No Link For You! (anti-spam)

[Master_Cylinder]

So, are the group-wide settings ready for testing yet?

Did you send a pull request?
If not, it will be ready for testing as soon as someone find it important/interesting enough to write the code.

I'm not a programmer, I'm an admin, I don't know what a pull request is nor how to send one. I thought writing the RFC was enough...

If you are an admin and have feature requests/ideas you can vote/create them here: phpBB Ideas.
If you are a developer you write an RFC, if the RFC is accepted you write the code and make a pull request. The code is then checked and if ok, merged into the development branch.
Unfortunately opensource developers have the luxury to write what they want.

On a side note, I think it is time to start locking RFC's made by non developers or staff, and direct admins/users to phpBB ideas instead.

If I wanted to post in the ideas section I would have, there is no rule that this forum is for developers only. It's open to everyone. Good thing it's not up to you...

I think it's time developers started taking the opinions of admins more seriously and this is the forum for ANYBODY to comment on/make a RFC.

[EXreaction]

We do take everyone's opinion seriously, however we do not have the luxury of time to do everything that we or others might want.

[Master_Cylinder]

We do take everyone's opinion seriously, however we do not have the luxury of time to do everything that we or others might want.

I wasn't suggesting that my ideas should automatically be accepted or take priority, just to be clear.

[EXreaction]

Our focus right now is getting 3.1 out as soon as possible, so we're trying to fix the remaining major issues that need to be resolved before it can be released. New features are going to be pushed more to 3.2.

[Master_Cylinder]

I have no problem with that either...

[Barrnet]

Maybe i have a compromise for this: a new permission "can use links" - for Details have a look on my screenshot
+1 for this as permission

Since the integration of Q&A and my solution to fill in questions completeley wrong written and only be readable for native speakers i dont have bot-problems any more. BUT i have problems with payed humans giving me 6+ posts (often irritating and nonsence) before placing a post with link. They register and post in a timeslot of 2 - 4 weeks.

can-post-links.jpg

+1

[Master_Cylinder]

Maybe i have a compromise for this: a new permission "can use links" - for Details have a look on my screenshot
+1 for this as permission

Since the integration of Q&A and my solution to fill in questions completeley wrong written and only be readable for native speakers i dont have bot-problems any more. BUT i have problems with payed humans giving me 6+ posts (often irritating and nonsence) before placing a post with link. They register and post in a timeslot of 2 - 4 weeks.

can-post-links.jpg

+1

Captcha doesn't work on humans or even some bots. This RFC is about stopping groups/users from posting links until they have enough posts not until they can read a captcha.

[nachtelb]

I understood, that you dont like it to be a permission. I dont understand why you dont like it - but its not a problem for me. But your last comment to this - with talking about captchas does not make sence to me as a answer to my posting because "stopping groups/users from posting links until they have enough posts" is all i want, too.

[Master_Cylinder]

The quote above never mentioned a number of posts, it only mentioned captcha and a "can post links" permission. Maybe it's just language confusion.

This doesn't have to be over complicated, the permission isn't needed with the user/group-wide settings I suggested and the permission, alone, doesn't allow for a definable number of posts so we can skip it and autogroups.

[Pony99CA]

This doesn't have to be over complicated, the permission isn't needed with the user/group-wide settings I suggested and the permission, alone, doesn't allow for a definable number of posts so we can skip it and autogroups.

You really want to go there again? OK -- no, AutoGroups and permissions aren't necessary if you just want this one little feature. They become extremely useful if you want more similar features.

I tend to prefer expandable solutions to limited ones; you seem to prefer very limited solutions (which, to be fair, might be lighter weight and possibly quicker to implement). Neither approach is necessarily wrong, but mine will scale better if admins want to limit other things based on post count.

Steve