Has This Ever Happened to You?

[Thunderfist12]

I was posting earlier and the site gave me this:

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae33/thunderfist12/Picture2_zpsed21ab43.png

So I couldn't post one second earlier? Is it seriously that big of a deal?

So anyways, you guys got any on-site pop-up horror stories?:smallbiggrin:

[Dallas-Dakota]

I've gotten it a lot back in the days when the SMBG didn't have the three-post rule and I was still really active there. And in Random Banter.

[Teddy]

I was posting earlier and the site gave me this:

*error*

So I couldn't post one second earlier? Is it seriously that big of a deal?

See it this way, these restrictions are imposed by the server, and a server doesn't know the concept of bending rules "just a little" (or at all, to start with). Sure the forum software could be configured to 59 seconds, but then you'd try and post in 58 seconds and ask why you had to wait just one more second (and why the time was set so arbitrary). :smallwink:

As for pop-ups, I can't remember any horror stories, but I've on a pair of occations gotten a pop-up from a page with its header reading "The webpage on [URL] says:", and its message consisting of the single word "Error", followed by an "OK" button. I must say I find those signs hilarious, because apparently something went wrong, but there's no way for me to know what went wrong, no way for me to react upon it, and no loss of functionality on the page once I click it away, so the question is why I'm even alerted about it to start with... :smallwink:

[KillianHawkeye]

Personally, I can't believe the programmer didn't encode an exception to leave the 's' off the end of 'seconds' in the event that the number of seconds was only 1.

[Thunderfist12]

Personally, I can't believe the programmer didn't encode an exception to leave the 's' off the end of 'seconds' in the event that the number of seconds was only 1.

Yeah, that surprised me.

[thubby]

Personally, I can't believe the programmer didn't encode an exception to leave the 's' off the end of 'seconds' in the event that the number of seconds was only 1.

paying for the extra lines of code to fix the grammar of an event that has something like a 2% chance of happening probably isnt worth it.
cheaper and quicker would have been to put the s in () for all cases.

[gooddragon1]

paying for the extra lines of code to fix the grammar of an event that has something like a 2% chance of happening probably isnt worth it.
cheaper and quicker would have been to put the s in () for all cases.

Hah! Code sniping! NERDS!!!!!

Just kidding, I'm an IS major. But you can't really error proof everything I guess.

[nedz]

I get it occasionally, it's an anti SPAM measure I think.

[Proud Tortoise]

As for pop-ups, I can't remember any horror stories, but I've on a pair of occations gotten a pop-up from a page with its header reading "The webpage on [URL] says:", and its message consisting of the single word "Error", followed by an "OK" button. I must say I find those signs hilarious, because apparently something went wrong, but there's no way for me to know what went wrong, no way for me to react upon it, and no loss of functionality on the page once I click it away, so the question is why I'm even alerted about it to start with... :smallwink:

Reminds me of the phone calls I get sometimes:

[Recorded voice] "Due to a technical error, we are unable to communicate with you at this time."

[KillianHawkeye]

I was actually being sarcastic. I realize that the odds of there being only 1 second left are less than 2%.

[Tylorious]

it stinks man but its the rule.

[Jay R]

I admit that, for me, having to wait one second doesn't qualify as a "horror story".

[valadil]

paying for the extra lines of code to fix the grammar of an event that has something like a 2% chance of happening probably isnt worth it.
cheaper and quicker would have been to put the s in () for all cases.

That or the coder didn't happen to make a post 59 seconds after his first post. Speaking from experience it's an error that's really easy to make and forget about until you see it live.

[Tylorious]

That or the coder didn't happen to make a post 59 seconds after his first post. Speaking from experience it's an error that's really easy to make and forget about until you see it live.

As a coder, I must say, this conversation has gotten out of hand.

[Jay R]

The error message was short and specific, and gave you the exact information you needed to fix the situation, with a trivial grammar error that did not interfere with communication.

There's nothing wrong here.

[FullStop]

Part of me now wants to write forum software that has a listed post cooldown of 60 seconds, but at the time you post it actually randomizes between 45 and 75 seconds just to Nixon with people.

[Aedilred]

Part of me now wants to write forum software that has a listed post cooldown of 60 seconds, but at the time you post it actually randomizes between 45 and 75 seconds just to Nixon with people.
I would be totally on board with that.

[SiuiS]

I've made posts that were so long I didn't even get a "your post is XX,000 characters long. The post limit is 50,000 characters." Notice. The page just... Failed.

[FullStop]

I've made posts that were so long I didn't even get a "your post is XX,000 characters long. The post limit is 50,000 characters." Notice. The page just... Failed.

That's...huh. Sounds like someone placed their bounds-checking poorly, temporally speaking.

[inexorabletruth]

The timers are a small price to pay to limit the amount of spam on the forum. However, I'm having a hard time seeing the benefit of spam filters with sooooo much spam on Friendly Banter. Still, anything they can do to keep that crap off the boards is a good thing, I suppose. I can wait 60 seconds.