FWIW, photos are capped at something like 800px wide. I forget what we set it at. But it's that way so photos don't extend beyond the post body and stretch the lines of text with it, requiring users to scroll or, have them miss out on words if we set the overflow to hidden. I think we either need to educate our users on using imgur's built in resizing naming convention or encourage users to upload adequately sized photos to their host of choice.

It would be nice if the internal links on the "Learn @ Cemetech" wiki weren't (almost) the same color as the links to pages that don't exist (redlinks).

Using the Inspect tool in Google Chrome, I gather that the internal links (all across the site) are #a00 (#aa0000), while the wiki's redlinks are #ba0000. Those colors are quite difficult to distinguish with the unaided eye. I don't think the site-wide internal link color should be changed, so if I were to suggest an alternative color for the redlinks, I suppose #ba00aa might work. It's a purple-ish color that stands out enough to say "this isn't a normal link".

The thing is that purplish is a standard color for visited links. If anything we'd probably change the wiki stylesheet so that the links are a different color than the proper red links. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll see what we can do to make this easier.

Mentions

(that thing where you type @Alex and it notifies him via e-mail and in the sidebar that he was mentioned in a post). yAronet had this feature since 2004 and both CodeWalrus and soon afterwards Omnimaga got it in late 2014 and it can be handy when someone asks a calculator question that can only be answered by 1 or 2 specific users (for example, JamesV, Jonimus or Travis with TI-86 questions)

This is something I've brought up privately in our admin topics. I can't find the topic so I can't quote with accuracy but the majority of us were more interested in maintaining our current forum than upgrading. Omnimaga and CW both use a different forum software; I'm not well versed in the specifics but I would assume a system like mentions would require a huge rewrite of some backend functions.

We do have a long term goal of moving platforms and we are actively doing behind the scenes work to support this; mostly decluttering the code that has been tacked on over the years. For example, the SAX rewrite was apart of this initiative. It's not clear when we'll be finished or if we'll ever really move away from phpBB. Any platform we decide to move to or create ourselves will need to work with the existing phpBB database or we'll need to find/create a converter.

Long story short, Mentions are not a short term possibility.

Add [video] tags which map onto <video> HTML5 tags and let us embed mp4's and webm's (also gifv from imgur - simply change gifv extension to mp4 automatically).

That's part of BBCode, and that would be hard to implement indeed. I believe there is a way, as you can do it on CW.

If this site uses phpBB, which I think it does, follow these instructions to install a [video] tag. Doesn't seem too hard.

That's actually a pretty good suggestion!



Make up your mind! Haha. Yes, we use phpBB and adding new tags is something we are familiar with doing.

I get slightly annoyed whenever I click on a topic in the "Go to the new posts" and it says that the topic does not exist.

While I know that this means (usually) that it is a staff page and not viewable to normal profiles, it agitates me a bit seeing this page.
While this may be hard to implement (I dont know much about how the site profiles are read in pages), I propose a change.

• When these posts are clicked, it should display a correct message, instead of lying to me, or, better yet,
  
• Topics that users don't have privileges to access are hidden from view on forum search results, mainly in the "Go to the new posts" section.
  

Again, this is not a huge issue, just a Suggestion.

Well, that is not an admin topic, since admin topics are hidden for normal users at all. I guess it's a MC topic, and I find it annoying as well. We might add some code to make them hidden as well somehow.

Allow the [url] to properly accept links with ! in them instead of having to type in the code for !

That is more like a bug report, since that are valid URL's as well. The same applies to ( and ) as well.

Here's a suggestion for SAX to prevent unintentional spam (which isn't really a problem, but here's my 2 cents):

If you say the same thing as the user in front of you, it should automagically replace your response with the traditional '^^', saying that you did the same thing/you agree.

This is a major usability issue. The admins don't know how to implement this, or don't care. I've been annoying them about it for years to no avail.

Have you, though? This is the first I'm aware of hearing about it. Certainly you enjoyed complaining about SAX reporting on non-public posts, but that's since been changed.
I don't think your attribution is entirely correct. Though in some situations it's probably true (because I can't see any result filtering based on user permissions in the search code), I know there is a legitimate bug in how the forum handles pagination sometimes where it claims a topic has n pages but attempting to view page n results in that same message while page n-1 works correctly and contains the most recent post- this seems to be an off-by-one because when it does appear it goes away when another post is added to the thread.

As for why it claims things don't exist if you don't have permission to see them: anything else would be an information leak, along the lines of a login system that tells you whether a user you attempt to login in exists. Whether that's meaningful to guard against, I suspect no but it exists in the code as far back as I have history.

As a general (if cryptic) comment, I've been working on changes to our infrastructure to simplify the process of making changes (including bug fixes) to the site which is currently highly dependent on manual processes and difficult to test. When that's deployed I (if not anybody else) should be able to turn my attention to bugs etc.

Just a small thing, in SourceCoder, if there is an indent, but the line is too long to fit on a single line, it is returned to the next line, however, the indent does not follow in the additional line. I think it would be better to keep it all on the same indent to make the code clearer.

That is not a website suggestion.

And site bugs don't go in the suggestions post.

If Alex had $1 for every time he'd said that "this is not a *insert bug type here*" he'd have... ~$250 more than he has now.

And he should, (cuz he's awesome) so I will declare it a site bug. (jk)

What? How dare you misquote me. Haha, thanks for that.

It is definitely a suggestion, and last time I checked, "cemetech" is definitely in the url for SC so imo, it is a site suggestion.