Moving to New Server

I'll go back to an older message and Peek it. What I get is basically what you see when you try to view a raw text file in an web browser: a complete run-on mess (and I tend to write like a German, so for me to complain of run-on must be really major).Sure, all the <P> tags are in place, but it just looks like a huge mess so that the formatted portion that we're peeking for is hidden.I am not sure if there's a distinction between older (ie, pre-whatever version) and newer (ie, post-whatever the previous was) peeked messages. But it is a bit of a pain to have to deal with that.

Should be working now, but only after you do a hard reload, which for Safari I think is hold down CMD and Option while clicking on the refresh icon in the address bar. In Chrome you only have to hold down Shift. The display of images in old messages won't change unless they're rerendered (do an edit/submit cycle).This problem affected smilies because their path was defined using "http" instead of "https". For security reasons, "https" pages wont fetch "http" images. This is fixed.Also, missing images are now a link to the missing image's URL, and if you right click on the missing image you can copy the URL for the image by selecting "Copy Link Address" (Chrome) or " Copy Link" (Safari) in the context menu.

I poked around a bit and wasn't able to find an old message with peek misbehavior. If you give me the message ID (in faint text in parens next to "Message m of n" at the upper left of the message) I'll take a look.

Working now, well done :-)

It has happened to me a few times. Edge on Windows 10.The latest encounter was for my Message 87 ("Message 110 of 111") posted 10-Jul-2021 1:23 PM (PDT) in There are easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose. When I viewed that in Peek Mode (ie, click on the Peek button at the bottom), I get this (excerpt -- square and angle brackets replaced by HTML entity codes):

quote:

---

[qs][b]Sunday, May 9, 2021<br>1:00 PM to 3:00 PM PDT<br>on ZOOM<p>Dr. Eugenie Scott: What people get wrong – and sometimes right – about evolution[/b]<p>[quote]The Humanist Association of San Diego is proud to bring to our Southern California community the former Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education: Dr. Eugenie Scott.<p>Among scientific theories, evolution is one that everyone “knows”. But lots of what people “know” about evolution isn’t so: it’s scientifically unsupported or wildly misunderstood. And sometimes the tidbit of information is wrong, but there’s an underlying grain of accuracy. After spending over 30 years explaining evolution to the public, I’ve learned a few things about what people get wrong, and I have some ideas about why. I also have some suggestions for communicating evolution better, should you be in a situation where you might be able to steer someone in a more accurate direction.[/quote][/qs]<p>I apologize for letting two months to pass before writing my review of Dr. Eugenie Scott's 09 May 21 ZOOM presentation. While I did take notes, most of the following will be from memory. The quality will suffer, but I'll do the best I can.<p>In the following, I will be describing Dr. Scott's presentation, but at times I will want to include information that I had gotten from elsewhere and so should not be confused to what she said. I will try to make my own comments distinctly different.<p>The title of the presentation was "What people get wrong – and sometimes right – about evolution." I posted the notice because it bore on the issue under discussion that creationists argue against their own misunderstanding of evolution and of the rest of science, hence what they get wrong about evolution.<p>Dr. Scott started by mentioning a recent creation bill in Arkansas that failed to make it out of a State Senate committee. Of course that directly refutes WookieeB's false assertion that creationism is a thing of the past and that such things no longer happen. No, WookieeB, they [i]do[/i] still happen.<p>Dr. Scott's first example of something that people get wrong was the infamous "Well if we evolved from monkeys, [i]then why are there still monkeys?[/i]" There are so many things wrong with that one, but rather than take it completely apart, I think that she was using it as a springboard for discussion of her other subjects. Here's what I remember of her actual discussion of the claim:<br>[list=1]
[*] No, we did not evolve from monkeys. That is not even close to how evolution and speciation works. Rather, we would say that at some point in our ancestries [i]we had a common ancestor[/i] whose descendents then branched out along different lines. <p>[*] Creationists tend to use the millennia-old idea of the Great Chain of Being, AKA "The Ladder of Life", in which all current forms of life are arrayed in a straight line and ranked from most primitive to most advanced (with us humans at the top, of course). Instead, we use Darwin's own idea of a branching tree or bush with current life forms at the ends of the branches and common ancestors at the branch points.<p>[*] Of course, the common sense refutation is to point out that when the first animals ventured out onto land, that did not suddenly empty the seas of all animal life. Or when Europeans first settled in the Americas that did not suddenly empty Europe of all human life.<p>[*] In most speciations, the new species doesn't replace the parent species, but rather a sub-population of the parent species becomes isolated from the parent population after which event they then diverged from each other. She goes on to develop that idea more completely with graphics and using a new biological term for me, [url=Deme - Wikipedia(biology)]deme[/url], a local breeding population or group.<br>[/list]

---

I also just tried editing that old message and the edit box does the same thing.What just happened in this reply is odd: The original message is very clearly displayed as "Message 110 of 111" and it gives its message ID as (885956). But when I copy and paste it directly into an mid tag, it displays here as "Message 87".Why would it do that?When I submit this reply, I am going to try that mid link and see where it takes me.Hasta luego.-----------------Afterwards:That link did indeed take me to Message 87 of that same topic. But this is what I see in the title block:

quote:

---

Message 87 of 111 (0)

---

A message ID of zero?Going from there to my message 110, I still get this:

quote:

---

Message 110 of 111 (885956)

---

That is the message ID that I had tried to link to.Along the way at the top of that last page in that topic, I spotted my Message 106:

quote:

---

Message 106 of 111 (0)
29-May-2021 3:59 PM

---

Some kind of message database corruption?

Edited by dwise1, : Afterword from testing that link

Edited by dwise1, : Platform info added in first paragraph

Thanks, I got it. It affects all messages in the message ID range 884952 to 894171. I'm cleaning up something else right now, will clean this up next.

Should have responded to this: Messages are rendered into their final form before being saved to the database. Bread crumbs of the original form entered by the user are left behind so that the message can be transformed back for editing and peek.This year I made a change in stages to the way messages are represented in their final rendered form, and somehow messages from roughly March 16, 2021 to May 3, 2022 were all affected in this way. It's probably a case of me carrying out one of the transformations on the wrong range of messages. It's easily fixed by a script that rerenders the messages.This transformation required that different message ranges be treated differently because of the way dBCodes and formatting evolved over the years. For example, few remember that you used to be able to refer to a message in another thread by saying [msg=4,6153,17] where the first argument is the forum ID, the second the thread ID, and the third the message number. This form is still accepted but deprecated (and it doesn't produce a link to the right message right now, something else I'm looking at). Now the recommended way to link to a message in another thread is to use the [mid] dBCode.When I'm done all messages should be represented in the same form in the database. It shouldn't cause any changes visible to users, assuming I make no more mistakes.

Tshirt:

quote:

---

99 bugs in the code
99 bugs in the code
Take one out and patch it up
119 bugs in the code

---

BTW, I'm a retired software engineer, though I mainly worked in embedded projects, close to the metal. My EE co-worker had that song displayed in his office.

Peek and edit should now work properly for all messages. Please report any problems to this thread.AbE: I think the message you were most interested in was Message 110.AbE2: You're going to prefer the edit version if you're interested in the <pre> section because peek doesn't preserve the white space.

Edited by Admin, : AbE.

Edited by Admin, : AbE2.

How about this version: You might get a grin out of this ancient true story since it goes back to when cramming programs into tiny memories was a valuable skill. The company where I first worked had a legend with a rule named after him: Any program of n bytes can be rewritten in n-1 bytes.There was a recent article in Scientific American about the Voyagers that had a nice comparison: Their computers have less memory than your key fob.--Percy

The way the peek text of a message is displayed when you hit the peek button beneath the message has changed so that white space is now preserved.

Umm, not so good.I looked at a long message with lots of quotes and got a very narrow, but very long long window with all the texted crammed inside. But the narrow little window is all white going down, down, down the page.Is this right?It is nicely formatted in the window. The white space makes it easier to see the edit commands. But you have to scroll down a good 2 meters to see the bottom. Give or take.

Thanks for noticing. I forgot to mention that you'll need to do a hard reload so that the CSS loads again. For Chrome hold down shift and hit the reload icon. For Safari I think it's CMD+Shift plus the reload icon. Other browsers are similar. Let me know if that works for you.Also, when replying to a message the message you're replying to can be optionally displayed in peek mode by selecting the Peek Mode radio button. This has also been updated so that it preserves white space.

Now that is good. I like it. Thank you.

I just released a minor improvement to the message hoverboxes. They now contain the message date and author.Messages in search results didn't used to have hoverboxes and now they do.The size of webpages with many hoverboxes, such as a page of messages for a thread, are about 4% or 5% smaller, not enough to be noticeable.Please report any problems here.