Ellmeister Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 I'm on Firefox but its not spell checking for me :'( Noob Alert!
Raining_again Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 I'm on Firefox but its not spell checking for me :'( Noob Alert! need to get the addon for it. Tools > addons > get addons > search for british english dictionary and install eet.
Ashley Posted July 28, 2009 Author Posted July 28, 2009 I believe a spellcheck button can be added. Personally I find in-browser spellcheckers to be a pain
Ellmeister Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 I believe a spellcheck button can be added. Personally I find in-browser spellcheckers to be a pain Personally I find you a pain Owned! Pwned! Biatchslapped! Erm... sorry about that. Couldn't resist. I have a spellchecker add-on now. It just came to mind more when reading stuwii's post and then seeing an error in one of my posts :p
Happenstance Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Is the forum running slowly today for anyone else?
MoogleViper Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 I'll tell you who isn't running slowly, Usain Bolt.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Is the forum running slowly today for anyone else? Well, I did experience some long loading times a few times today. There are no problems right now, though.
MoogleViper Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 1. I don't seem to be able to change the forum scheme. 2. The buttons in the reply box (like image and quote) don't work, in both quick reply and advanced.
Kirkatronics Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 1. I don't seem to be able to change the forum scheme. 2. The buttons in the reply box (like image and quote) don't work, in both quick reply and advanced. Which scheme are you on, and what are you viewing the site on?
MoogleViper Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 I'm on stretchable and I'm using firefox. (I assume that's what you mean)
Kirkatronics Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 I'm on stretchable and I'm using firefox. (I assume that's what you mean) Yea. Try clearing your cookies, then select the theme again.
MoogleViper Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 But it doesn't change the theme on my PDA. (that's how I noticed it.)
Ashley Posted July 31, 2009 Author Posted July 31, 2009 Try clicking on something like this on your PDA: http://www.n-europe.com/forum/index.php?styleid=42
Pantsu Man! Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Opera also has a spell check, so unless you're using IE...
Gizmo Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 Is it just me or is the search function broken a little? Whenever I find a post with search and click to go to it, it takes me to entirely the wrong page, usually 2-3 pages later than the post I clicked.
MoogleViper Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 Is it just me or is the search function broken a little? Whenever I find a post with search and click to go to it, it takes me to entirely the wrong page, usually 2-3 pages later than the post I clicked. That happens with the phantom page issue. Usually it sends you however many phantom pages there are away.
Gizmo Posted August 8, 2009 Posted August 8, 2009 It's not that, because I'm not getting the phantom pages at the moment but it's still happening.
Daft Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 Why is there a 500 pixel width limit with the sigs? There is loads of space.
Raining_again Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 Why is there a 500 pixel width limit with the sigs? There is loads of space. not when you have a netbook or other small device...
Daft Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) not when you have a netbook or other small device... I'm on a netbook. There is plenty, and I mean plenty, of room left. I even compromised on the height so the extra width wouldn't be a problem. Also, HD embedded YouTube videos are at the very least 600 pixels across, maybe more, we still have those. This limit makes no sense. Edit: Until I get an explanation other than 'those are the rules' I'm putting it back. It's easily within the pre-set width of the comment box and like I've said I'm on a tiny netbook and it has caused no problems. Edited August 10, 2009 by Daft
Ashley Posted August 10, 2009 Author Posted August 10, 2009 They've been in need of a review for a while but I believe the limit was set primarily for cosmetic reasons. To stop rediculous and often repulsive large signatures that can be found on others. And you could quite easily ask why the hell do you need 600 pixels when over half of that is empty space?
Dyson Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 It'd be nice if avatar and signature file sizes were upped a bit, but I think the dimension limitations are fine personally.
Daft Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 They've been in need of a review for a while but I believe the limit was set primarily for cosmetic reasons. To stop rediculous and often repulsive large signatures that can be found on others. Well, yeah, that's fair enough. And you could quite easily ask why the hell do you need 600 pixels when over half of that is empty space? The absence of something can be just as effective as something being there. What is the sea without land? In this case it's meant to off set the Joker to the side, it's meant to be unsettling. Anyways, can I keep it?! *puppy dog eyes*
Dyson Posted August 10, 2009 Posted August 10, 2009 On the subject of signatures, Choze's needs fixing too. Two tall images.
Recommended Posts