Re: This forums Bug

huwyngr · ‎04-13-2008

The same bug happens after the captcha period is over so there is no reason to believe that captcha is causing it for us "old timers" which hopefully you will become.

But I can't add anything more.

Hugh

delphinium · ‎11-21-2008

twixt:

You may be perfectly correct in what you say but it is NOT the only reason for the error that you are seeing. We all still get it occasionally. I got the same thing just recently and I have been here since 2008. We have complained about it before. If Lithium was ever planning on fixing it, they would have done so by now.

Under certain circumstances profanity provides relief denied even to prayer.
Mark Twain

twixt · ‎09-26-2011

delphinium wrote:
twixt:

You may be perfectly correct in what you say but it is NOT the only reason for the error that you are seeing. We all still get it occasionally. I got the same thing just recently and I have been here since 2008. We have complained about it before. If Lithium was ever planning on fixing it, they would have done so by now.

Hi, delphinium. Then this would indicate we are talking about two separate bugs.

Bug 1 (the one I describe) will only occur for people with a postcount less than 10 (IOW Newbie, Visitor and the first post after an upgrade to Contributor).

Unfortunately, these are exactly the people for whom Preview is likely to be something they really want to use. And when it doesn't work - and then they have the experience of having no idea why they can't preview - their first experience of the Forums is soured by that. Not very good at all.

That's why I did the digging I did.

I found the problem, noted the circumstances, and replied to iNic describing what I had found and the resolution to the problem.

So, I suggest that this bug (Bug 1) be fixed. It only affects users where reCAPTCHA is in place.

I now think I understand that huwyngr's original response to iNic is in reference to the bug you "old boys" are describing (Bug 2). I think this is an HTML display-complexity bug where the Forum Software is overwhelmed in its analysis of the HTML - such that it flags the post as defective even when it is not. reCAPTCHA is not involved in this situation.

Bug 2 is something different entirely from the bug I think iNic was describing - because he was a Contributor at the time of his post and still in the "must use reCAPTCHA" phase of his experience here.

Hope this helps.

delphinium · ‎11-21-2008

Considering that iNic has 36 posts and is well past the captcha, it would seem more likely that it would be your bug 2. Regardless, a difference which makes no difference is no difference. Maybe Lithium will eventually look at it.

Under certain circumstances profanity provides relief denied even to prayer.
Mark Twain

twixt · ‎09-26-2011

delphinium wrote:
Considering that iNic has 36 posts and is well past the captcha, it would seem more likely that it would be your bug 2. Regardless, a difference which makes no difference is no difference. Maybe Lithium will eventually look at it.

You did not read my original post, or you did not comprehend my original post.

A new user puts "asdf" into the Rich Text box. That's all he puts in the box. And the problem is as I describe.

Bug 1 has nothing to do with Bug 2.

Now, can Bug 2 occur in a Bug 1 situation? Of course.

But the two are not the same thing.

You "old boys" - by your continual making-of-excuses and rationalizing -the-problem - are perpetuating something that is fixable. You are causing new users angst for no reason. This is stupid from a business-practices POV. Stop it.

Bug 1 is a *simple* problem, and easy to fix. I might consider Bug 2 something more complex, but I don't know enough about the situation to comment intelligently. So I wont.

dickevans · ‎04-08-2008

twixt,

You have 'assumed' that you are the first to notice or report on the problem. You are also aware that the software is the property of another company and they have the responsibility to make and necessary repairs. Which makes you rants at the other users, who do not have the access or authority, to make the changes sound rather childish and very much out of place.

As a note of information not everyone here is an 'old boy'

Dick
Win7x64 SP1 current NIS V20

twixt · ‎09-26-2011

dickevans wrote:
twixt,
You have 'assumed' that you are the first to notice or report on the problem. You are also aware that the software is the property of another company and they have the responsibility to make and necessary repairs. Which makes you rants at the other users, who do not have the access or authority, to make the changes sound rather childish and very much out of place.
As a note of information not everyone here is an 'old boy'

Hi, Dick. Agreed, with the proviso that we are talking about Bug 2 not Bug 1. Bug 1 is - as far as I can see from the subsequent information provided - not the problem reported in the originating post.

Regardless, the Bug 1 situation remains to be dealt with.

And I am quite aware that there are lots of people here who aren't "old boys". That does not excuse the situation.

I am also perfectly aware that the problem is outside the Forum Messenger's (any Forum Messenger's) control. That does not mean it is acceptable to explain-away the situation rather than report it and have it dealt with productively.

Bug 1 needs acknowledging and fixing. Especially because it is a new-user front-facing bug. A person entering the Forums for the first time needs to have the smoothest experience possible - because they're usually coming here because something else is broken as far as they are concerned. New Users don't get to use Preview with the situation as it is - even with the simplest of responses - because of Bug 1. Worse than that, there is no explanation for why Preview fails in that situation. They're just left stuck and incapable of doing anything other than posting a sloppy message.

And , to reiterate, that is not the way for Symantec as a corporation or "the powers that be" in the Forum to win friends and influence people.

All that is required for now is to test and verify the bug as described - and then acknowledge the bug and the workaround as described.

With that in place, I would expect to see further acknowledgement that Lithium has had the bug reported to them for correction - and a subsequent acknowledgement that Lithium is either unresponsive to solving the problem or that the problem has been tested and verified as solved.

All standard practice for bug-reporting and problem resolution in a Corporate environment.

Britton30 · ‎09-28-2011

twixt, you are being unreasonable. Norton does not supply this forum's software and have no control over it but you insist on still complaining that "that's not how it should be" They all agree with you, but again you reiterate your statements. This is my personal opinion, you are trolling. If you want to be a part of a really informative forum, use it as such and quit worrying and considering "the way it should be". I'm really new here and none of that has bothered me so far, get over it.

Lithium has many bugs, call them.

Dave_Coleman · ‎04-07-2008

I'm going to lock this thread from any further posts. It has served it's purpose, allowing iNic to report a bug.

If another bug is found at a later date, feel welcome to open another thread. One thread per bug is ideal. That way we can track and follow them better.

Thanks,
Dave

* * THREAD LOCKED FROM FURTHER POSTS * *