Request New Forum Feature: Save thread to disk

[Thanatos]

Well, the title says everything.
I saw this feature in another forum once and think it would be useful especially for the Off-Topic-Section.
It would be nice if I could save some of the discussions happening there on my disk with a simple click.

I just googled a bit and couldn't find an answer to the question if this is at all possible with phpBB, but I am sure the admins have much better sources than me.

[Ken_Oh]

Hmmm, you'd almost have what you're looking for if print view showed all of the pages at once. Maybe there's some way to hack it so it does that.

[ivanovic]

Make the phpbb devs include it by default and eventually it will be in the wesnoth forums, too. The problem with too many extension is that they make updating the forums *real* hell. Almost every extension has to be patched to work with new minor versions, too.

[Iris]

it would be useful especially for the Off-Topic-Section

Not the best way to buy my services. Next one!

[Thanatos]

Would beer be better?

[Gambit]

It wouldn't have to be pretty. You could base it on the "export to comma seperated values" thing from PMs.

[Tonepoet]

I'm not sure about the others but both Firefox and Safari can already save webpages with a either the page source or full "web archive" format. Although I'm not sure how you'd do it on other platforms, on a mac, you'd just go to the File menu and choose "Save As..." Why would the site need a new feature for something that's already built into the modern browser? Granted it might be inconvenient to save 30+ page threads but those are rather rare for Off Topic, which is the only sub-forum that junks the posts as far as I'm aware. For all of the other sub-forums, wouldn't it be more convenient for the user just to bookmark the pages than it would be for the web developers to implement a new feature?

I saved that ACTA thread we had earlier in this manner for the purposes of future study, since I could only really skim through it the first time.

[Zarel]

Make the phpbb devs include it by default and eventually it will be in the wesnoth forums, too.

It's already included by default; it's called "don't autoprune forums".

Seriously, what is this, 1980? Archiving five years of off topic threads, especially with attachments disabled, comes out to maybe 60 MB, or like $0.009.

[ivanovic]

Make the phpbb devs include it by default and eventually it will be in the wesnoth forums, too.

It's already included by default; it's called "don't autoprune forums".

Seriously, what is this, 1980? Archiving five years of off topic threads, especially with attachments disabled, comes out to maybe 60 MB, or like $0.009.

This is because off topic is just off topic and there is *no* reason at all to keep it. In theory we could also just completely remove the whole off topic section, but this would result in more work for all mods since a lot more off topic stuff in "useful threads" would have to be deleted.

[ancestral]

I think the forum admins have made it clear that they don't want to keep off-topic stuff around.

Alternatives include going to a different forum (plenty of other forums have off-topic boards) or using IRC.

[Ken_Oh]

It also means most OT threads don't come up as search results.

[Zarel]

It's already included by default; it's called "don't autoprune forums".

Seriously, what is this, 1980? Archiving five years of off topic threads, especially with attachments disabled, comes out to maybe 60 MB, or like $0.009.

This is because off topic is just off topic and there is *no* reason at all to keep it. In theory we could also just completely remove the whole off topic section, but this would result in more work for all mods since a lot more off topic stuff in "useful threads" would have to be deleted.

Let's do a cost/benefit.

Cost: Less than 1 cent (USD, translates to less than 1c EUR and less than 1p GBP).

Benefit: Some forum users are happier. The Wesnoth community can talk with other members about things even if they aren't directly related to helping Wesnoth. Users who want to refer back to old discussions can do so.

If you don't think the happiness of some forum users is worth a cent, well, I'll donate TWO cents to Wesnoth if you turn off autopruning; how does that sound?

(In all seriousness, I'd donate $10.)

I think the forum admins have made it clear that they don't want to keep off-topic stuff around.

I know, but I was hoping I could get a good idea of why.

Alternatives include going to a different forum (plenty of other forums have off-topic boards) or using IRC.

If other forums have the Wesnoth community, that'd be a viable alternative. Regardless, feel free to join the Warzone forums (we don't autoprune forums, and we've only locked a user-made thread around one every six months).

It also means most OT threads don't come up as search results.

I doubt it's that difficult to turn that off by default.

[Tonepoet]

While there is some archeological merit to keeping old threads around, for the purposes of the site they'd likely never be used again after their cutoff date. Most forums have rules against necromancy because the conversations are old and dried up, not to mention that people slowly change their opinions on manners over time. Doing things this way allows the same conversations to be reborn from a fresh slate, allowing everybody to interact with their most recent opinions

Now in and of itself, there'd typically be no reason to auto-delete topics on a discussion forum as opposed to having such a necromancy rule. Still, I can theorize why the site maintainers might here: Wesnoth's forums aren't primarily geared towards being a discussion oriented forum, it's far more primarily geared towards being a game development oriented forum. One that's run almost entirely by volunteers at that. Why would the moderators want to waste their precious time, with time the only resource the Wesnoth Project truly has, enforcing yet another mundane forum rule when the software could automatically dispense of the problem for them? Auto-pruning may very well allow for the moderators to have more time to and less headaches while tidying up the forums, allowing them to perform their moderation tasks better in other subsections, in turn allowing for the other developers to have improved working atmosphere.

Now with the other sections of the site, one could say they're maintained for referential purposes so that progress can be tracked, thoughts can be built upon and so on. Therefore keeping them as a base has developmentally valid purposes. The off-topic forum doesn't so it doesn't need to be afforded the amenity, especially considering that it's pretty much already an amenity for the users anyway.

That's my theory anyway. Nobody actually explained the change in detail when it happened. They just sorta made prior announcement, vaguely mentioned resources and made it so, as I recall. If anybody has a better explanation than this bit of conjecture though, I'd be rather interested in hearing it. Just out of curiosity mind you.

[Iris]

It also means most OT threads don't come up as search results.

They do, in Google, because their spider doesn't seem to update some entry details very often.

Search for "lord of the wesno-verse" and you'll see what I mean after some careful examination of the results. Of course, I could also ban the spider from OT altogether. I'm not sure that is what any side wants, and it could still come up in search engines that do not use the same user-agent patterns every time/are not known to the phpBB group.

It may be occasionally useful to search existing off-topic threads and individual posts in a thread using the forum search feature, though. Anyone who doesn't want to get results from OT is free to select the appropriate forums in the search assistant.

They just sorta made prior announcement, vaguely mentioned resources and made it so, as I recall.

Um, although that was under vastly different circumstances IIRC.

[Gambit]

Search for "lord of the wesno-verse"

Sadly it no longer exsists in google's cache (we lost "did I leave my peanut butter in here?" as well). Also it doesn't cache forum threads unless someone does a google search and goes there from google. Even then it expires eventually, as seen by your own example.


Melinath even offered to donate enough money to keep the off-topic forum for another five thousand, five hundred, and fifty-five years... (by his math)