Ship of Fools: help?

Thread: help? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025567

Posted by catalyst (# 17436) on :

I can't find an option to receive notices when someone comments? Any help?

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

This forum uses a fairly old software package which doesn't give you anywhere near as many advanced features as you might find on others. I do agree that subscribing to a thread (or at least having working 'new post' indicators) would be good, but I don't find it essential and there are ways to work around it.

You can select email notifications for replies only on threads which you start, by selecting the box in the options panel below the array of smilies.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

What tgc said. Around here, we party like it's 1999.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Is there any decision made for how things might proceed with regard to the boards software, RooK? Occasionally, I hear mutterings (from you mainly) of pending doom for the UBB Classic infrastructure here, and there certainly seems to be an increased prevalence in reported symptoms of instability. Is it the case that things are being left tottering on the brink like a five-foot high Jenga tower, where nobody wants to touch the damn thing in case we lose the lot, or are any plans afoot to replace the software preemptively of the celebrated Great Collapse?

I know you love my creative ideas for improving the site, so I'd propose the opening of a completely new bulletin board, starting from absolute scratch, but with access remaining open in perpetuity to these pages- before their ancient structure implodes leaving us dust-covered in its tragic rubble.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

Considering the age of the software, would the PTB consider starting a fund specifically for the purchase/licensing of new board software?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

What's wrong with what we've got? Age shouldn't be grounds for getting rid of something, if it still works OK and does the job.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What's wrong with what we've got? Age shouldn't be grounds for getting rid of something, if it still works OK and does the job.

Age isn't grounds in and of itself. I've still got some ancient software - it does a very good job. This software doesn't handle the load very well these days, along with a few other glitches. ETA: I also see comments every once in a while from admins that problems that pop up are generally due to the age of the board software. If it solves those problems and more, as well as adding a few features what's wrong with getting new software?

[ 28. December 2012, 12:16: Message edited by: Niteowl ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Software upgrades are primarily a commercial thing. There should really be no need for half as many of them if programmers get it right in the first place, but software companies won't make money if they produce something that works perfectly, is light on memory usage and all the rest of it. People have to be encouraged to keep buying the product.

And so over the years we are all now used to buying a "version" of software on the understanding that within a matter of months it will be superseded by something else. Which will be bigger and better (and more bloated) with more bugs (but not all) corrected and which will ultimately lead to your having to buy a new computer as well, because computer manufacturers wouldn't make a lot of money if they produced something durable that lasted you for years. Much of the time the new software that you then buy includes features that you don't need, use or want and they tweak it for the sake of it (the horrid Microsoft Office Ribbon is one feature I'd gladly dispense with).

It's a rat race which I deliberately opted out of a long time ago; I won't upgrade stuff that works perfectly well, just for the sake of it.

What new features would you want on this forum? It's easy to navigate, quick to load, clear to read. We don't have people with 5" animated sigs and blinking multicoloured text, and graphics don't clutter the place up. In fact when other sites are slow to load I can almost always get into this one - if I can't I know something's wrong.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

What new features would you want on this forum? It's easy to navigate, quick to load, clear to read. We don't have people with 5" animated sigs and blinking multicoloured text, and graphics don't clutter the place up. In fact when other sites are slow to load I can almost always get into this one - if I can't I know something's wrong.

I agree with you that frequent upgrades aren't necessary and don't do them myself, but there does come a time when the age of the software does make problems. The major one I see here is the frequently occurring problem of the software not being able to handle the load, then the other small "hiccups" that I've seen attributed to the age factor.

As to improvements, a major one would be a search function that actually works, the one the OP brought up of being able to subscribe to specific threads and the ability to easily follow the posts of those on your buddy list. I can live without most of the bells and whistles the newest packages come with and I can live without those I mentioned as this board is worth living without the features, though the search function uselessness is quite frustrating. Also newer software would make finding threads that have been put in Oblivion and Limbo much easier to find. There are a lot of valuable threads there and the old software requires frequent cleaning out of threads to them, so many are quite recent.

ETA: The site generally is fast, but more and more lately the site has slowdowns. Last night it was very slow here. Meaning taking minutes to load a page.

[ 28. December 2012, 12:48: Message edited by: Niteowl ]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

On other boards I frequent, I do appreciate...

- functional search tools
- functional ignore lists
- functional read/unread status
- subscriptions to threads or users
- inserting images into messages (whether as full-size, thumbnails or either)
- report buttons
- WYSIWYG editors

I understand that SoF has chosen to lie in this bed for so long that it's turned into a house, and that shifting to new software would be an extremely painful process . However, I think it would still be good to investigate, and that it really needed to be talked about six or seven years ago, before the sheer weight of history on the current system got so heavy.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Were you volunteering your time and money to do all this , then?

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Simon has new board software considerations among his top priorities, Ship-wise. Because it would be nice to have functioning search tools again, and something more stable with the scale of this community. Worth noting is that we currently disallow images and have turned off the report feature, and would likely do the same with any new software. Because images are bandwidth hogs and clutter up threads, and the report feature drowned us in useless whining.

Besides the money and time hurdles we need to overcome (which are not inconsiderable), we're also hoping to find a way to port over all the account information. Which, listening in to comments from Simon and pease, sounds problematic.

Posted by catalyst (# 17436) on :

Yeah, Hear here! The wagon had walls and four wheels just like the cars did. Nothing but marketing.

BOTH run on horse power too!

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Software upgrades are primarily a commercial thing. There should really be no need for half as many of them if programmers get it right in the first place, but software companies won't make money if they produce something that works perfectly, is light on memory usage and all the rest of it. People have to be encouraged to keep buying the product.

And so over the years we are all now used to buying a "version" of software on the understanding that within a matter of months it will be superseded by something else. Which will be bigger and better (and more bloated) with more bugs (but not all) corrected and which will ultimately lead to your having to buy a new computer as well, because computer manufacturers wouldn't make a lot of money if they produced something durable that lasted you for years. Much of the time the new software that you then buy includes features that you don't need, use or want and they tweak it for the sake of it (the horrid Microsoft Office Ribbon is one feature I'd gladly dispense with).

It's a rat race which I deliberately opted out of a long time ago; I won't upgrade stuff that works perfectly well, just for the sake of it.

What new features would you want on this forum? It's easy to navigate, quick to load, clear to read. We don't have people with 5" animated sigs and blinking multicoloured text, and graphics don't clutter the place up. In fact when other sites are slow to load I can almost always get into this one - if I can't I know something's wrong.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Simon has new board software considerations among his top priorities, Ship-wise. Because it would be nice to have functioning search tools again, and something more stable with the scale of this community. Worth noting is that we currently disallow images and have turned off the report feature, and would likely do the same with any new software. Because images are bandwidth hogs and clutter up threads, and the report feature drowned us in useless whining.

Besides the money and time hurdles we need to overcome (which are not inconsiderable), we're also hoping to find a way to port over all the account information. Which, listening in to comments from Simon and pease, sounds problematic.

I like this board because they do not allow images - I've been a member where that feature has been problematic, though it can be nice at times.

Having donated to the ship I would also be willing to donate to a new software fund should the problem of porting all account info be solved.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

I'm glad that this software doesn't allow images as I'm using what my nephew refers to as "dinosaur dial-up" Also I hope that the simplicity of the format would be retained.

I would be reluctant for a change unless it was essential. Almost every time I hear that a system has been 'improved' - it hasn't. And while I'm being a techno-fogey, I'd hate having a like button as these are discussion boards, not a popularity contest.

Having said all that I would be willing to make another donation if change is essential for the survival of the boards.

Huia

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I'm glad that this software doesn't allow images as I'm using what my nephew refers to as "dinosaur dial-up" Also I hope that the simplicity of the format would be retained.

I agree. On another forum I go on people upload images, and occasionally you get someone quoting a whole range of images in order to post " [Big Grin]

" or the such, something that increases the time to load the page.

Given that some here do that here now, or with multi-quoting, I think we can do without.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I'm glad that this software doesn't allow images as I'm using what my nephew refers to as "dinosaur dial-up"

Actually, the software does allow images, but we've disabled it because because of abuse in the past.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Were you volunteering your time and money to do all this , then?

Somebody asked "what more could you want" so I gave an answer. If you read my post more fully, you would have seen that I'm also quite realistic about it being tough to upgrade for various reasons. I'd be happy to chip in a bit if it meant we got an upgrade to a newer system which includes all those functions that the vast majority of other forums have had for many years, and warded off the growing instability of the current system.

I also forgot to mention quick reply.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

When the PTB go shopping for a replacement they will certainly want reliability but a comparison of the current software, which hasn't been upgraded/buggered about with much for a decade to something shiny which may still be bedding down, might not give the hoped for results.

Huia makes a good point that some members use elderly hardware & software via less than state-of-the-art communications, so we'll have to cater for that too.

I'm sure everyone would like the live and recent threads to be carried over to the new environment with links to the threads closed earlier (like Limbo and the Holy Grail of a searchable Oblivion).

Remember too that the forums are but a part of the Ship of Fools, so any replacement would have to either be for the entire vessel or able to slot neatly into the space left by the current forums.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

I fear change.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Ditto.

My agency's website recently went through a redesign with accompanying software changes (a smaller and probably much simpler set of changes than what's being proposed here, almost certainly).

It's crashed 8 times in 5-6 weeks; various important features still don't work; peeps from "outside" can no longer locate such basic info as hours and location, and on and on and on.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Besides the money and time hurdles we need to overcome (which are not inconsiderable), we're also hoping to find a way to port over all the account information. Which, listening in to comments from Simon and pease, sounds problematic.

If there isn't an off the shelf solution, it's possible to do that by writing some custom code. (This isn't the same as hacking the board software, as it's code that is run once to do the migration and then can be deleted.) UBB Classic stores passwords in plain text, so they can easily be converted to whatever encryption method a new board requires.

Normally I'm loathe to volunteer for programming projects due to absence of free time, but a board data migration would probably take me less than a weekend to write… so if you do need help, let me know. I've written a number in the past, from various weird and wonderful systems. But definitely check out off the shelf ways of doing the import first, as one might exist.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

I like what we have
I will chip in for new stuff
It will crash/piss people off for a while
can we have a cull of shipmates who have not (after a period of notification) posted for say 2 years?
there is a lot to be said for how simple these boards are
can we go back Neo ? (first in)
death is the mother of beauty

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

there is a lot to be said for how simple these boards are

That's true. I have faith in our staff that we won't end up with all the bling turned on just because we can, though.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Amorya passes the interview by editing a list well.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

there is a lot to be said for how simple these boards are
That's true. I have faith in our staff that we won't end up with all the bling turned on just because we can, though.

As others have said, we can do most of the "bling" now. We choose not to, and we will choose not to in any new software we may end up migrating to.

The front end, user-focused pages will probably look and feel pretty similar to what they are now, just with a better search and the ability to manage a board the size of Oblivion.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
... [list]
[*]can we have a cull of shipmates who have not (after a period of notification) posted for say 2 years? ...

Hell, no, they are our gentle readers! [Big Grin]

ETA Ay, my code. I just bombed the interview.

[ 29. December 2012, 18:47: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
can we have a cull of shipmates who have not (after a period of notification) posted for say 2 years?

Some shipmates stop posting for years and then come back. I would hate to make their return more difficult.

Moo

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

The only change mentioned that I think would be helpful is a decent search function. That would be handy, but I can live without it very happily.

For all the rest - if it's not broke, why fix it?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
For all the rest - if it's not broke, why fix it?

Unfortunately, it's partly broke. If we didn't have people like pease troubleshooting, things wouldn't work so well.

Moo

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :

Just think of the Ship as the craigslist of discussion forums.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Ditto.

My agency's website recently went through a redesign with accompanying software changes (a smaller and probably much simpler set of changes than what's being proposed here, almost certainly).

It's crashed 8 times in 5-6 weeks; various important features still don't work; peeps from "outside" can no longer locate such basic info as hours and location, and on and on and on.

IME, this is often, in part, a function of the purchasing authority opting for the best sales pitch and not the best solution. ISTM the SOF captain and crew are a bit more savvy.

fingers, toes and eyes crossed

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Hell, no, they are our gentle readers!

and

quote:
Some shipmates stop posting for years and then come back. I would hate to make their return more difficult.

My point was not to be nasty. Simply to not load/overload any new system with data that will never get used. That seems like common sense.

And it is not difficult to sign back in or read the boards without signing in. And I was suggesting a "sign in now to get transfered" period.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

I for one didn't read your point as being nasty. Quite the opposite as you raise a very good and valid point. On top of that, as well as shipmates who haven't posted for years, there are hundreds, if not thousands of people who have registered but never posted.

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The only change mentioned that I think would be helpful is a decent search function.

Does this site-specific Google search work for you?

search term site:forum.ship-of-fools.com

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The only change mentioned that I think would be helpful is a decent search function.
Does this site-specific Google search work for you?

search term site:forum.ship-of-fools.com

It "works" in that you can put in some keywords and get a page of results.

It doesn't work in that it only offers a simple keyword search and does not provide any way to filter or sort the results. It's a very poor substitute for a functional forum search tool.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

The only thing that worries me ( because this happened to me on Twitter,on MySpace, and another forum) is someone using the change to register under someone else's ID, just to screw with them. I take comfort in the continuity we have, identity-wise.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

It disturbs me that a) I'm not sneaky enough to have thought of that on my own, and b) I'm mean enough, now that you've pointed it out, to start thinking of who I'd want to mess with like that. [Biased]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

It disturbs me that I am so unaware of what a colossal fucking idiot I am, who is capable of planting a colossally evil idea into a mind such as yours without the slightest little effervescent thought of the consequences bubbling to the surface of my cleary substandard mind. [brick wall]

(

)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The only thing that worries me ( because this happened to me on Twitter,on MySpace, and another forum) is someone using the change to register under someone else's ID, just to screw with them. I take comfort in the continuity we have, identity-wise.

Well, we do have a list of the email addresses everyone has registered with, and it would be possible (though a bloody lot of work, as we'd have to do it manually) to only allow registrations using existing names if they were from the same email address.

I'm not saying I'd want to have to go through that, of course! But it's theoretically possible.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

For extra protection, would it be possible to keep the current boards up in tandem with the new boards, just long enough for people to publicly state here, "yes, that is me who just registered under XXXX"?

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

It may well be possible to port the user ID and password over to the new system, as it was pointed out upthread that UBB Classic stores these as plain text.

This was certainly the case with another board I was involved with a few years ago, they switched from phpBB to vBulletin with the login details being retained as they were before.

Relying on people still having the same email addresses in use might not be the way to figure it out though. There are still many people out there who use ISP email addresses and tell people when they shift to a different provider, treating it just like changing to a new snail mail address.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The cost would not usually be licensing, but deployment, transfer of data etc. Most forums use open source software packages. Wld hope this is the plan.

I might suggest someone write a sort of business plan up with the process and reasonable cost estimates and you might find that people will consider funding portions. Then put up an attractive fundraising link with a good "hook". I have contributed several times to crowd sourced initiatives which have generally raised funds rather easily this way. So please tell us the plan, budget and target date. Then I'll send you my doubloons and pieces of eight. Yup, tell us about the treasure map and what's in the treasure chest!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Relying on people still having the same email addresses in use might not be the way to figure it out though. There are still many people out there who use ISP email addresses and tell people when they shift to a different provider, treating it just like changing to a new snail mail address.

The Ship is one of those "people" that anyone changing their email address should be informing.

Having an invalid email address in your profile has been grounds for account locking or suspension (until a valid one is supplied) in the past, and doubtless will be again.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
It may well be possible to port the user ID and password over to the new system, as it was pointed out upthread that UBB Classic stores these as plain text.

I would imagine we could port pretty much everything (usernames/passwords, profile fields, past posts, private message inboxes) given the inclination. I've already offered to help out if there isn't an off-the-shelf porting script for the combination of boards we choose.

Amorya

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Do people really think post counts are important enough to be worth the effort of copying over to any new software that might come along?

[post in haste, edit at leisure]

[ 31. December 2012, 14:37: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do people really think post counts are important enough to be worth the effort of copying over to any new software that might come along?

[post in haste, edit at leisure]

The archives of previously posted messages would be. You'd get the user post counts for free when copying these.

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do people really think post counts are important enough to be worth the effort of copying over to any new software that might come along?

[post in haste, edit at leisure]

Do you really have to ask?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The only change mentioned that I think would be helpful is a decent search function.
Does this site-specific Google search work for you?

search term site:forum.ship-of-fools.com
It "works" in that you can put in some keywords and get a page of results.

It doesn't work in that it only offers a simple keyword search and does not provide any way to filter or sort the results.

Er, yes it does, the ones Google has. Its really fast and pretty comprehensive and much better than just about any in-forum search I use.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Port account information. It shouldn't be too hard. (Depending on what software you are going to of course). That's much better than asking re-registration. If it is too difficult to copy passwords (and it can be very difficult) then get users to choose a new one when they first log in to the new system.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

ken,

It would appear RuthW is waiting for that opportunity. If your solution is implemented, she will be the sum total of the ship.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do people really think post counts are important enough to be worth the effort of copying over to any new software that might come along?

There appears to be at least one thread in the Circus designed specifically for increasing post count.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do people really think post counts are important enough to be worth the effort of copying over to any new software that might come along?

No - they are not necessary. I know one person who would love the Ship but hasn't joined due to the post count. He sees it as elitist.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do people really think post counts are important enough to be worth the effort of copying over to any new software that might come along?

No - they are not necessary. I know one person who would love the Ship but hasn't joined due to the post count. He sees it as elitist.

It's probably worthy of a separate thread if there's a desire for discussion. The ship is elitist.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There appears to be at least one thread in the Circus designed specifically for increasing post count.

I suppose you mean 'Fall'. All I can say is that I don't think that is the purpose. The point of Fall is surely that there is no purpose.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There appears to be at least one thread in the Circus designed specifically for increasing post count.
I suppose you mean 'Fall'. All I can say is that I don't think that is the purpose. The point of Fall is surely that there is no purpose.

It were said in jest. [Biased]

I enjoy the thread for the reason you mention.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do people really think post counts are important enough to be worth the effort of copying over to any new software that might come along?

No - they are not necessary. I know one person who would love the Ship but hasn't joined due to the post count. He sees it as elitist.

it's the opposite. My high post count is a source of embarrassment. Obviously, I can't shut the hell up.

I would love the idea of everyone starting at zero. now if only I could exercise some restraint...

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ken,

It would appear RuthW is waiting for that opportunity. If your solution is implemented, she will be the sum total of the ship.

Everyone had to re-register and start all over again when we abandoned the NeoWorks boards in favor of these. It might be nice if we could port stuff over to new software when we get it, but I personally don't care about my posts and post count being carried over.

If everyone has to re-register again, perhaps the rules that apply to name change amnesties could be used -- if you register with a new name, you have to post on the designated thread and put the old name in your signature. And there could be penalties for impersonating someone; i.e., if someone else registered as RuthW before I got around to it, with the intent of passing their posts off as mine, I could send an email with some kind of identifying information (my email address itself is an identifier, yes?) to prove my identity and the impersonator could be booted for a month or two. That this would happen seems like a remote possibility, in any event, despite my nefarious daydreams. [Big Grin]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ken,

It would appear RuthW is waiting for that opportunity. If your solution is implemented, she will be the sum total of the ship.

Everyone had to re-register and start all over again when we abandoned the NeoWorks boards in favor of these. It might be nice if we could port stuff over to new software when we get it, but I personally don't care about my posts and post count being carried over.

Don't care about those either, but Limbo and Glory would be nice to keep, if we could port those over.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

I like my post count. People can make of it what they like but I like it and would miss it. It represents over ten years of my life. And as new members are joining and getting ivolved all the time I don't see how it can be mooted that my post count puts people off. Tosh.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

You can do anything you want if you want to convert UBB to something modern, like the popular phpBB. I've moderated and administered a forum in the past using phpBB, and it is really simple to use, so I base my comments on what I know.

Link: Converting a UBB Forum to phpBB.

phpBB is free. UBB is proprietary and costs.

quote:
The script available on the page above states:
it reads the data from the UBB forum and flawlessly converts that data into phpBB and stores it in the MySQL database that phpBB is using, previously as most of you are aware, UBB uses flat files to store the forum data, finally getting that information into a database is exciting!

So you won't lose anything that is in the current UBB structure unless you want to.

I suspect there are any number of additional scripts and methods to accomplish the same task to what ever forum package someone wants. Though it would make sense to stick with popular and cheap/free/no licence required.

Note that UBB stores its info in a flat file, meaning that info is simply lines in a file. All that is required is the structure of the source (UBB) file, and the definition of the target (phpBB) database, which can be defined and is compatible with just about any database structure.

It wouldn't have to be phpBB, there are others, and again most of them are free as in "free lunch", no licence nor payment required. Here's a discussion of the most popular fee and free packages.

Is there a will to do something? Lack of time? Need to hire someone? As I asked before: what's the plan? Appears it is at a "pre-planning" stage at the most. Or maybe the hosting server doesn't have the capacity.

(edit: fixing the ever annoying disallowed parentheses in UBB code, which would disappear with a change.)

[ 31. December 2012, 22:55: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do people really think post counts are important enough to be worth the effort of copying over to any new software that might come along?

No - they are not necessary. I know one person who would love the Ship but hasn't joined due to the post count. He sees it as elitist.
it's the opposite. My high post count is a source of embarrassment. Obviously, I can't shut the hell up.

I would love the idea of everyone starting at zero. now if only I could exercise some restraint...

Assuming people kept their same post per day count, within a month it would be tough to tell the counts had been wiped. Except for those like myself who's post per day count is climbing. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Hi, is it possible to access Oblivion?

And how might I go about changing my displayed name?

Ker-ching? Whose palm do I cross with silver?

Regards
Martin

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

This way to Oblivion, Martin.
As far as the other, I believe you will need to wait for name change amnesty. Which, Jo offense, I hope never comes again.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And how might I go about changing my displayed name?

The last name change amnesty was only a few months ago and I'm afraid you missed it.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Thanks guys.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
And how might I go about changing my displayed name?

NOOOOooooooooooooooo

And by his name he shall be called.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

Ker-ching? Whose palm do I cross with silver?

*ahem*

Should you feel so moved.

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

"Oblivion search doesn't work."

quote:
I get "no results" no matter what I search for.

Mockingbird 23 June 2012

quote:
I think Oblivion just got too big. If you are searching for something specific, try Google (with Ship of Fools in front of the terms you are looking for), that often works better.

Chorister, in reply to Mockingbird.

It does now look possible to search Oblivion, but only sort of - unless there are no matches for whatever I look for outside the period early 2006 - late 2007. Which seems improbable. But at the same time a simple internet search for xxxx site: shipoffools no longer appears to throw up any results from Oblivion. Two or three times recently I have tried to look again at something I know I have found in the past, with no luck.

Any ideas by way of explanation?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Yes wrong site name

site:forum.ship-of-fools.com

Should work. I used it yesterday to find the previous Gambit threads.

Jengie

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Yes wrong site name

site:forum.ship-of-fools.com

Should work. I used it yesterday to find the previous Gambit threads.

Jengie

Thank you for the advice; however, I suspect that you have just struck lucky.

I know I didn't put the exact search string - what I meant was that I had been doing a site restricted search, but I was not trying to reproduce exactly what I would have typed. But even litteratim the search doesn't necessarily work.

As an example. Go to Oblvion - choose a topic at random, find a fairly distinctive phrase and trying searching for it. As an example - try this discussion. About three quarters of the way down the page there is a contibution from Cottontail - 17th September at 15.41. Take a distinctive phrase at random, say "Presbyterian ordination". Put Presbyterian ordination site:forum/ship-of-fools.com into the search box and what do you get - Your search - Presbyterian ordination site:forum/ship-of-fools.com - did not match any documents. But demonstrably what one has been looking for is there, even if the search engine cannot turn it up. Whatever I have tried - over a period of weeks - has produced exactly the same result. Or rather lack of results.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Dear Metapelagius

I have just done it how I told you to do it and Here is the list. Please note there is a "." between "forum" and "ship-of-fools.com" not a "/". That is the website for the forums, which is NOT the same as that for the ship.

Jengie

[ 03. February 2013, 18:33: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

Thank you for this. Resricting searches to site:ship-of-fools.com produces results, and my recollection was of having used that in the past. Quite why the discussion bits should be so separated seems odd, but no doubt there is an explanation.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I think it is down to the fact the forums have old software and the only way to change the web address would be to do a fresh reinstall. The main website was www.ship-of-fools.com way back in 2003, putting the boards on forum.ship-of-fools.com made sense then.

When the new shiny, all dancing version etc comes along I suspect this will change.

Jengie

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0