I can't even open them in less than 20 minutes.  Anyways, when I was writing the new code to handle the show/hide navigation area link today, I must have accidentally pasted the new function over the function used for the voting scripts. I do remember being a bit confused by some of the behavior of the editor around that time (something highlighted that I didn't intend to, etc). 

Copy/paste errors are the bane of even lawyers (using standard templates for contracts, Court filings, etc.) -- trust me.  8) (No, IANAL -- I Am Not A Lawyer, thank goodness; just have to deal with them, which is even worse.  >:(

hopefully I'm done breaking things for awhile now.  I changed the "Latest Entries" pages for the parodies tonight to have smaller tables which should be the last of the overlapping issues outside of the parody author pages.
Not quite. Replied at your ongoing thread with Patrick at my song, but will reprint just the crux of it here, for convenience. Don't mind at all that song being used for that thread, since a lot of writers and readers don't follow this forum.

"I *do* use that page a lot, actually, but I have it bookmarked as "Last two weeks' songs" (title of bookmark created), so DK to what Patrick was referring. Just noticed Patrick's issue, and yeah, it's very messed up -- *There are no hyperlnks in the parodies themselves*!!!

the old version of *that* page was definitely not broken, IMHO."



Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/13/10 at 11:23 pm


Copy/paste errors are the bane of even lawyers (using standard templates for contracts, Court filings, etc.) -- trust me.  8) (No, IANAL -- I Am Not A Lawyer, thank goodness; just have to deal with them, which is even worse.  >:(
Not quite. Replied at your ongoing thread with Patrick at my song, but will reprint just the crux of it here, for convenience. Don't mind at all that song being used for that thread, since a lot of writers and readers don't follow this forum.

"I *do* use that page a lot, actually, but I have it bookmarked as "Last two weeks' songs" (title of bookmark created), so DK to what Patrick was referring. Just noticed Patrick's issue, and yeah, it's very messed up -- *There are no hyperlnks in the parodies themselves*!!!

the old version of *that* page was definitely not broken, IMHO."






um I just looked at it in both IE and FF and there are hyperlinks on all the song titles.  I have taken the hyperlinks off of the rest of the titles to make them more legible just like the hope page version.

the width of the right navigation panel hasn't changed in six months.  if I made zero changes in the past week, it would have still been broken today

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/14/10 at 2:06 am


um I just looked at it in both IE and FF and there are hyperlinks on all the song titles.  I have taken the hyperlinks off of the rest of the titles to make them more legible just like the hope page version.

See screenshot. No links on the parodies (circled in red).


the width of the right navigation panel hasn't changed in six months.  if I made zero changes in the past week, it would have still been broken today


Sorry for not being more specific in the interest of brevity -- I meant that the format of the "Last Two Weeks' Entries" -- the *entries themselves*  was not broken. I understand now that you meant that it was the navigation panel on the right side that was an issue. Never really noticed it; just went to that page to catch up on older entries missed, and to click the links on them. (Which now are on the OS instead of on the parody.) Sorry for the confusion.

On another related topic, saw your song comment that the fastest way to notify of a serious bug is to email you. Was previously told that the "Bug Watch" thread was continually monitored, so reporting there was the best way (vs. starting new topic, I think).  I get confused easily....

If direct e-mail is fastest, then that's fine. But then none of us knows whether anyone else has reported the same issue, or has additional info.

E. g., when the site was first being reworked, and I posted this, editor Nally immediately jumped in with confirmation (next message following) , which is always helpful, because it rules out it being an issue with one user's browser or settings or whatever. Plus add'l input from Wildard (Ann Hammond) etc. E-mail loses that. But if it's faster for an emergency like the voting box broken, OK -- although there will probably be a lot of dupes.

Whichever you prefer is fine. Just give us some guidelines on what, where. Thanks.  8)

Edit: If there is a way to preview attachments, like the screenshot, I DK what it is -- please educate this dummy. Once it was posted, I clicked the thumbnail. I see that it didn't come out too clearly. I think it made the point, though, because it wasn't the actual words that are important, only where links were and weren't, which can be seen on the page. But if you want a shot at higher res, I can trim it to meet the kb limits and re-send at higher res.

E2: Or (d'oh!) I could just click the zoom once, and it's perfect. And to think that one or two people have accused this writer of being bright (sheesh!)  :-[

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/14/10 at 2:36 am


See screenshot. No links on the parodies (circled in red).

Sorry for not being more specific in the interest of brevity -- I meant that the format of the "Last Two Weeks' Entries" -- the *entries themselves*  was not broken. I understand now that you meant that it was the navigation panel on the right side that was an issue. Never really noticed it; just went to that page to catch up on older entries missed, and to click the links on them. (Which now are on the OS instead of on the parody.) Sorry for the confusion.

On another related topic, saw your song comment that the fastest way to notify of a serious bug is to email you. Was previously told that the "Bug Watch" thread was continually monitored, so reporting there was the best way (vs. starting new topic, I think).  I get confused easily....

If direct e-mail is fastest, then that's fine. But then none of us knows whether anyone else has reported the same issue, or has additional info.

E. g., when the site was first being reworked, and I posted this, editor Nally immediately jumped in with confirmation (next message following) , which is always helpful, because it rules out it being an issue with one user's browser or settings or whatever. Plus add'l input from Wildard (Ann Hammond) etc. E-mail loses that. But if it's faster for an emergency like the voting box broken, OK -- although there will probably be a lot of dupes.

Whichever you prefer is fine. Just give us some guidelines on what, where. Thanks.  8)

Edit: If there is a way to preview attachments, like the screenshot, I DK what it is -- please educate this dummy. Once it was posted, I clicked the thumbnail. I see that it didn't come out too clearly. I think it made the point, though, because it wasn't the actual words that are important, only where links were and weren't, which can be seen on the page. But if you want a shot at higher res, I can trim it to meet the kb limits and re-send at higher res.

E2: Or (d'oh!) I could just click the zoom once, and it's perfect. And to think that one or two people have accused this writer of being bright (sheesh!)  :-[


I see the confusion.  I put the links for the parodies on the originals column instead of the parody column.  It used to be on every field which I thought was more confusing.  I can fix that easily enough.

Email or here is fine.  I monitor both.  If people aren't using inthe00s, then email is preferable to posting on a particular parody where I most likely won't see it.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/14/10 at 7:35 pm


I see the confusion.  I put the links for the parodies on the originals column instead of the parody column.  It used to be on every field which I thought was more confusing.  I can fix that easily enough.


Thanks. One screenshot is worth a thousand words. (karma)

Subject: Dollar sign bug not retro-fixed

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 01/06/11 at 5:25 pm

I may have erred in starting a new topic for this, but my (apparently faulty) thinking was that I wasn't reporting a new bug; it had already been fixed. Just a previous parody that wasn't auto-fixed when you did the PHP code revamp. Thought you watched all new topics, but no reply in a couple of days, so putting it in this high-priority topic.. Details in the link. Sorry if I posted it in the wrong place.

Or maybe you're just busy and haven't gotten to it yet. TIA either way.  :)

Subject: Another "Dollar-Sign Bug" parody, but I'll fix it myself....

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 01/13/11 at 10:39 pm

Just noticed that there are about five examples of the same bug in another parody that was posted before the dollar-sign issue was resolved, namely, "California!".

I caught that late on the day that it was posted and put corrections in the Comment area, and so wouldn't even dream of asking you to search through another 2600+ words of footnotes to fix them. If it's OK, I'd like to just e-mail the entire footnotes with full markup, so that all you have to do  (I hope), is *one* copy/paste of the entire thing into the footnote area on the source page.

Per our e-mail conversation regarding the same issue in the "American Pie" parody referred to in the above post, the only question is that View > Source indicates that your line breaks show as <br /> versus the <br> that I'm used to. If you could just tell me how you want the line breaks formatted, I'll do all the markup and send -- and probably not very soon, being buried in tax statements. >ugh< 

Doesn't look like any other markup needed -- there are links to other songs of mine, but I do my own links to my or others' songs in original Submission Page anyway. Anything else needed to make this a one-minute item for you? TIA.

Subject: Re: Another "Dollar-Sign Bug" parody, but I'll fix it myself....

Written By: ChuckyG on 01/14/11 at 1:30 pm


Just noticed that there are about five examples of the same bug in another parody that was posted before the dollar-sign issue was resolved, namely, "California!".

I caught that late on the day that it was posted and put corrections in the Comment area, and so wouldn't even dream of asking you to search through another 2600+ words of footnotes to fix them. If it's OK, I'd like to just e-mail the entire footnotes with full markup, so that all you have to do  (I hope), is *one* copy/paste of the entire thing into the footnote area on the source page.

Per our e-mail conversation regarding the same issue in the "American Pie" parody referred to in the above post, the only question is that View > Source indicates that your line breaks show as <br /> versus the <br> that I'm used to. If you could just tell me how you want the line breaks formatted, I'll do all the markup and send -- and probably not very soon, being buried in tax statements. >ugh< 

Doesn't look like any other markup needed -- there are links to other songs of mine, but I do my own links to my or others' songs in original Submission Page anyway. Anything else needed to make this a one-minute item for you? TIA.


yeah, <br /> would be best,  that's the new standard for old tags like <br> <img> and a couple others that tend to not have a separate closing tag

if you want, I can cut/paste what I see in my edit box on the parody to you and you can just manipulate that.  sorry I haven't finished the remaining fixes on that other parody yet, I've been goofing off again.

Subject: Re: Another "Dollar-Sign Bug" parody, but I'll fix it myself....

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 01/15/11 at 1:22 pm


yeah, <br /> would be best,  that's the new standard for old tags like <br> <img> and a couple others that tend to not have a separate closing tag.

Wow, thanks for the update - guess I'm out of touch.
For us pea-brains, the simpler, the better, but uniformity is good, too - except that now, there's no *opening* tag instead of no closing tag ... >sigh<.

Also, the slash now goes after the tag and a space, I see? old = </bold>, new = <bold />? Does that apply to *all* the "open/close"-paired tags?


if you want, I can cut/paste what I see in my edit box on the parody to you and you can just manipulate that. 

Might not need to. Is it different from what I see in Firefox View > Page Source, i. e., parody source starts with

<div class="songParodyLyrics">
GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER:<br />Hey, hasta ('til) la vista, Baby! I'll be back! <br /><br />

Then all of the marked-up text in one solid block, and ends with:

(Non-US readers) Official US Postal Service abbreviation for California (CA). If you use something unofficial, they "go postal" on you. ;-(<br /><br />

</div>

<div class="dividingLine"></div>


If so, then no need to send -- I'll just copy that exact portion, from the Lyrics tag to the Dividing Line tag, edit as needed, and send back.
I've attached (I hope) a .pdf with the entire block as I see it in the Source view. If that's what you see, then I'll just edit and e-mail as a Word doc, or whatever you prefer.

If your Edit box has something different, then yes, please send, and I'll edit and send back.  (Pls send as .doc or .odt -- I haven't spent the $ for a really good .pdf editor, only free reader/convert to pdf from word.)

Hey, just realized -- your div closing tags are still the old style, </div>, not the new style, <div /> -- so does the space-slash-at-end apply *only* to the "no-closing" tags? I confuse so easily.... >sigh^2<


sorry I haven't finished the remaining fixes on that other parody yet, I've been goofing off again.


No sweat. As mentioned, in those two cases, the meaning was fairly evident from context, and not that critical. (what shows:) "Take a bill out of your wallet" vs. "Take a $20 bill out of your wallet" -- really doesn't matter if it's a $10 or $5, the point was the same. If you can do them, cool, but *very* low on the priority list. The other errors were the critical ones, like "average salary 4,800/yr" vs. "average salary $144,800/year". Yes, that salary difference will indeed change your life. >wink<  All of those were fixed, thanks. 

Subject: Re: Another "Dollar-Sign Bug" parody, but I'll fix it myself....

Written By: ChuckyG on 01/16/11 at 5:14 pm


Wow, thanks for the update - guess I'm out of touch.
For us pea-brains, the simpler, the better, but uniformity is good, too - except that now, there's no *opening* tag instead of no closing tag ... >sigh<.

Also, the slash now goes after the tag and a space, I see? old = </bold>, new = <bold />? Does that apply to *all* the "open/close"-paired tags?
Might not need to. Is it different from what I see in Firefox View > Page Source, i. e., parody source starts with

<div class="songParodyLyrics">
GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER:<br />Hey, hasta ('til) la vista, Baby! I'll be back! <br /><br />

Then all of the marked-up text in one solid block, and ends with:

(Non-US readers) Official US Postal Service abbreviation for California (CA). If you use something unofficial, they "go postal" on you. ;-(<br /><br />

</div>

<div class="dividingLine"></div>


If so, then no need to send -- I'll just copy that exact portion, from the Lyrics tag to the Dividing Line tag, edit as needed, and send back.
I've attached (I hope) a .pdf with the entire block as I see it in the Source view. If that's what you see, then I'll just edit and e-mail as a Word doc, or whatever you prefer.

If your Edit box has something different, then yes, please send, and I'll edit and send back.  (Pls send as .doc or .odt -- I haven't spent the $ for a really good .pdf editor, only free reader/convert to pdf from word.)

Hey, just realized -- your div closing tags are still the old style, </div>, not the new style, <div /> -- so does the space-slash-at-end apply *only* to the "no-closing" tags? I confuse so easily.... >sigh^2<

No sweat. As mentioned, in those two cases, the meaning was fairly evident from context, and not that critical. (what shows:) "Take a bill out of your wallet" vs. "Take a $20 bill out of your wallet" -- really doesn't matter if it's a $10 or $5, the point was the same. If you can do them, cool, but *very* low on the priority list. The other errors were the critical ones, like "average salary 4,800/yr" vs. "average salary $144,800/year". Yes, that salary difference will indeed change your life. >wink<  All of those were fixed, thanks. 


it's only for tags that don't have an ending tag after something.  <b> </b> is still used to surround what it applies to.  The big three that are affected are <img> <hr> and <br>. 

Subject: Re: Another "Dollar-Sign Bug" parody, but I'll fix it myself....

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 01/16/11 at 10:44 pm


it's only for tags that don't have an ending tag after something.  <b> </b> is still used to surround what it applies to.  The big three that are affected are <img> <hr> and <br>. 

Cool, thanks.
So, was my attached .pdf the same as what you see in your Edit box, in which case, I can just make the changes myself and send to you?
Preferred format for me to send to you - .doc, .odt., .pdf?
If not the same as what you see in your Edit box, pls copy/send your Edit box material as .doc or .odt. Thanks.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Are you still on this?

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 02/02/11 at 5:20 pm

Ready to rock 'n roll on fixing this; just need to confirm whether the attachment here was in fact the same as you see in your Edit box. (I'll attach again.)
If so, all I need to do is edit it and e-mail it to you, and it should be a one-minute copy/paste item for you.

Please advise preferred format: .doc, .odt., .rtf., .txt., .pdf?

Also, just spotted another parody with the same pre-fix issue: "Econ 101 Turtle: TT"
(Maybe should quit writing on financial matters. >grin< )

If the attached isn't the same as your Edit box, please PM or e-mail me your lyrics content on those two, in any of the above formats except .pdf (I don't have a costly editor for that), and I'll edit and send back.  Reiterating the original parody in question: "California!"

TIA.

Subject: "Colon bug"? -- like former "dollar sign" bug

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/06/11 at 6:27 am

I DK if you can reproduce this, but I just had it happen twice in a row. The song is in the submission queue for today as I write this.

Background: Even after proofing a song draft endlessly, I still end up tweaking it in the submission form, finding mistakes better because of the nice pastel b/g and the WYSIWYG aspect; finding last-minute improvements, and because I'm rapidly going senile.

Problem: After a while, cookie expires. Loses all.

Solution, per ChuckyG: Hit "Send", with no pw or sec code; refreshes cookie when error message appears.

This last came up regarding the "dollar-sign bug" (somewhere on this forum), long since fixed, where the two numbers after a dollar sign were "eaten".

New problem: Text after colon disappears upon refreshing as above.

Title as correctly previewed:
Sarah, I'll Miss (Palin: "Not POTUS Candidate")

Upon refreshing cookie as above:
Sarah, I'll Miss (Palin:

IOW, everything after the colon was dropped from the title field.

Fixed it, twiddled with it some more, refreshed as above, by sending w/o pw; same thing happened.

Successfully submitted with the full title showing, and assume it came through that way.

Question: Is there anything in your code that a colon would signify, and are they not escaped out as dollar signs were supposed to be (but apparently weren't, until fixed)? .. and would cause this in the exact sequence described?

If you DK and can't easily reproduce, no big deal. Who knows if it will ever happen again? TIA.

Subject: Re: "Colon bug"? -- like former "dollar sign" bug

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/06/11 at 9:42 am


I DK if you can reproduce this, but I just had it happen twice in a row. The song is in the submission queue for today as I write this.

Background: Even after proofing a song draft endlessly, I still end up tweaking it in the submission form, finding mistakes better because of the nice pastel b/g and the WYSIWYG aspect; finding last-minute improvements, and because I'm rapidly going senile.

Problem: After a while, cookie expires. Loses all.

Solution, per ChuckyG: Hit "Send", with no pw or sec code; refreshes cookie when error message appears.

This last came up regarding the "dollar-sign bug" (somewhere on this forum), long since fixed, where the two numbers after a dollar sign were "eaten".

New problem: Text after colon disappears upon refreshing as above.

Title as correctly previewed:
Sarah, I'll Miss (Palin: "Not POTUS Candidate")

Upon refreshing cookie as above:
Sarah, I'll Miss (Palin:

IOW, everything after the colon was dropped from the title field.

Fixed it, twiddled with it some more, refreshed as above, by sending w/o pw; same thing happened.

Successfully submitted with the full title showing, and assume it came through that way.

Question: Is there anything in your code that a colon would signify, and are they not escaped out as dollar signs were supposed to be (but apparently weren't, until fixed)? .. and would cause this in the exact sequence described?

If you DK and can't easily reproduce, no big deal. Who knows if it will ever happen again? TIA.




probably not the colon... might be the quote marks. I'm assuming it's something with the timeout things, because I'm pretty sure people have submitted titles like that before.  I forget how I tested these time out issues before so I can try and reproduce it.

Subject: Re: "Colon bug"? -- like former "dollar sign" bug

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/06/11 at 7:57 pm


probably not the colon... might be the quote marks. I'm assuming it's something with the timeout things, because I'm pretty sure people have submitted titles like that before.  I forget how I tested these time out issues before so I can try and reproduce it.

Don't think quotes inside the title field have been a problem before, e. g.

Who Put The "Blam" In The Ramadan Of Islam?
Ewe: "Don't Clone Me!"
Guess I'm An Old Fogey (The "F-Word" Song)

Those span from Sep 2007 to August 2009.

OK, just discovered easy way to reproduce - and you're right, it isn't the colon (or the timeout), it's the quotes.
I must not have spent so much time submitting the above, OR it's a regression error that sneaked in when other stuff was fixed post-August 2009

To reproduce:

Parody submission page: Enter in Title field,
Hello "World" (skip  the other fields)

Hit "Send"

Result: Error messages, of course.

Hit "Preview"

Preview now shows title as
Hello

So sending without security code, or wrong one (misreading sec code) chops off whatever is quoted in the title field. Haven't checked whether this applies to other fields.
But I just went through the above cycle several times, and it is 100% reproducible.

I can send screenshots if needed, but it seems you should get the same results.

Subject: Re: "Colon bug"? -- like former "dollar sign" bug

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/06/11 at 8:10 pm


Don't think quotes inside the title field have been a problem before, e. g.

Who Put The "Blam" In The Ramadan Of Islam?
Ewe: "Don't Clone Me!"
Guess I'm An Old Fogey (The "F-Word" Song)

Those span from Sep 2007 to August 2009.

OK, just discovered easy way to reproduce - and you're right, it isn't the colon (or the timeout), it's the quotes.
I must not have spent so much time submitting the above, OR it's a regression error that sneaked in when other stuff was fixed post-August 2009

To reproduce:

Parody submission page: Enter in Title field,
Hello "World" (skip  the other fields)

Hit "Send"

Result: Error messages, of course.

Hit "Preview"

Preview now shows title as
Hello

So sending without security code, or wrong one (misreading sec code) chops off whatever is quoted in the title field. Haven't checked whether this applies to other fields.
But I just went through the above cycle several times, and it is 100% reproducible.

I can send screenshots if needed, but it seems you should get the same results.




no that's cool... I'm pretty sure I have an idea of what it might be.  I'll fix it tomorrow

Subject: Re: "Colon bug"? -- like former "dollar sign" bug

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/06/11 at 10:26 pm


no that's cool... I'm pretty sure I have an idea of what it might be.  I'll fix it tomorrow


Great, thanks.

Subject: Re: "Colon bug"? -- like former "dollar sign" bug

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/07/11 at 1:40 pm


Great, thanks.


should be ok now... the quote marks needed to get re-encoded as HTML entities for display in the form.  Probably affected all the forms on the site that were single line text fields. Honestly surprised I never noticed it before.

Subject: Re: "Colon bug"? -- like former "dollar sign" bug

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/07/11 at 5:56 pm


should be ok now... the quote marks needed to get re-encoded as HTML entities for display in the form.  Probably affected all the forms on the site that were single line text fields. Honestly surprised I never noticed it before.


Well, aren't you glad to have ol' TT to find these things for you? (KIDDING!)

Seriously, thanks for prompt fix.  :)

Subject: Re: Can't vote on parodies

Written By: kilgore523 on 10/09/11 at 2:57 pm

Tried voting on a parody after I read it and commented, and it asked me to confirm my vote, then said I didn't have cookies enabled for AmIRight and can't vote until I enabled them.

I have my cookies enabled for sites that I visit, so I had to post this...



Andria

Subject: Re: Can't vote on parodies

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/09/11 at 5:33 pm


Tried voting on a parody after I read it and commented, and it asked me to confirm my vote, then said I didn't have cookies enabled for AmIRight and can't vote until I enabled them.

I have my cookies enabled for sites that I visit, so I had to post this...


no idea what the problem could be... I tried it with IE 6 and Firefox and both worked fine for me.  Someone else complained about it to me in email, so not sure what the commonality is between the two of you.  I believe the other person uses AOL.

Subject: Re: Can't vote on parodies

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/09/11 at 5:48 pm


Tried voting on a parody after I read it and commented, and it asked me to confirm my vote, then said I didn't have cookies enabled for AmIRight and can't vote until I enabled them.
I have my cookies enabled for sites that I visit, so I had to post this...


@ ChuckyG: Just confirmed this, in both Firefox 3.6.23, and in an old Fx 2.0.0.20, kept around for exactly such diagnostics. Starting from scratch (empty cookie folder), Both browsers whitelist cookies from both domains, AIR and 00s. Voting alone wouldn't even set the cookie, in either browser.
Commenting was not a problem and produced the cookie, www.amiright.com PHPSESSID, could click the vote radio buttons, but clicking "confirm" produced the error message Andria got,
You do not have cookies enabled!

So it won't give you a cookie at all just for voting; commenting produces a cookie, but it won't "read" it, or something.

If you need screenshots or more tech details, let me know.

Edit: Direct cable service, Win XP, NoScript with AIR and 00s whitelisted.

Subject: Re: Can't vote on parodies

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/09/11 at 5:57 pm


@ ChuckyG: Just confirmed this, in both Firefox 3.6.23, and in an old Fx 2.0.0.20, kept around for exactly such diagnostics. Starting from scratch (empty cookie folder), Both browsers whitelist cookies from both domains, AIR and 00s. Voting alone wouldn't even set the cookie, in either browser.
Commenting was not a problem and produced the cookie, www.amiright.com PHPSESSID, could click the vote radio buttons, but clicking "confirm" produced the error message Andria got,
You do not have cookies enabled!

So it won't give you a cookie at all just for voting; commenting produces a cookie, but it won't "read" it, or something.

If you need screenshots or more tech details, let me know.

Edit: Direct cable service, Win XP, NoScript with AIR and 00s whitelisted.



yeah, I just noticed the issue appears to be isolated to voting, not commenting.  Which is awful for me, because the code is at least ten years old and hasn't changed in almost as long a time. No idea what is causing the problem.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/09/11 at 6:13 pm

ARGH!!!! I figured it out... so simple, so stupid.  Guess it has been around ten years since I wrote it.

$expDate = "Wednesday, 09-Oct-11 00:00:00 GMT";

I hard coded the expiration date for the voting cookies... stupid stupid stupid.

I'll put the year in there based on the current year instead of picking a date ten years out from today.

Needless to say, I fixed the issue.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/09/11 at 6:29 pm


ARGH!!!! I figured it out... so simple, so stupid.  Guess it has been around ten years since I wrote it.

$expDate = "Wednesday, 09-Oct-11 00:00:00 GMT";

I hard coded the expiration date for the voting cookies... stupid stupid stupid.

I'll put the year in there based on the current year instead of picking a date ten years out from today.

Needless to say, I fixed the issue.


If you'll pardon me, ROFL! -- the Y2k bug, almost 12 years later.  :)
I would have caught that for you, except that by allowing session cookies only, "Expires:" always shows as "End of session", regardless of the actual exp date.
At one time I had Add 'n Edit Cookies add-on, which would have read the whole thing as written, but never used it, so dropped it.

Some sites use a date 30 or 40 years out. Then it won't bug (heh!) you for another 30 years....

You're saying that exp will be a variable, i. e.. {current.year+1} or something? Well, whatever works. This must have been a head-banger, though -- dealing with 10-yr-old code.
Sympathies.  8)

Edit:  $expDate = "Wednesday, 09-Oct-11 00:00:00 GMT";  ... would have been a Sunday. In 2001, was there not capability to look at dates ten years ahead? (part kidding, part curious - really)
XP came out in 2001, I didn't get it until SP2 in 2005, but the calendar runs until 2099.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/09/11 at 7:39 pm


If you'll pardon me, ROFL! -- the Y2k bug, almost 12 years later.  :)
I would have caught that for you, except that by allowing session cookies only, "Expires:" always shows as "End of session", regardless of the actual exp date.
At one time I had Add 'n Edit Cookies add-on, which would have read the whole thing as written, but never used it, so dropped it.

Some sites use a date 30 or 40 years out. Then it won't bug (heh!) you for another 30 years....

You're saying that exp will be a variable, i. e.. {current.year+1} or something? Well, whatever works. This must have been a head-banger, though -- dealing with 10-yr-old code.
Sympathies.  8)

Edit:  $expDate = "Wednesday, 09-Oct-11 00:00:00 GMT";  ... would have been a Sunday. In 2001, was there not capability to look at dates ten years ahead? (part kidding, part curious - really)
XP came out in 2001, I didn't get it until SP2 in 2005, but the calendar runs until 2099.


I think it was that I didn't know much about doing dates in PERL at the time, and didn't bother to research it further either.  I also think now it had to be eleven years ago, I seem to remember coding it in the fall of 2000.  Either way... yeah, I made it current year + 1 now.  Maybe I should change it so it doesn't expire so often.  I don't want to set it to some ridiculous number, because I think that might set some flags in a browser or cause other issues.

Didn't happen with the comment system, because I re-wrote that with PHP a few years.  The voting system has been due for a rewrite as well, the HTML portion at the very least.  I did a lot of things I'm not proud of.  It works though, so I don't feel like messing with it. 

The comment system needs a captcha replacement that is visually impaired friendly.  I've gotten at least one request for it.  Still not sure what to implement on that front. Don't want recaptcha because those are overkill, and frankly a little annoying.

I got around to making another little surprise tonight too... bet you find it first. 

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/09/11 at 10:10 pm


<snip>.  Either way... yeah, I made it current year + 1 now.  Maybe I should change it so it doesn't expire so often.

If that's truly a variable drawn from the current year and adding one year, e. g. today's cookie expires Oct. 09, 2012, and tomorrow's expire Oct. 10, 2012, etc., I don't see that as a problem -- seems like a pretty good solution, IMHO. Even those who login "forever" or keep cookies "forever" would just get a new one when the old one expires -- *if* the code called for that, rather than giving an error message as per OP.

If it's not coded that way (to auto-replace expired cookies), then yeah, current date + 5 or 10 years might be less future trouble.

  I don't want to set it to some ridiculous number, because I think that might set some flags in a browser or cause other issues.

I've seen a lot of 30-year cookies around the Web, back when I used to look at expiration dates. I don't think anything up to 30 years upsets any browser AFAIK; if it does, I DK of it.

The comment system needs a captcha replacement that is visually impaired friendly.  I've gotten at least one request for it.  Still not sure what to implement on that front. Don't want recaptcha because those are overkill, and frankly a little annoying.

The standard solution is an audio file. Impaired reader types or dictates (to VRT) what s/he hears.

I got around to making another little surprise tonight too... bet you find it first. 


YAY!!!!

Actually, I was through with the site for the evening, but had a hunch after reading your post, and sure enough....

THANK YOU on behalf of us many klutzy typists. I know that Warren Baker, among others, begged for this too.
So, three Karmas, representing a huge improvement, and on behalf of those who will benefit, but don't follow this forum or know of the request by Your Humble Servant and others.

Edit:
OOPS.... "Can't give another Karma for 24 hrs." ... OK, they'll get there. And surely everyone else who appreciates this feature, originally requested by (cough) (cough) here and here, will be adding their own thanks to you.  8)

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/09/11 at 10:50 pm


I've seen a lot of 30-year cookies around the Web, back when I used to look at expiration dates. I don't think anything up to 30 years upsets any browser AFAIK; if it does, I DK of it.


I haven't seen many issues with, but with all the focus on cookies and security lately, I start to wonder if people aren't going to begin noticing the dates these things have set more often.


The standard solution is an audio file. Impaired reader types or dictates (to VRT) what s/he hears.


yeah, I was trying to avoid that route and replace the image captcha with something else entirely.  Probably just going to wuss out and do the audio thing in the end.


Actually, I was through with the site for the evening, but had a hunch after reading your post, and sure enough....

THANK YOU on behalf of us many klutzy typists. I know that Warren Baker, among others, begged for this too.
So, three Karmas, representing a huge improvement, and on behalf of those who will benefit, but don't follow this forum or know of the request by Your Humble Servant and others.


I was waiting until I did the captcha overhaul, but when I was in there tonight, I decided to take a look. I was embarrassed at how dang easy it was to code up.  Should have done it when you asked... so maybe not worthy of three karmas... I'll take two instead.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/09/11 at 11:42 pm


I haven't seen many issues with, but with all the focus on cookies and security lately, I start to wonder if people aren't going to begin noticing the dates these things have set more often.


It's no trouble for me to re-install the Firefox cookie-editor add-on, and just notice the dates of a few. "People" don't notice them at all, only techies LOL -- and that's a very small minority. If 30-yr cookies aren't tripping alarms, it's probably cool. Will be back in a day or two or three with results of cookie exp. dates.

yeah, I was trying to avoid that route and replace the image captcha with something else entirely.  Probably just going to wuss out and do the audio thing in the end.


Other than the PM I recently sent you, here's an idea, FWIW: If you have only one such user, assign them a permanent security code via a validated e-mail address, or PM here may be even better.  (Maybe even more than three characters.) Hopefully, a small addition to the coding of validation (in pseudo-code):

Security.code=true OR Security.code = Ab18cs = (valid).

I was waiting until I did the captcha overhaul, but when I was in there tonight, I decided to take a look. I was embarrassed at how dang easy it was to code up.  Should have done it when you asked... so maybe not worthy of three karmas... I'll take two instead.


OK, but on behalf of those who supported the request and won't give the K, or maybe aren't here so much ....  ;)

Subject: Cookie lifespans

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/10/11 at 12:53 am

Turns out I didn't need the cookie editor after all. The browser is locked down so tightly against storing any cookies beyond session, I just had to undo the Chinese-nested-box maze of security.  :-2041.

If the common site to access Flash player downloads and such isn't tripping browser alarms with cookies eight days shy of 30 years, I think we're safe with whatever number of years you think best.

That was easy. Back to session-only.  8)

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/10/11 at 2:51 pm


Other than the PM I recently sent you, here's an idea, FWIW: If you have only one such user, assign them a permanent security code via a validated e-mail address, or PM here may be even better.  (Maybe even more than three characters.) Hopefully, a small addition to the coding of validation (in pseudo-code):

Security.code=true OR Security.code = Ab18cs = (valid).
OK, but on behalf of those who supported the request and won't give the K, or maybe aren't here so much ....  ;)


yeah, I thought about that too... but I'd rather have a more robust solution that doesn't require people to contact me first.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/10/11 at 5:47 pm


yeah, I thought about that too... but I'd rather have a more robust solution that doesn't require people to contact me first.


A couple of others I've seen, both in image form rather than text, to make it harder for bots:

"Multiply three and eight. Type the answer in the box" -- could be in large type for the visually-impaired, or they could click a button for a larger version.

"Cat, friend, car, bug. Type the one that is *not* a living thing" -- or something along those lines.
I don't think bots can do that, and doubt that AIR gets enough views for them to pay kids in Thailand to solve them all day long.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/10/11 at 10:46 pm


A couple of others I've seen, both in image form rather than text, to make it harder for bots:

"Multiply three and eight. Type the answer in the box" -- could be in large type for the visually-impaired, or they could click a button for a larger version.

"Cat, friend, car, bug. Type the one that is *not* a living thing" -- or something along those lines.
I don't think bots can do that, and doubt that AIR gets enough views for them to pay kids in Thailand to solve them all day long.


yeah, the Q&A thing was one of the routes I was thinking of.. I'll probably just do the audio thing though.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/11/11 at 12:43 am

(second Karma for adding parody comment preview)

Subject: Re: Cookie lifespans

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/13/11 at 11:05 am


Turns out I didn't need the cookie editor after all. The browser is locked down so tightly against storing any cookies beyond session, I just had to undo the Chinese-nested-box maze of security.  :-2041.

If the common site to access Flash player downloads and such isn't tripping browser alarms with cookies eight days shy of 30 years, I think we're safe with whatever number of years you think best.

That was easy. Back to session-only.  8)


I did a little Google search, and apparently 2038 is the max date that should be set due to some browsers not supporting dates past that 64 bit boundary (the next Y2K type issue).  Either way, I'm happy enough with just pushing it out a year past the current year right now.

Subject: Re: Cookie lifespans

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/13/11 at 9:02 pm


I did a little Google search, and apparently 2038 is the max date that should be set due to some browsers not supporting dates past that 64 bit boundary (the next Y2K type issue).  Either way, I'm happy enough with just pushing it out a year past the current year right now.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.... I thought it was the 32-bit boundary? Sources say 64 bits supports about 300 billion years -- I think we're all safe there --  ;D -- except where struct tm uses a 32-bit signed integer, in which case, it's barely more than two billion years. That's cutting it a bit close.  :o

"Most operating systems designed to run on 64-bit hardware already use signed 64-bit time_t integers, effectively eliminating the Year 2038 problem in any software that has been developed to use the extended format."

I'm sure that long before then, all browsers will support it.
My Fx 3 didn't have any trouble with Adobe's 2041 cookie now. (Edit: Neither does obsolete Fx2.) I DK how Firefox reads those, but whatever, I'm on a 32-bit system, and it works.

Glad you replied. Had wondered if my post about cookie lifespan was missed, or anything been done in that regard.

That site (Adobe) might be a good place to test all your stuff, and all supported platforms and browsers, to see if they support the post-2038 exp.date?

Only important thing left (assume you already did this) is to ensure that expired cookies are replaced with fresh ones, by default.
I'd guess that you're going to refresh the cookie, incl. exp. date, on each visit, but once in a while, someone who hasn't been here (AIR) in more than a year comes back.
If they had permanent cookie storage, and display the expired cookie, will your code as written auto-replace it, rather than give the error message in the OP?

(uh-oh. looks like someone sneaked in that third Karma after all.  :D )

Subject: Re: Cookie lifespans

Written By: ChuckyG on 10/14/11 at 6:40 pm


Oh yeah, I forgot about that.... I thought it was the 32-bit boundary? Sources say 64 bits supports about 300 billion years -- I think we're all safe there --  ;D -- except where struct tm uses a 32-bit signed integer, in which case, it's barely more than two billion years. That's cutting it a bit close.  :o

"Most operating systems designed to run on 64-bit hardware already use signed 64-bit time_t integers, effectively eliminating the Year 2038 problem in any software that has been developed to use the extended format."

I'm sure that long before then, all browsers will support it.
My Fx 3 didn't have any trouble with Adobe's 2041 cookie now. (Edit: Neither does obsolete Fx2.) I DK how Firefox reads those, but whatever, I'm on a 32-bit system, and it works.

Glad you replied. Had wondered if my post about cookie lifespan was missed, or anything been done in that regard.

That site (Adobe) might be a good place to test all your stuff, and all supported platforms and browsers, to see if they support the post-2038 exp.date?

Only important thing left (assume you already did this) is to ensure that expired cookies are replaced with fresh ones, by default.
I'd guess that you're going to refresh the cookie, incl. exp. date, on each visit, but once in a while, someone who hasn't been here (AIR) in more than a year comes back.
If they had permanent cookie storage, and display the expired cookie, will your code as written auto-replace it, rather than give the error message in the OP?

(uh-oh. looks like someone sneaked in that third Karma after all.  :D )


I set it a year ahead.  if it expires, it requires new one to be set before you can vote.  I imagine that most people don't have them last that long anyways.  Maybe I could set it out further, but hardly seems necessary. 

Subject: Re: Cookie lifespans

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 10/14/11 at 8:43 pm


I set it a year ahead.  if it expires, it requires new one to be set before you can vote.  I imagine that most people don't have them last that long anyways.  Maybe I could set it out further, but hardly seems necessary. 

Cool. Thanks.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: agrimorfee on 01/04/12 at 3:07 pm

Problem...
The pop up ad on this page cannot be removed, so one cannot click on the Latest Comments links (particularly mine!)

http://www.amiright.com/parody/authors/

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 01/04/12 at 3:27 pm


Problem...
The pop up ad on this page cannot be removed, so one cannot click on the Latest Comments links (particularly mine!)

http://www.amiright.com/parody/authors/


There's no popup there for me, nor should there ever be a popup ad on any of my sites. I don't run ads like that.  You might have adware on your PC.


send me a screenshot if you still think it's on my end

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: agrimorfee on 01/05/12 at 10:41 pm


There's no popup there for me, nor should there ever be a popup ad on any of my sites. I don't run ads like that.  You might have adware on your PC.


send me a screenshot if you still think it's on my end


I clicked on the link inside the ad, and it is "AdSense from Google".  I guess I have to adjust my gmail settings to deal with the problem (it happens on my Android phone and my laptop). Take a look at what I found if you are curious:
http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/static.py?hl=en&gl=US&client=ca-pub-1475700848612418&ts=1631343&page=ts.cs&adU=mediaplex.com&rd=3&contact=abg_afc&url=http:%2F%2Fwww.amiright.com%2Fparody%2Fauthors%2F&adT=ImageAd

EDIT: so I went in to Ads Preferences Manager to block the current demographics and preferences. To permenantly opt out of the AdSense automatic ad placement, i have to download a plugin from google...requiring IE 6. A lot of good that does on an Android phone! Yeesh.  :o >:(

And EDIT:  since I cant disable it permanently on my Android, now there is a white box where the ad was, about one third of the way down on the right side of the screen. I will be able to get the plugin for for the laptop I think. I will get  in touch with you if that doesnt seem to work there.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 01/06/12 at 8:23 am


I clicked on the link inside the ad, and it is "AdSense from Google".  I guess I have to adjust my gmail settings to deal with the problem (it happens on my Android phone and my laptop). Take a look at what I found if you are curious:
http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/static.py?hl=en&gl=US&client=ca-pub-1475700848612418&ts=1631343&page=ts.cs&adU=mediaplex.com&rd=3&contact=abg_afc&url=http:%2F%2Fwww.amiright.com%2Fparody%2Fauthors%2F&adT=ImageAd

EDIT: so I went in to Ads Preferences Manager to block the current demographics and preferences. To permenantly opt out of the AdSense automatic ad placement, i have to download a plugin from google...requiring IE 6. A lot of good that does on an Android phone! Yeesh.  :o >:(

And EDIT:  since I cant disable it permanently on my Android, now there is a white box where the ad was, about one third of the way down on the right side of the screen. I will be able to get the plugin for for the laptop I think. I will get  in touch with you if that doesnt seem to work there.


strange.  I do run adsense ads, but I was under the impression they didn't allow popup ads.  I wonder if one of their partners is running them when they shouldn't.  weird that Google who makes the Chrome browser would require a plugin for IE6 to opt of something.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: agrimorfee on 01/06/12 at 5:37 pm


strange.  I do run adsense ads, but I was under the impression they didn't allow popup ads.  I wonder if one of their partners is running them when they shouldn't.  weird that Google who makes the Chrome browser would require a plugin for IE6 to opt of something.

I confused the issue by calling it a pop up ad. It isn't. Nevertheless the box still sits there on top of the content. I will have time tonight to hop on my laptop and see what is going on. Fortunately as far as the phone goes, I bookmarked the link to my latest comments a while ago, so it is really isnt that bad of an issue for me. But as you say, strange.

EDIT: So I did look on my laptop, and the Adsense ad is properly formatted to the far right, not covering any content.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 01/08/12 at 2:46 pm


I confused the issue by calling it a pop up ad. It isn't. Nevertheless the box still sits there on top of the content. I will have time tonight to hop on my laptop and see what is going on. Fortunately as far as the phone goes, I bookmarked the link to my latest comments a while ago, so it is really isnt that bad of an issue for me. But as you say, strange.

EDIT: So I did look on my laptop, and the Adsense ad is properly formatted to the far right, not covering any content.


I tried to make sure the ads wouldn't cover anything when scrunched way down, might be an issue with a particular page or something.  I'd definitely like to know, when you get the chance. 

Subject: Font rendering issue with Firefox?

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 01/22/12 at 4:45 am

This parody has a lot of symbols in it, mostly math. It always displayed properly, except for one slight glitch about the "function", ƒ , which was discussed with Red Ant in the Comments.

Recently revisited it for the first time in a long time. Reproduced the following on both currently-supported versions of Firefox, 3.6.25 and 9.01, on Windows XP:

Last line of third verse (not counting intro lines) was submitted as:

+ √e (- e - e - e)

and it displayed fine. I would have been using Firefox 2.x at the time.

Now, it shows as:

+ √ℯ (- ℯ - ℯ - ℯ)

Two more verses down, last line, successfully submitted and displayed as:

Probability: p (-e-e-e)

Same result: Now displays in both browsers as:

Probability: p (-ℯ-ℯ-ℯ)

(If the 21/2F is supposed to mean anything, I can't see that as "e" in any ASCII, Extended, etc. chart. Looks like "e" should be 65 in hex, or U+0065.)

I checked with JSView add-on for Firefox. AIR scripts and amiright.css are successfully called and loaded.
Brief search of the 35k .css showed only two specific references to Gecko (for everyone besides ChuckyG, that's the name of the internal "engine" of the Firefox browser, not an annoying car insurance advertisement character >wink< ), neither of which appeared to bear on this issue.

Only other thing I could think of was a change in site font, which did happen in the redesign, correct?
This is an old machine, and newer ones have a Fonts folder about 3x the size of this one.

Style sheet mentions Times New Roman, Arial, and sans-serif (MS Sans Serif, I hope?), all of which are indeed in my folder \Windows\Fonts. Helvetica and Georgia are also mentioned. Didn't find them in Fonts folder, but IIUC, in such cases, Windows is supposed to look and substitute the font closest in appearance, right?

Also, it doesn't matter whether I copy/paste here from the actual Web page, or from its source code. It shows the same goofy squares in both.

NoScript blocks @font-face, but there's no indication that the site is using that, and unblocking it doesn't change the display problem.

So: In what font are actual parodies displayed now? If I don't have it, it's easy enough to add.

Or can anyone else with Firefox on Windows (especially older Win) reproduce this?

btw, the rest of the song, including symbols, Σ, Δ, and √, still show up just fine. And so does the letter "e". It's the string,
"-e-e-e" that seems to glitch. Is that a clue? ... but the first instance had spaces between, and the second didn't.  ???

TIA.

ETA: I don't have any other browsers (IE, Safari, etc.) to test on, nor any other OS available.

Subject: Re: Font rendering issue with Firefox?

Written By: ChuckyG on 01/22/12 at 11:07 am


This parody has a lot of symbols in it, mostly math. It always displayed properly, except for one slight glitch about the "function", ƒ , which was discussed with Red Ant in the Comments.

Recently revisited it for the first time in a long time. Reproduced the following on both currently-supported versions of Firefox, 3.6.25 and 9.01, on Windows XP:

Last line of third verse (not counting intro lines) was submitted as:

+ √e (- e - e - e)

and it displayed fine. I would have been using Firefox 2.x at the time.

Now, it shows as:

+ √ℯ (- ℯ - ℯ - ℯ)

Two more verses down, last line, successfully submitted and displayed as:

Probability: p (-e-e-e)

Same result: Now displays in both browsers as:

Probability: p (-ℯ-ℯ-ℯ)

(If the 21/2F is supposed to mean anything, I can't see that as "e" in any ASCII, Extended, etc. chart. Looks like "e" should be 65 in hex, or U+0065.)

I checked with JSView add-on for Firefox. AIR scripts and amiright.css are successfully called and loaded.
Brief search of the 35k .css showed only two specific references to Gecko (for everyone besides ChuckyG, that's the name of the internal "engine" of the Firefox browser, not an annoying car insurance advertisement character >wink< ), neither of which appeared to bear on this issue.

Only other thing I could think of was a change in site font, which did happen in the redesign, correct?
This is an old machine, and newer ones have a Fonts folder about 3x the size of this one.

Style sheet mentions Times New Roman, Arial, and sans-serif (MS Sans Serif, I hope?), all of which are indeed in my folder \Windows\Fonts. Helvetica and Georgia are also mentioned. Didn't find them in Fonts folder, but IIUC, in such cases, Windows is supposed to look and substitute the font closest in appearance, right?

Also, it doesn't matter whether I copy/paste here from the actual Web page, or from its source code. It shows the same goofy squares in both.

NoScript blocks @font-face, but there's no indication that the site is using that, and unblocking it doesn't change the display problem.

So: In what font are actual parodies displayed now? If I don't have it, it's easy enough to add.

Or can anyone else with Firefox on Windows (especially older Win) reproduce this?

btw, the rest of the song, including symbols, Σ, Δ, and √, still show up just fine. And so does the letter "e". It's the string,
"-e-e-e" that seems to glitch. Is that a clue? ... but the first instance had spaces between, and the second didn't.  ???

TIA.

ETA: I don't have any other browsers (IE, Safari, etc.) to test on, nor any other OS available.


I tried it with the preview function over on Metafilter and the browser renders it the same over there.  Must be something new with Firefox.  I'm guessing it sees the square root sign and renders everything after it in a math font of some sort.

Subject: Re: Font rendering issue with Firefox?

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 01/22/12 at 5:50 pm


I tried it with the preview function over on Metafilter and the browser renders it the same over there.  Must be something new with Firefox.  I'm guessing it sees the square root sign and renders everything after it in a math font of some sort.

OK, that would account for the first instance.

But the second instance has no symbols at all, only the letter "P", space, parenthesis:

Probability: p (-e-e-e)

? ? ?

ETA: Congrats on the Pats, if you're a fan. :-)

Subject: Re: Font rendering issue with Firefox?

Written By: ChuckyG on 01/22/12 at 6:04 pm


OK, that would account for the first instance.

But the second instance has no symbols at all, only the letter "P", space, parenthesis:

Probability: p (-e-e-e)

? ? ?

ETA: Congrats on the Pats, if you're a fan. :-)


no idea really.  it's a browser quirk I'm not aware of

I'm a casual fan at best... but I did watch it, and was stunned by the ending.  Not as stunned as Baltimore of course.

Subject: Re: Font rendering issue with Firefox?

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 01/22/12 at 7:12 pm


no idea really.  it's a browser quirk I'm not aware of

I know what a PITA it must be for site devs to have to code differently for IE vs. (the rest of the world, lol), but Firefox and Chrome are gaining market share rapidly. Depending on whose survey you read, IE may not even have a plurality any more, but it definitely doesn't have the majority share now, as it did ten years ago.

There's Bugzilla if you'd care to search for an existing bug or file a new one. There may be an easy fix - slight adjustment for if.Gecko.etc.

I'm a casual fan at best... but I did watch it, and was stunned by the ending.  Not as stunned as Baltimore of course.
Not a big follower myself, ever since a sandlot football game left a permanent knee injury  :(

But yeah, the 2nd-down catch in the end zone was full possession for at least a second -- play ends right there; touchdown; subsequent punch-out irrelevant. And 3rd down was blatant pass interference. The def. pushed the receiver three consecutive times before the ball arrived, beyond the permitted one contact < 5 yds from line of scrimmage. But no flag thrown.

Must be that "home-field advantage" they always talk about.  ;D (I have no particular affinity for either team.)

Subject: Re: Font rendering issue with Firefox?

Written By: ChuckyG on 01/23/12 at 3:07 pm


OK, that would account for the first instance.

But the second instance has no symbols at all, only the letter "P", space, parenthesis:

Probability: p (-e-e-e)


it's not the letter e, it's definitely some kind of UTF-8 character you used when submitting.  I just looked at the HTML source.  If I disable UTF by removing the  "charset=UTF-8" reference at the top of the page it goes away.  It has something to do with the browser font and how they want to display the character.  If you want the letter e and not the mathmatical constant I could see how that would be a problem?  Not sure what the problem is really. 

Subject: Re: Font rendering issue with Firefox?

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 01/23/12 at 9:44 pm


it's not the letter e, it's definitely some kind of UTF-8 character you used when submitting.  I just looked at the HTML source.  If I disable UTF by removing the  "charset=UTF-8" reference at the top of the page it goes away.  It has something to do with the browser font and how they want to display the character.  If you want the letter e and not the mathmatical constant I could see how that would be a problem?  Not sure what the problem is really.

Wow, this is weird. I just looked at the parody with Firefox 2, which would have been used to submit it in 2007, and Firefox 9, the latest version, side-by-side, on the same machine and OS.
F2 displays both sets of "e-e-e" just fine. F9 doesn't. (Neither did F3.)

So I took all three browsers to http://www.elizabethcastro.com/html/extras/entities.html, and *none* of them displayed all of the Math entity characters correctly - about 80% failure rate.

Yes, I did want the *look* of the math constant, Euler's Number, natural log base, etc. But since it wouldn't have previewed correctly in F2, I *think* I just went with italics. Which of course were stripped out by your editor and displayed as plain block text. (At the time, IDK that italics were restricted to top/bottom comments.) But "x", "y", and "p" converted OK, and I can see the "e" in F2. But not in F3-9. No clue.

In fact, when you used that log-base e character *here*, it displayed the same goofy box with the 212F in it. So I'm convinced it's nothing on your end. Could you please tell me the hex code or entity for that character, so that I can research it on my own a bit? It seems that for some reason, Firefox is not rendering a lot of math symbols, despite having its own math-related files.

Maybe there needs to be a special Math font in %windir%\Fonts. I can try to grab a newer machine, same browser, and see if it makes a difference.
But FWIW, Firefox has its own files for some of this.

Aha!
Without boring you too much, the math-related files, names, places, and contents are very different between F2 and F3. Clearly, for the worse in the latter. 

Every time they "improve" Firefox, they make it worse. (Same with anything else in IT-land, like, say, Windows Vista :evil grin:)
F3 was worse than F2. F9 is worse than F3. This issue occurs in F3-F9, but not in F2. Else I'd surely have complained about it when it was posted, right? (Is there F2 at that Metafilter site that you used, in case you're curious enough to confirm this?)


Anyway, I'll have to take this issue to Mozilla and find out what's going on, and what needs to happen to make these render correctly. Would you like the results posted here, or not? No offense taken either way.

Thanks for all your time and trouble.

Subject: Re: Font rendering issue with Firefox?

Written By: ChuckyG on 01/23/12 at 10:03 pm


In fact, when you used that log-base e character *here*, it displayed the same goofy box with the 212F in it. So I'm convinced it's nothing on your end. Could you please tell me the hex code or entity for that character, so that I can research it on my own a bit? It seems that for some reason, Firefox is not rendering a lot of math symbols, despite having its own math-related files.


I'm not getting the goofy box.  Your OS is using an incomplete font in the browser to render the page.  212F indicates the numeric value of the missing character.  Did you check the wiki page I linked to on the e above? Does that page render properly for you?

Subject: Re: Font rendering issue with Firefox?

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 01/24/12 at 12:17 am


Did you check the wiki page I linked to on the e above? Does that page render properly for you?

Not here in your link, and not in the Address Bar at the Wiki article, but it shows OK in the article's title and throughout the article.

But it looks like they're just using an italic "e" in the latter two:

<!-- firstHeading -->
<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><span class="texhtml"><i>e</i></span> (mathematical constant)</h1>

<!-- /firstHeading -->
<!-- bodyContent -->
<div id="bodyContent">
<!-- tagline -->
<div id="siteSub">From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</div>
<!-- /tagline -->
<!-- subtitle -->
<div id="contentSub">  (Redirected from <a href="/w/index.php?title=%E2%84%AF&amp;redirect=no" title="ℯ">ℯ</a>)</div>

Note the <i>e</i> in the second line (article title), but (to me) goofy boxes or blank squares for "title=", right before the div closure.

Your OS is using an incomplete font in the browser to render the page.  212F indicates the numeric value of the missing character.
Agreed. As said, will grab a newer machine, and if the issue doesn't occur, see what font is missing and load it in the old one. ... Wait, are you saying a Windows font, or a font in Firefox?

212F hex = 8495 dec. Most of the hex codes I see for characters are only two hex bytes each. E.g., %21%2F (or 33-47 dec) = !/
"!/" can't be right. Do you have time to educate me? (quick learner >wink<)

Subject: Re: Font rendering issue with Firefox?

Written By: ChuckyG on 01/24/12 at 9:56 pm


Not here in your link, and not in the Address Bar at the Wiki article, but it shows OK in the article's title and throughout the article.

But it looks like they're just using an italic "e" in the latter two:


cheaters


212F hex = 8495 dec. Most of the hex codes I see for characters are only two hex bytes each. E.g., %21%2F (or 33-47 dec) = !/
"!/" can't be right. Do you have time to educate me? (quick learner >wink<)


UTF uses two bytes to describe characters, so it's really 21 and 2F hex.  There's some funkyness with the first byte so that it recognizes it's an extended character and reads the second byte as part of the character, so that non-extended characters A-Z, 0-9, etc are still just one byte.  I don't have to deal with it often (all MS web crap at work, no foreign language support needed) so I haven't studied it extensively.  I was building some JSON files a few months ago which is the only reason I even studied up on it to be honest.

The site wouldn't have converted to UTF-8 automatically... you must have cut/pasted them from somewhere at the time and you don't remember.

Subject: Re: Font rendering issue with Firefox?

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 01/25/12 at 12:51 am

First, an "oops" correction:

Most of the hex codes I see for characters are only two hex bytes each.
Of course, I meant "two hex characters" = one byte. Sorry, and thanks for the free pass on that.

Not here in your link, and not in the Address Bar at the Wiki article, but it shows OK in the article's title and throughout the article. But it looks like they're just using an italic "e" in the latter two:

cheaters

ROFL!!!! ... indeed! 


UTF uses two bytes to describe characters, so it's really 21 and 2F hex.  There's some funkyness with the first byte so that it recognizes it's an extended character and reads the second byte as part of the character, so that non-extended characters A-Z, 0-9, etc are still just one byte.  I don't have to deal with it often (all MS web crap at work, no foreign language support needed) so I haven't studied it extensively.  I was building some JSON files a few months ago which is the only reason I even studied up on it to be honest.

The site wouldn't have converted to UTF-8 automatically... you must have cut/pasted them from somewhere at the time and you don't remember.

Probably. Still doesn't explain why F2 renders the "e-e-e" in the song OK to this very day, while the newer ones don't, but that's definitely my problem to solve now, not yours.

Are you interested in the results, if/when? Again, no offense taken if not.

And *thank you VERY much* for your time, effort, and education. (Karma)

Subject: Re: Font rendering issue with Firefox?

Written By: ChuckyG on 01/25/12 at 12:59 pm


Are you interested in the results, if/when? Again, no offense taken if not.


yes... I'm always getting asked about weird stuff on computers, so anything that furthers my knowledge even if I never use it again, generally helps me solve some other issue later.

Subject: Re: Font rendering issue with Firefox?

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 01/25/12 at 10:43 pm


yes... I'm always getting asked about weird stuff on computers, so anything that furthers my knowledge even if I never use it again, generally helps me solve some other issue later.

Same here. ... And thanks for the face-saving on two-byte UTF:
I don't have to deal with it often (all MS web crap at work, no foreign language support needed) so I haven't studied it extensively.  I was building some JSON files a few months ago which is the only reason I even studied up on it to be honest.
Now I don't feel so ignorant. >wink<

The font issue isn't super-high on the TODO list, so unknown time frame, but will def. post back with what I find.
Until then,
Cheers. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink004.gif

Subject: Re: Font rendering issue with Firefox?

Written By: Tommy Turtle on 01/27/12 at 4:45 am

What I've discovered so far, as briefly as reasonably possible:

(abbr used)
F2 = Firefox 2.0.0.20 (obsolete), used when parody was originally submitted in 2007.
F3 =          3.6.25, still supported for security fixes
F9              9.01, latest supported version.

From http://www.marathon-studios.com/unicode/U212F/Script_Small_E:
U+212F is the Unicode hex value of the character Script Small E, which is categorized as "lowercase letter" in the Unicode 6.0 character table.

In addition, U+212F is a composite character comprising of one or more other Unicode characters modified or combined.

In line with what you said about using two bytes for one "special" character. Kudos.

Shows a rendering test on the side, with HTML, Hex, and Dec versions. All failed on F3-F9.

On F2, it shows as a plain, lower-case "e". Consistent with how the song renders in F2 (plain e) but not in F3/9.

Reproduced in Parody Submission Preview (makes a wonderful HTML editor for testing, TUVM)

Conclusion: F2 had a more graceful fallback mechanism for unrecognized font entities. Why throw that away?
*************************

Using a newer machine, the e-e-e renders as an actual script e on all three browsers.

Search Firefox Help (online)

Search "unicode"
Resulting link chosen (top link)

"Fonts not displaying properly"

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/907003?s=unicode&r=0&e=sph&as=s
A square box with numbers means that Firefox doesn't find a font that covers the Unicode range and in that case you need to install a font that does cover it.

Cranked up a newer machine, same Win XP.

Result: Script "e"s render properly in all three browsers.

Conclusion: The newer machine has a font that's needed in the older one.
Easy way out: Copy Font folder from new to old. But that adds about 360 more files.
Stubborn way: Find out which font.  Haven't done that yet.

Future way: If ever use Euler's # again, will just use an italic e -- d'oh.
*********************************

Other issue: the "function" symbol in the line that starts with f(x). Submitted with entity &fnof;

Doesn't render in *any* of the browsers, on *either" machine, but previews fine in Parody Submission, just as when I submitted it (or else, wouldn't have submitted until fixed).

Yet it renders fine in the Comments section. (See Red Ant and TT exchange.) - All three browsers, both machines.

Is there a difference in your coding, or parsing, of the actual parody display vs. Comments display?

Did the use of what was apparently a copy-pasted Euler's "e" trigger that UTF-8 in the parody itself -- while the remainder of the page was unaffected, thus allowing the function entity to render properly in the Comments?

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Indy Gent on 02/27/12 at 10:31 pm

I would like to return to editing the amiright categories that I used to work on, and/or those that haven't been edited in awhile (Commercial songs, Proposed Duets, etc.). Please update me on any changes in the editing process and send me a list of categories to choose from. My e-mail is naughty9@earthlink.net. Thanks. :)

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: nally on 11/18/13 at 3:42 pm

Okay, today I noticed something weird.

This morning I was looking at an Artist Summary Page for a performer or two that I know has a ton of misheard lyric entries submitted to the site, yet it only listed one or two entries. I know that if there's more than four, a link will appear below that section of the page, saying "There are additional (performer name here) misheard lyrics available." And so I checked additional Artist Summary Pages for artists that have been around since the early days of the site, and I found similar situations. It seems that no misheard lyric entry submitted after March 2001 appears on an Artist Summary Page (except for certain artists with only one entry that were submitted later than that). However, the misheard lyric entries on the Misheard Lyric pages themselves are still intact.

Here's one such instance of an artist summary as described above:
http://www.amiright.com/artists/souliisoul.shtml
Only three misheard lyrics entries can be seen there (once you scroll down to the section where it says "Misheard Lyrics"). However, there are 16 total misheard entries for this band, as seen on the Misheard Lyrics page.

Methinks there must be a bug, which is why I'm discussing it here.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: nally on 11/19/13 at 9:17 am


Okay, today I noticed something weird.

This morning I was looking at an Artist Summary Page for a performer or two that I know has a ton of misheard lyric entries submitted to the site, yet it only listed one or two entries. I know that if there's more than four, a link will appear below that section of the page, saying "There are additional (performer name here) misheard lyrics available." And so I checked additional Artist Summary Pages for artists that have been around since the early days of the site, and I found similar situations. It seems that no misheard lyric entry submitted after March 2001 appears on an Artist Summary Page (except for certain artists with only one entry that were submitted later than that). However, the misheard lyric entries on the Misheard Lyric pages themselves are still intact.

Here's one such instance of an artist summary as described above:
http://www.amiright.com/artists/souliisoul.shtml
Only three misheard lyrics entries can be seen there (once you scroll down to the section where it says "Misheard Lyrics"). However, there are 16 total misheard entries for this band, as seen on the Misheard Lyrics page.

Methinks there must be a bug, which is why I'm discussing it here.

It seems to have been fixed now. They are showing up properly.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 11/21/13 at 8:08 am


It seems to have been fixed now. They are showing up properly.


weird.  I didn't do anything because I forgot to check into it, maybe the script timed out or something that day

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: WarrenBaker on 01/12/14 at 9:39 pm

It looks like the extended info in the parody author's area is offline. I've tried it on different computers and different browsers, but it looks like the table that has a list of parodies, number of views, ratings, etc. is not available. No error message. Just nothing there but the web mast and links to other areas on the site.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 01/13/14 at 11:04 am


It looks like the extended info in the parody author's area is offline. I've tried it on different computers and different browsers, but it looks like the table that has a list of parodies, number of views, ratings, etc. is not available. No error message. Just nothing there but the web mast and links to other areas on the site.


Apparently my hosting provider upgraded my version of PHP and it broke the 3rd party tool I was using on that page.  Thankfully the fix was very simple.

I'm still dealing with a couple other problems that cropped up recently. So keep your eyes peeled for more fun

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: TOR Hershman on 02/01/14 at 4:45 pm

Sorry, Chuck, this old ape didn't see this post.

Anywho, I can't get the Amazon link, for a new parody cover, to go though.
Could it be IE 8?

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 02/01/14 at 10:34 pm


Sorry, Chuck, this old ape didn't see this post.

Anywho, I can't get the Amazon link, for a new parody cover, to go though.
Could it be IE 8?


might be a change in how amazon handles things, not sure.  let me know the link and I'll test it

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: TOR Hershman on 02/02/14 at 3:16 pm


might be a change in how amazon handles things, not sure.  let me know the link and I'll test it


Here they are and thank you, Chuck.
http://www.amazon.com/there-Anybody-Out-There/dp/B00GCV9S3Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1391375681&sr=1-1&keywords=a+great+big+world+is+there+anybody+out+there

http://www.amazon.com/Too-True-Dum-Girls/dp/B00GZAHH6E/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1391375618&sr=1-1&keywords=dum+dum+girls+too+true

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 02/02/14 at 5:02 pm


Here they are and thank you, Chuck.
http://www.amazon.com/there-Anybody-Out-There/dp/B00GCV9S3Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1391375681&sr=1-1&keywords=a+great+big+world+is+there+anybody+out+there

http://www.amazon.com/Too-True-Dum-Girls/dp/B00GZAHH6E/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1391375618&sr=1-1&keywords=dum+dum+girls+too+true


yeah, amazon definitely changed something on me, 'cuz nothing works.  I'll look into it.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 02/02/14 at 5:15 pm

fixed it... I upgraded my PHP version a couple weeks ago, it apparently broke a few scripts that used older methods for passing things around.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: TOR Hershman on 02/02/14 at 6:40 pm

We're half way there, Chuck.

The Amazon link went through just fine but when I tried to upload me JPEG image, I got this...
File not supplied, or file too big. There appears to be a problem with either your image.

The one image, for the Dum Dum Girls parody, was 99K and the other larger, but not that much.
I even converted one image to a PNG and got - no response.

Windows 8 giveth &&&&&&&

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 02/02/14 at 9:59 pm


We're half way there, Chuck.

The Amazon link went through just fine but when I tried to upload me JPEG image, I got this...
File not supplied, or file too big. There appears to be a problem with either your image.

The one image, for the Dum Dum Girls parody, was 99K and the other larger, but not that much.
I even converted one image to a PNG and got - no response.

Windows 8 giveth &&&&&&&


send it to me in email, probably still a problem with the upload script.  I knew i should have done more testing after the upgrade

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: TOR Hershman on 02/03/14 at 11:29 am

Chuck, I don't see ye's E.
Mine is under me avatar if you wish to E me
then I'll E ye with the parodyyyyyyy.
IEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: agrimorfee on 12/22/14 at 9:04 pm

I am having trouble leaving comments at this parody for some reason, at my laptop and my phone. It just simply doesn't take the submission. It just expires, closes the Submit Comment button, like nothing else happened. Bug?

http://amiright.com/parody/90s/megadeth11.shtml

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: agrimorfee on 12/23/14 at 6:41 am


I am having trouble leaving comments at this parody for some reason, at my laptop and my phone. It just simply doesn't take the submission. It just expires, closes the Submit Comment button, like nothing else happened. Bug?

http://amiright.com/parody/90s/megadeth11.shtml

8)
Apparently fixed or fine now. Thanks if it was your fix!

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 12/24/14 at 6:24 am


8)
Apparently fixed or fine now. Thanks if it was your fix!


it wasn't anything I did... maybe your phone didn't download the page properly or something

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: nally on 08/27/15 at 2:28 pm

As reported in another thread, the whole site appears to be down at the moment. :(

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: Indy Gent on 08/27/15 at 4:14 pm


it wasn't anything I did... maybe your phone didn't download the page properly or something


The site was down when I tried to pull it up on the PC.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 08/27/15 at 6:44 pm


The site was down when I tried to pull it up on the PC.


yeah that's my fault.  I tried moving it to a dedicated IP address and screwed up something.  My hosting company is looking into it for me

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: nally on 03/11/16 at 1:49 pm

Artist Summary page with nothing on it??

http://www.amiright.com/artists/midlifecrisis.shtml

How is that even possible?

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/15/16 at 9:18 am


Artist Summary page with nothing on it??

http://www.amiright.com/artists/midlifecrisis.shtml

How is that even possible?


there's one entry on there... probably should be more though

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: nally on 03/15/16 at 6:05 pm


there's one entry on there... probably should be more though

Well, over the weekend there weren't any. The reason there's one entry now is because I approved one over the weekend. Are there any other entries on the site with that performer name? If so, I'm not sure what other sections they could be in.

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: ChuckyG on 03/16/16 at 10:27 pm


Well, over the weekend there weren't any. The reason there's one entry now is because I approved one over the weekend. Are there any other entries on the site with that performer name? If so, I'm not sure what other sections they could be in.


there might not be, I thought that page required multiple entries for a performer, but maybe if there was and now there isn't, it still gets made?  might be a bug.  I'm sure we'll get another entry for it anyways

Subject: Re: Bug watch - Report amIright issues in this thread please

Written By: nally on 03/17/16 at 6:30 pm


there might not be, I thought that page required multiple entries for a performer, but maybe if there was and now there isn't, it still gets made?  might be a bug.  I'm sure we'll get another entry for it anyways

Thanks for the info. I was hesitant to accept additional entries for it because it was a rather obscure performer (but according to Allmusic.com, there is such a band).

If I spot another artist summary page that has no entries listed on it, I'll post its link on here. (That is, if I don't get any entries for any with whatever the performer name is.)

Usually if there are two entries for a performer name on the site, there'll be a page created for it. That's what I've noticed.

Check for new replies or respond here...