Killfile/Ignore user?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Is it possible to implement this in nu-ILX?

(I remember this discussion happening before but Andrew categorically forbade it while he was responsible for the server; now that he's no longer responsible, I was wondering if we could bring this discussion back.)

― The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Sunday, 7 January 2007 22:41 (nineteen years ago)

I wish I could ignore some of my own posts :-/

― StanM (StanM), Sunday, 7 January 2007 22:49 (nineteen years ago)

I remember this discussion happening before but Andrew categorically forbade it while he was responsible for the server; now that he's no longer responsible, I was wondering if we could bring this discussion back.

Actually, I forbade it in the feature suggestion thread, as the ongoing discussion over the relevance of a feature was not a "feature suggestion".

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 8 January 2007 00:44 (nineteen years ago)

Hahahaha fair point! I stand corrected.

If the folks coding nu-ilx have no inclination towards implementing this feature, any discussion about it is moot. I'd like to know if the coders would be willing to implement it (IOW, is this on your radar as a possible/feasible enhancement?).

― The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 8 January 2007 01:21 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, IIRC Andrew actually was for the feature and just wanted people to shut the hell up about whether or not it was necessary. Of course, he is here so he can speak for himself.

― Allyzay Eisenschefter Pop You To The Extreme (allyzay), Monday, 8 January 2007 02:44 (nineteen years ago)

It really would be a nice feature.

― Beth S. (Ex Leon), Monday, 8 January 2007 03:52 (nineteen years ago)

Can we get a "Kill user" feature instead?

― John Justen says Toonces was one of the most talented cats on televison (johnjus, Monday, 8 January 2007 06:35 (nineteen years ago)

Who are you so desparate to ignore that you can't even bear to just skip over their post?

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Monday, 8 January 2007 06:51 (nineteen years ago)

(I'm actually against the "Ignore user" feature, I just like the idea of capitol punishment for teh dumb.)

― John Justen says Toonces was one of the most talented cats on televison (johnjus, Monday, 8 January 2007 06:57 (nineteen years ago)

I would be worried about my social skills if I needed an "ignore user" feature. (And I don't have any already)

If someone's bad/offensive/stupid enough they get banned. If they don't get banned and I still can't stand them, it's MY problem.

There are people at work I can't stand. There are people in my family I can't stand. Friends' girl/boyfriends I can't stand. Yet I still interact with them. And you know what, even those people are sometimes funny or come up with useful ideas. Why should ILX be any different from the real world in that regard?

(Can someone please forward this message to Dan in case he means me?)

― StanM (StanM), Monday, 8 January 2007 07:56 (nineteen years ago)

tell us who you want to ignore, Dan!

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Monday, 8 January 2007 11:48 (nineteen years ago)

you know you would need to implement it for all the responses to the person you were trying to ignore, right? (esp for when people cut, paste, italicize that persons posts for their own response)

― Storefront Church (688), Monday, 8 January 2007 11:48 (nineteen years ago)

Well Dan i really don't think you have explained about melisma sufficiently

I'm not sure Gabbneb, perhaps he is a killfile on you

― Storefront Church (688), Monday, 8 January 2007 11:50 (nineteen years ago)

weird, im the first person to respond to this question.

i have this function, and so far as i can tell it works fine.

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Monday, 8 January 2007 12:02 (nineteen years ago)

TESTING...

Enrique is a ninny

...END TEST

― You've Got Scourage On Your Breath (Haberdager), Monday, 8 January 2007 12:11 (nineteen years ago)

i would still use such a function. i don't care if that makes me look bad.

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Monday, 8 January 2007 12:57 (nineteen years ago)

i'm sure they won't mind too much

― Storefront Church (688), Monday, 8 January 2007 13:41 (nineteen years ago)

I'm against the idea personally, but it's up to Keith really. See what he thinks of it.

― stet (stet), Monday, 8 January 2007 13:44 (nineteen years ago)

How much of an effect would it have on the server? I'm against anything that slows ILX down too much.

you know you would need to implement it for all the responses to the person you were trying to ignore, right? (esp for when people cut, paste, italicize that persons posts for their own response)

This is OTM really - I mean, it's pretty obvious which posters many people would choose to ignore, and they're the ones who end up with hundreds of responses to their own posts.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 8 January 2007 14:07 (nineteen years ago)

Why should ILX be any different from the real world in that regard?

Why shouldn't it? This isn't a real argument, especially considering that USENET and most of the early BBS applications that arose in the late 80s/early 90s had killfile capability.

you know you would need to implement it for all the responses to the person you were trying to ignore, right? (esp for when people cut, paste, italicize that persons posts for their own response)

That's called "kill/ignore thread", which is the next logical functional step (and yet another feature of USENET).

I would like to point out that giving people the ability to block posts from certain ILXors doesn't automatically mean that you HAVE to use it; is there an argument against this that doesn't boil down to other ILXors recreating Glenn Close's role in "Fatal Attraction" ("I WON'T BE IGNORED!")?

― The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 8 January 2007 15:34 (nineteen years ago)

That's called "kill/ignore thread", which is the next logical functional step (and yet another feature of USENET).

now THAT i would like. especially for grammar threads :) :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 8 January 2007 15:48 (nineteen years ago)

The whole point here is not so much "OMG, I CAN'T CONTROL MYSELF" as it is "It would be very convenient if the board had functionality built into it that I do on a daily basis anyway." For those people thinking, "But what about those times when someone you're ignoring says something fantastic?": I can live with myself if I miss out on a fantastic post from someone in my kill file. I believe that my heart will go on.

― Celine Dion (Dan Perry), Monday, 8 January 2007 15:54 (nineteen years ago)

Ban Louis Jagger

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Monday, 8 January 2007 15:55 (nineteen years ago)

i'm sure they won't mind too much

they probably wouldn't notice so you be correct

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Monday, 8 January 2007 16:03 (nineteen years ago)

has Louis really been around since July? my does the time fly

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Monday, 8 January 2007 16:06 (nineteen years ago)

The people on this board who I truly would use a killfile on probably have no idea whatsoever the amount of contempt I hold their posts in. They aren't people I go and have any interactions with, with the exception of MAYBE one or two that I don't particularly like but probably wouldn't actually killfile. I DO avoid them, and not respond to them, but I'm not sure I understand the argument that I--or anyone!--should also have to suffer through reading their posts, or my posts, or anyone's posts, because in real life sometimes things suck? That's a really nonsensical argument and is actually kind of stunning to me. The only argument against that does make any sense is Matt's, if it does slow down the board's capacity then it's not a good idea. If it doesn't effect performance, then it's a perfectly good idea that maybe will help prevent some of the freak outs on the board.

But y'all keep thinking that it's gonna destroy the board or something. Because 17,000,000 posts about whether or not Louis Jagger is creepy or Jessie is crazy certainly didn't cause any harm to anyone at all or derail a thread, certainly if either Louis or Jessie could put the other one on ignore that would've still happened because everyone on ILX is JUST THAT CRAZY that they refuse to go unnoticed by random other person X.

WTF, guys?

― Allyzay Eisenschefter Pop You To The Extreme (allyzay), Monday, 8 January 2007 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

your hyperbole perpetually astounds me, Ally.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Monday, 8 January 2007 16:48 (nineteen years ago)

but we've already established that Louis LOVES the persecution so would not ignore anyone!

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Monday, 8 January 2007 17:01 (nineteen years ago)

I don't LOVE the persecution. The only momentary upside to it is the righteous anger it instils in me and the occasional delicious counterattack/innuendo I'm able to throw in. This isn't really an upside, however; it's a bad way to be and in the long run isn't going to make things at all better. I'd appreciate it if I and everyone else were played on merit from now on, not on reputation.

And no, I don't approve of any Ignore User function. I want to see what everyone writes, be it positive or negative. Blanking somebody out is the cowardly, destructive way to solve a personal problem you have with them.

― You've Got Scourage On Your Breath (Haberdager), Monday, 8 January 2007 17:34 (nineteen years ago)

Blanking somebody out is the cowardly, destructive way to solve a personal problem you have with them.

This is not necessarily the case. It's assuming that the person doing the killfiling/ignoring is the one who is the problem, which sometimes may be so, but by no means always.

I always go on the assumption, which I learned from mail lists a long time ago, that no-one has an automatic right to my attention. Consequently, I go on the related assumption that I don't have the right to anyone else's attention either. There are a couple of lists/boards that I'd find unusable if I didn't have access to a killfile/ignore function. Nobody who posts on these boards at the moment annoys me enough that I'd want to put them on ignore, but obviously that's not the same for everyone, I personally don't have any objection to an ignore user function being coded, if possible.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Monday, 8 January 2007 17:43 (nineteen years ago)

I don't really see why it's up for debate beyond whether or not it's technically feasible in terms of the server/code. One person setting someone/some thread on ignore doesn't really affect anyone other than that person, right? If you don't like the idea of a killfile, don't use it. I don't see why some people not liking means it shouldn't be an option for anyone who wants it, unless there are technical issues.

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 8 January 2007 17:46 (nineteen years ago)

I think the fear is that threads turn out like those Usenet ones, where people are continually being filled in on what they missed because of a killfile, or going "whu?" about quotations they didn't read. A better UI that just replaced the poster's text with [killfiled--click to show] would solve that, I think.

― stet (stet), Monday, 8 January 2007 17:49 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah that's the way they do it at T.G.S. - it says "I don't want to read your stuff" in pale grey text, with options to read that user's posts "now" or "always" next to it. It works really well.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Monday, 8 January 2007 17:50 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, that's a really good idea. xpost.

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Monday, 8 January 2007 17:52 (nineteen years ago)

many xposts

personally, if i want to ignore a user i find that simply not reading their posts is quite an effective way of doing it. and although there's a tiny number of people on ILX who irritate the fuck out of me and who i'd go as far as to say i actually dislike, i personally wouldn't choose to killfile them.

but, er, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to ignore me. i mean, if ally wants to killfile me that's her prerogative (this is a random example plucked out of thin air, although i have a feeling i might be close to the truth); similarly, if she wants to sit at her computer flicking the Vs at everything i write, i can't do shit about it either. so, er, what's the problem?

i can't really see how it would "change the board" that much. i mean, ally killfiling me wouldn't change how i saw the board; nor would it change how louis or dan or ned or stet or anybody else saw the board. if i killfile someone and then find a thread doesn't make sense ... well, i either say "ah, good, that's because i'm missing posts by a knob-end", or i un-killfile them to find out what the fuss is about.

either way, it's up to me, and doesn't affect other users in the slightest. the only threads that i think might "suffer" are the ones that are basically total car-crashes anyway.

but hey, it's gonna be down to what the coder(s) decide and i think we're probably on a hiding to nothing.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 8 January 2007 17:54 (nineteen years ago)

I suppose I could go completely in the other direction killfile EVERYONE except myself, and see how long it would take for me to get banned...

Oh, and Stet's idea sounds like the best solution. I was being slightly hysterical and self-interested when I claimed that Killfile shouldn't be an option; it's just that if people have issues with me I'd like them to approach me about them, explain them to me, and allow me to correct the flaw, rather than press the metaphorical 'Block' button. Silence in such an instance doesn't help anyone IMO. If, however, people can't go on being maddened by whomever, I guess they ought to have some sort of right to be deprived of that individual's produce.

― You've Got Scourage On Your Breath (Haberdager), Monday, 8 January 2007 17:54 (nineteen years ago)

xpost to self: (so basically "jessie OTM" would have done. ah well.)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 8 January 2007 17:55 (nineteen years ago)

it's just that if people have issues with me I'd like them to approach me about them, explain them to me, and allow me to correct the flaw, rather than press the metaphorical 'Block' button

i would like a pony, and the moon on a stick. but it ain't gonna happen, dude! some people be passive aggressive and poor communicators. others don't. such is life.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 8 January 2007 18:00 (nineteen years ago)

So basically what I'm getting out of this is that a large number of the people who are against the implentation of a killfile feature don't actually know how they work.

― The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 8 January 2007 18:16 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, and that louis still can't fucking read.

― TOMB07 (TOMBOT), Monday, 8 January 2007 18:21 (nineteen years ago)

sorry.

― TOMB07 (TOMBOT), Monday, 8 January 2007 18:21 (nineteen years ago)

Not to put more work on the coders, but one suggestion that pops up from time to time that could help would be to add a number of user-config'able styles, ONE of which puts the poster's sig BEFORE the post.

― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 8 January 2007 20:46 (nineteen years ago)

(Could a mod retitle this thread to "New feature brainstorm session" or something similar?)

― The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 8 January 2007 20:58 (nineteen years ago)

CUP HOLDER PLZ

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Monday, 8 January 2007 21:25 (nineteen years ago)

Most modern computers come with one already! It also plays DVDs/CDs.

― The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 8 January 2007 21:41 (nineteen years ago)

That's called "kill/ignore thread", which is the next logical functional step (and yet another feature of USENET).

Yeah but this is only actually possible because of the 'branch' thread structure of USENET, right? You wouldn't be able to implement that here without changing the entire way ILX threads are organised.

Actually, this isn't strictly speaking true, I mean, it's perfectly possible to blank out an entire thread from a certain poster's contribution on, but I'm not sure that would make the board exactly usable, especially if you were killfiling, say, Ned Raggett.

But still, if people want to have them then go for them, I still think the majority of posters wouldn't bother to use them except in extreme circumstances. I mean, it's not really going to work people killfiling Jon/Lex/Kate/Dom/Louis because no matter how many people they wind up they do tend to dominate threads somewhat when they get in the mood to do so (haha I suddenly see where Dan's coming from here).

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 8 January 2007 22:48 (nineteen years ago)

OK...

Kill files is not a major problem, depending on implementation. Might want to rename it kill cookies, or kill biscuits. From my point of view it's not so much an efficiency thing this one, but more of a complexity one. I want to avoid having another database table just to hold the people each user doesn't want to read, much as I might find that quite funny. What I could do is just store it on your own computer and do it that way. If I can do that, then I can avoid any load on the server and also avoid additional data. I want to avoid lots of tables basically to try and keep the database as understandable as possible. You'll have missed this, but the ILX to come is a different database, much simplified from the original.

Hi Alan! I've got this down to do anyway as I anticipate a barrage of "I don't like how it looks" kind of comments. Well something like that, but with more swearing and internet language.

All this, though, is way down the list. Getting it up and running and working is top of the list. Talking about it's cool, but given that it's just me doing this, right now, fixing bugs will take higher priority. There's a lot to be tested.

― KeefW (kmw), Monday, 8 January 2007 22:51 (nineteen years ago)

What I could do is just store it on your own computer and do it that way

so wait, i could have "home ILX" where i killfiled nobody, then "work ILX" where i killfiled everybody i liked, so didn't waste any time reading it at work?

cool.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 8 January 2007 23:50 (nineteen years ago)

one suggestion that pops up from time to time that could help would be to add a number of user-config'able styles, ONE of which puts the poster's sig BEFORE the post.

This suggestion addresses the "Why don't you just ignore?" argument -- because with larger posts (sometimes in conjunction with larger font sizes), you sometimes don't realize whose post you're reading until you reach the end and OH NOES I'VE READ A SO-AND-SO POST CLAW OUT MY EYEZ.

Also, I'd support Keef's "cookie stored on local machine" idea.

― c('°c) (Leee), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 00:32 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, it's not really going to work people killfiling Jon/Lex/Kate/Dom/Louis because no matter how many people they wind up they do tend to dominate threads somewhat when they get in the mood to do so (haha I suddenly see where Dan's coming from here).

Yeah, but the people being killfiled wouldn't necessarily be the ones that cause the most controversy. I think everyone has somebody that they find annoying and would just choose to skip over their posts if there was an easier way to do so -- annoying/irritating doesn't always mean Kate/Louis/Lex etc.

― N.i.c.o.l.e (Ex Leon), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 01:39 (nineteen years ago)

I dunno if people missing out on thread content would end up being a huge deal, though...I mean, are people really going to say, "Hey, I killfiled [x] and they posted a lot on this thread, please tell me everything they said"? It seems like most of us are hardheaded enough to go, "OH, this is an [x] thread IS IT?? I DON'T WANT TO READ THIS SHIT ANYWAYZ."

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 01:44 (nineteen years ago)

Might want to rename it kill cookies, or kill biscuits.

Death biscuit? Poison Cookie?

― badg (badg), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 03:06 (nineteen years ago)

is it feasible to have killfiled threads in a section down with the "Show All Updated Threads | Show by popularity | Blog View" bit at the bottom of the page, or would that be too much faffing about? just an idea.

― slackety yax (H2-H4), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 03:12 (nineteen years ago)

KILLBISCUIT? sounds like a little link/button I would click a lot.

I'm glad there's a clientside way to implement this. I was worried that it might not be possible to do on the client end but every board page beyond the unreg users' home is rendered dynamically, isn't it?

As for people risking missing out on content because they find a certain source of that content to be generally poor and not worth the energy, well, that's how the entire fucking internet works. Anybody heard of these new-fangled popup blockers?

With aggregator/repost pages like zings and excelsior and noize dude enemy list etc. etc. I sincerely doubt anybody would actually miss anything worthwhile anywa, since ILX acts as its own distillery!

― TOMB07 (TOMBOT), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 03:14 (nineteen years ago)

Also this would save on SO MUCH moderator work and the redundant explanations by older users to noobs regarding nude spock, who he is and how he sucks and should be banned!

― TOMB07 (TOMBOT), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 03:17 (nineteen years ago)

Interface wise I think perhaps a checkbox list of killbiscuited usernames on the settings page (is the settings page built dynamically in the new code?) would be perfectly functional for removing accidentally killbiscuited users or whatever, just go uncheck the names and save.

― TOMB07 (TOMBOT), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 03:18 (nineteen years ago)

i will begin the barrage of "i don't like how it looks" comments. because i know that anything other than html tables holding blockquotes will look like crap and break all over the place.

― friday on the porch (lfam), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 03:36 (nineteen years ago)

ILX can look exactly like it does now without tables tho. it'll be fine.

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 07:06 (nineteen years ago)

As for people risking missing out on content because they find a certain source of that content to be generally poor and not worth the energy, well, that's how the entire fucking internet works

hahahah, OT fucking M.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 11:45 (nineteen years ago)

actually, er, that's how LIFE works, isn't it?

mine often does, anyway.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 11:46 (nineteen years ago)

"This suggestion addresses the "Why don't you just ignore?" argument -- because with larger posts... you sometimes don't realize whose post you're reading until you reach the end"

yeah sorry if i didn't make that clear -that's why i brought it up. it's sort of a two feature request birds with one implementation stone.

― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 13:23 (nineteen years ago)

grimly you're an editor, so yeah, you should be eminently familiar with the concept!

― TOMB07 (TOMBOT), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 14:40 (nineteen years ago)

jesus christ please 2 implement asap

― TOMB07 (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

otm

― teh_kit (g-kit), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 16:33 (nineteen years ago)

Louis, the problem with your argument (besides, as grimly kind of said, what YOU want is just as important as what ANOTHER person wants in this scenario), if you really think someone not wanting to read your posts equates to a personal problem that needs confronting and dealing with, then you really do need to get out a bit more into the real world. I mean, I don't read Michelle Malkin's blog, but I wouldn't say I have a personal problem with her that needs to be addressed, either. That is completely silly.

Also, Nicole is 100% OTM.

― AllyzayEisenschefterBDawkinsFlyingSquirrelRomoCrying.jpg (allyzay), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:25 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I appreciate that you've gotta take everyone's wishes into equal consideration, it's just that the technical act of blocking someone isn't quite the same as, say, not reading Michelle Malkin's blog. There's an act of removal, of rejection in Killfile, rather than a passive ignorance. What stirred me to reply, however, was I admit a sort of self-preservation instinct, and I realise now (as I did a bit further up) that such a motive can only be a selfish and unhelpful one. The reason I regarded Killfile as a personal thing was that it involved some sort of terminal negative acknowledgement, something I'm always saddened by. Ho-hum.

― You've Got Scourage On Your Breath (Haberdager), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:37 (nineteen years ago)

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/gawkerdefames007.jpg

― friday on the porch (lfam), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:39 (nineteen years ago)

http://img346.imageshack.us/img346/9489/picture6kr2.png

― friday on the porch (lfam), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:40 (nineteen years ago)

omg she went to your college!

― You've Got Scourage On Your Breath (Haberdager), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

"Troops Homo Fast"????????

― The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:50 (nineteen years ago)

do they still speak of her in hushed tones?

― You've Got Scourage On Your Breath (Haberdager), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:50 (nineteen years ago)

lfam you are on my killfile list now.

― AllyzayEisenschefterBDawkinsFlyingSquirrelRomoCrying.jpg (allyzay), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 19:18 (nineteen years ago)

(Louis, if it makes you feel better, I wouldn't killfile you)

― AllyzayEisenschefterBDawkinsFlyingSquirrelRomoCrying.jpg (allyzay), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 19:18 (nineteen years ago)

great, now i can slander ally willy nilly without fear of reciprocation

― friday on the porch (lfam), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 19:49 (nineteen years ago)

*high fives*

― AllyzayEisenschefterBDawkinsFlyingSquirrelRomoCrying.jpg (allyzay), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:55 (nineteen years ago)

what a cunt! i heard she breeds african jews and then eats the babies for breakfast.

― friday on the porch (lfam), Thursday, 11 January 2007 00:45 (nineteen years ago)

"watch it Napoleon"

http://www.mgnet.karoo.net/hodgesmain.jpg

― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Thursday, 11 January 2007 01:19 (nineteen years ago)

if anyone wanted to ignore Ned Raggett posts, couldn't they just avoid ILE?

― the table is the table (treesessplode), Thursday, 11 January 2007 16:08 (nineteen years ago)

they can run but they can't hide

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Thursday, 11 January 2007 16:13 (nineteen years ago)

All too true.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 January 2007 16:28 (nineteen years ago)

You are exactly like the Candyman.

― AllyzayEisenschefterBDawkinsFlyingSquirrelRomoCrying.jpg (allyzay), Thursday, 11 January 2007 16:30 (nineteen years ago)

can he take tomorrow, dip it in a dream
Separate the sorrow and collect up all the cream?

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Thursday, 11 January 2007 16:50 (nineteen years ago)

When DON'T I do that.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 January 2007 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

ugh gross, dude.

― AllyzayEisenschefterBDawkinsFlyingSquirrelRomoCrying.jpg (allyzay), Thursday, 11 January 2007 18:31 (nineteen years ago)

This would put an end to a time honored ILX tradition.

And possibly kill off a Dom P meme.

Consider me neutral.

― jambalaya backgammon (grady), Thursday, 11 January 2007 22:15 (nineteen years ago)

deadset against it.

― the table is the table (treesessplode), Thursday, 11 January 2007 22:40 (nineteen years ago)

I'd much rather a preview post option was instigated before an ignore user one.

As for Dan's proposal, I don't mind. No ones making you use it. I can't imagine ever using it but I'd like the option, especially when viewing at work on the rare occasion that you get a truly offensive poster.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Thursday, 11 January 2007 23:09 (nineteen years ago)

and that's just when she's not in solitary confinement!

― friday on the porch (lfam), Thursday, 11 January 2007 23:26 (nineteen years ago)

i'm against it too. mods will obviously have a much different take on this, but morons getting shit on over and over again is kind of a lot of the energy of this place! 99 times out of 100 i'm on the side of civility and calm, but this, i dunno.

the trouble is, full on troll psychosis does need to be kept starved and in the dark, but basic cluelessness and creepiness should be exposed to the harsh light of a big audience.

anyway, like reg-only i think it's a setup that should be tried for a while to see what the effects really are.

― geoff (gcannon), Thursday, 11 January 2007 23:31 (nineteen years ago)

I think people who don't plan on using the KF have a skewed version of how people would actually use it. True, most posts are worthless noise, so what separates KF'ed noise from un-KF'ed noise is going to come down to personal tastes/beliefs. Frinstance, I'm planning on KFing poster X, who, while naive, is hardly an ILX bogey on the level of NS or even Mr. [Burns spelled backwards], and ILX biscuit du jour LJ. But poster X's little tics bug the hell out of me, probably no more than on an aesthetic level, and I'd be ecstatic never to have to read his posts again.

The whole thing, in practice, IMO, will work only on the level of pet peeves.

― c('°c) (Leee), Thursday, 11 January 2007 23:54 (nineteen years ago)

I was going to say I support the killfile although I don't plan on using it, but I just thought of one person. :/

― Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr), Friday, 12 January 2007 02:10 (nineteen years ago)

can't think who...

i dunno why people bother saying they're against it.

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Friday, 12 January 2007 12:57 (nineteen years ago)

is hardly an ILX bogey on the level of NS

You're being terribly mean to Nick Southall.

― Frogm@n Henry (Frogm@n Henry), Friday, 12 January 2007 13:21 (nineteen years ago)

Nom Sassantino

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Friday, 12 January 2007 14:50 (nineteen years ago)

Ned Saget

― N.i.c.o.l.e (Ex Leon), Friday, 12 January 2007 16:11 (nineteen years ago)

America's Most Cryptically Allusive Home Videos

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 12 January 2007 16:20 (nineteen years ago)

Leee OTM, I mean it's not actually going to kill off any of the in-fighting that everyone holds dear to their hearts! Like I said, I'd personally use it on like one or two posters who I never, ever interact with at all who just ruin my enjoyment of threads from time to time. I think that's basically it for the majority of people saying they'd use a killfile. I mean I'm sure there's someone who would killfile half the board but OTOH who cares if they do?

― AllyzayEisenschefterBDawkinsFlyingSquirrelRomoCrying.jpg (allyzay), Friday, 12 January 2007 16:25 (nineteen years ago)

there is one person i desperately wish was able to ignore my posts.

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:11 (nineteen years ago)

Well that is of course the other benefit of having this function, that the "Ban so and so" threads and arguments such as that all have a very easy trump card for the moderators to shut down v. quickly: ie "Why don't you just IGNORE them." It seems like it would theoretically make it easier to be a mod around here and not have to worry about the board getting flooded with ban so and so nonsense or having to completely shut down threads due to massive rows.

― AllyzayEisenschefterBDawkinsFlyingSquirrelRomoCrying.jpg (allyzay), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:19 (nineteen years ago)

I am even imagining a theoretical world in which a mod could force a person to ignore another person but I don't know how feasible that would be.

― AllyzayEisenschefterBDawkinsFlyingSquirrelRomoCrying.jpg (allyzay), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:20 (nineteen years ago)

Would there be a function whereby you could force another user to not read your posts? That would be uh... trouble.

(I am really really really resisting the urge to start a "So, if Killfiles were introduced, who would you Ignore?" thread because I KNOW it would be nothing but trollbait, but tell me none of you have been tempted. Oh lordie, lord.)

― The Long Grey And Overcast Tea Time Of The Soul (kate), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:25 (nineteen years ago)

I love the idea that most of the people here who have massive arguments for fun would ever use the 'ignore' feature. 'Why don't you just ignore?' holds about as much water as 'why don't you just stop reading the Guardian?'

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:28 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, but then the rest of us can ignore THEM.

― TOMB07 (TOMBOT), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:30 (nineteen years ago)

Haha OTM.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:32 (nineteen years ago)

The difficulty is judging whether a response should or shouldn't be responded to itself. ILX wouldn't get very far if people just ignored each other every time they said something the other person disagreed with. If someone responds to something I've said in a way I feel is unfair or indeed just plain ridiculous I will nearly always want to respond to that - this may well be some sort of character flaw based on possibly being dropped on the head when I was 8 months old who knows. I suppose with certain people one should know better, but if we're accepting that situation exists then all the more reason for implementing the ignore feature imo.

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:33 (nineteen years ago)

Would there be a function whereby you could force another user to not read your posts?

Best. Idea. Ever.

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:34 (nineteen years ago)

and just because something is sometimes (SOMETIMES) fun, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it!

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:34 (nineteen years ago)

Stevem, I thought at first it would be great - imagine being able to simply side-step someone who repeatedly attempts to troll you (or in extreme cases stalk you). But then imagined the possibilities for abuse - blocking someone from reading your posts for the purposes of slagging them off, etc.

― The Long Grey And Overcast Tea Time Of The Soul (kate), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:36 (nineteen years ago)

it's a risk i'd be willing to take. would anyone really slag someone off on ILX but not want them to read it or care either way?

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:40 (nineteen years ago)

plus it's not like loads of us don't bitch about our ILX enemies elswhere anyway

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:40 (nineteen years ago)

I'm sure that some people could find a way to abuse anything, given the chance. It makes me much more uncomfortable than a normal Killfile.

― The Long Grey And Overcast Tea Time Of The Soul (kate), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:48 (nineteen years ago)

ILX wouldn't get very far if people just ignored each other every time they said something the other person disagreed with.

No doubt, but I don't think people would KF a poster just because they disagree w/ what s/he posted. Like Ally said, threads with 300+ posts yelling at each other are the spice of Interweb life.

― c('°c) (Leee), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:51 (nineteen years ago)

I am, however, concerned about the proximity of Jessie's post and revelation to my post. :(

― c('°c) (Leee), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:52 (nineteen years ago)

Like Ally said, threads with 300+ posts yelling at each other are the spice of Interweb life.

as long as it isn't an argument that been had dozens of times on ILX already yes

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:54 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.legomancer.net/gfx/dv_spice.png

― roc u like a § (ex machina), Friday, 12 January 2007 18:06 (nineteen years ago)

hahaha jon OTM

― AllyzayEisenschefterBDawkinsFlyingSquirrelRomoCrying.jpg (allyzay), Friday, 12 January 2007 18:11 (nineteen years ago)

Kate, come on now. OF COUSE I almost started that thread!

― The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Friday, 12 January 2007 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

1. nabisco

― TOMB07 (TOMBOT), Friday, 12 January 2007 19:21 (nineteen years ago)

otm

― friday on the porch (lfam), Friday, 12 January 2007 19:45 (nineteen years ago)

2. all britishers amirite

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Friday, 12 January 2007 22:24 (nineteen years ago)

eh only the ones from the home counties

― roc u like a § (ex machina), Friday, 12 January 2007 23:18 (nineteen years ago)

i hate those rutland riverdale punks

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Friday, 12 January 2007 23:31 (nineteen years ago)

Okay, I just taught myself how to write Greasemonkey scripts to implement this feature client side.

If you want to ignore people, and you use Mozilla Firefox, install the Greasemonkey Extension, and then grab my Ignore User Script. Instructions are in the file - it should be fairly self-explanatory.

Enjoy.

― Andrew (enneff), Sunday, 14 January 2007 11:25 (nineteen years ago)

(Obviously this will only work for the current ILX. I will probably update it when nu-ILX rolls out if there's any demand.)

― Andrew (enneff), Sunday, 14 January 2007 11:25 (nineteen years ago)

lolz at example.

― teeny (teeny), Sunday, 14 January 2007 21:39 (nineteen years ago)

pardon my dumbness here but it doesn't include ignoring previous posts by that user right?

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Sunday, 14 January 2007 23:15 (nineteen years ago)

wrong; it's client-side which means your browser does the filtering so it doesn't matter when it was written. any post from that user (logged-in of course) will be caught. see also: your favorite little computer program hoonja-doonja (firefox version)

― W i l l (common_person), Sunday, 14 January 2007 23:37 (nineteen years ago)

Oh wow, Will. I didn't see your version of it. Yours is actually (slightly) more elegant than mine. Hard to believe how similar they are. (Well, I guess if you consider we probably read the same documentation it's not that surprising.)

There should definitely be a test implemented to make sure that if someone creates like this it doesn't destroy the whole page. (ie test to see that it's a blockquote, ie message container, element we're blanking)

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 15 January 2007 00:10 (nineteen years ago)

it doesn't seem to be working for me then despite following the instructions. i edited the js so it looks like this at the bottom:

//ignoreUser('username');
ignoreUser('nostudium');

and i have "Username/Info page link" enabled under "Show Message Details" in your user settings. but i still see user nostudium's posts despite restarting Firefox and seeing the edited js via greasemonkey. but i may well be missing something here (apart from tact, heh).

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Monday, 15 January 2007 00:17 (nineteen years ago)

Try using Will's script that he linked to above. Are you running OS X? I tried installing my script on my iBook this morning and couldn't get it to work, while the same exact thing works on my Windows XP machine. Weird.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 15 January 2007 00:21 (nineteen years ago)

It would be nice if we could work on the script and actually create a user interface for it that integrates with ILX, so you can just click 'ignore' or whatever. It'd also be nice to have the ability to show an ignored post (perhaps as a configurable option for those without self-control).

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 15 January 2007 00:24 (nineteen years ago)

i'm on XP but forgot i'm still on Firefox 1.5.0.9 on this machine if that's a factor. will upgrade and see if that makes a diff. otherwise i'll try will's script.

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Monday, 15 January 2007 00:27 (nineteen years ago)

THANKS btw

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Monday, 15 January 2007 00:27 (nineteen years ago)

Let me know how it goes. I'm curious to see what the issue is, as I had a hard time debugging it.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 15 January 2007 00:36 (nineteen years ago)

Figured out the issue... I had 'exclude *' set which was fouling it up. Remove that rule and you're set. (or uninstall and reinstall/reload the script from my host, which has now been updated)

Also now you don't need to replace spaces with + (and my DP reference has been removed sadly!)

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 15 January 2007 00:45 (nineteen years ago)

oh this rules

― PAUL FUCKING ROBINSON (electricsound), Monday, 15 January 2007 01:04 (nineteen years ago)

Thanks W i l l and Andrew.

― Jaq (Jaq), Monday, 15 January 2007 01:35 (nineteen years ago)

//ignoreUser('username');
ignoreUser('nostudium');

ok, that was accidentally hilarious.

― tony conrad schnitzler (sanskrit), Monday, 15 January 2007 02:28 (nineteen years ago)

script works now, thanks again andrew

― reverto levidensis (blueski), Monday, 15 January 2007 05:55 (nineteen years ago)

no regrets so far...

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 15 January 2007 11:22 (nineteen years ago)

can you make one that blocks posts with the word cosign in it?

― Storefront Church (688), Monday, 15 January 2007 12:05 (nineteen years ago)

Agreed.

yours,
Frogm@n Henry

― Frogm@n Henry (Frogm@n Henry), Monday, 15 January 2007 12:28 (nineteen years ago)

rather than code in an option to reveal blocked posts, users can just view source if they can't resist.

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 15 January 2007 13:00 (nineteen years ago)

sometimes you see the posts momentarily before the script kicks in. not much that can be done about that i suspect.

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 15 January 2007 13:36 (nineteen years ago)

you could go outside for a while

― Storefront Church (688), Monday, 15 January 2007 13:40 (nineteen years ago)

lol caring about stuff

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 15 January 2007 14:21 (nineteen years ago)

Well, only until the script kicks in!

― Lone Star Feeds (688), Monday, 15 January 2007 14:36 (nineteen years ago)

blocked users posts will appear on the crosspost page after hitting submit too late.

― vita susicivus (blueski), Monday, 15 January 2007 15:18 (nineteen years ago)

Hrrrmmm. And for those of us that are forced to use the browsers our work 'puters came with?

That said, I'd be missing some hilarity today if I'd got killfiles set.

― The Long Grey And Overcast Tea Time Of The Soul (kate), Monday, 15 January 2007 15:42 (nineteen years ago)

blocked users posts will appear on the crosspost page after hitting submit too late.

This could possibly be remedied by adding postmessage.php to the include rules.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 15 January 2007 20:21 (nineteen years ago)

rather than code in an option to reveal blocked posts, users can just view source if they can't resist.

Also you can click the monkey face in the bottom-left and refresh to view the page without Greasemonkey activated.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 15 January 2007 21:44 (nineteen years ago)

yeah that's what i do. agree there should be a test to catch userinfo links or whatever, but tbh i won't be writing it. i hate debugging this shit.

― W i l l (common_person), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 02:57 (nineteen years ago)

oh and i guess i should warn that this script slows things down a little; on my G4 powerbook a thousand-post thread will take 2-3 seconds longer to load. also, firefox will jump past the first unread message if posts above said message have been filtered. how much it jumps past is determined by how many posts have been filtered. (i guess it calculates how far down to scroll to get to the unread anchor, then when filtering is applied the page shortens leaving the scroll proprtionally below the anchor.) in practice, i find it slightly annoying to scroll back up. trade-off, innit.

― W i l l (common_person), Tuesday, 16 January 2007 04:46 (nineteen years ago)

three weeks pass...

works on 'Dr Morbius'
does not appear to work on 'Shakey Mo Collier'

(using Will's script)

― TOMBO7 (TOMBOT), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:51 (eighteen years ago)

sad

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:58 (eighteen years ago)

http://czabe.com/daily/archives/cover_owens.jpg

― Allyzay rankin u boobage...!! (allyzay), Friday, 9 February 2007 18:04 (eighteen years ago)

did he not notice where I said it "works" on his boring bullshit bitch ass?

― TOMBO7 (TOMBOT), Friday, 9 February 2007 18:08 (eighteen years ago)

nevermind, fixed by replacing all spaces with pluses, high fives all round thanks bros w i l l and andrew!! and koogs whenever he gets it done so I don't have to repeat the process for work and home!

― TOMBO7 (TOMBOT), Friday, 9 February 2007 18:28 (eighteen years ago)

i used to enjoy the show that shakey and morbs would put on but i think it's for the best that i use the killfile

shame, really

― cousin larry bundgee (bundgee), Friday, 9 February 2007 19:09 (eighteen years ago)

SUCCESS!!!

http://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gif Post by Dr. Morbius removed. http://www.drudgereport.com/siren.gif

― cousin larry bundgee (bundgee), Friday, 9 February 2007 21:21 (eighteen years ago)

I got it to work too, kudos to everyone :D

― Allyzay rankin u boobage...!! (allyzay), Friday, 9 February 2007 22:21 (eighteen years ago)

I use the killfile, but then I get curious about whatever it is [hateful person] had to say, so I turn it off and refresh just to remind myself of why I can't stand them. But at least I know it's my own fault!

― ampersand, spades, semicolon (cis), Saturday, 10 February 2007 13:49 (eighteen years ago)

I did that a few times at first, but now I've learnt that it is never worth finding out what any of 'those people' are saying.

I've got to say it's made ILX way, way more enjoyable.

― Andrew (enneff), Sunday, 11 February 2007 00:44 (eighteen years ago)

Can we please have a Statscock for the posters with the most people in their killfile?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Sunday, 11 February 2007 02:20 (eighteen years ago)

What does this look like? I don't use Firefox nor do I wish to ignore anyone, but I'm curious to see what it looks like in action. Screengrab plz.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Sunday, 11 February 2007 04:08 (eighteen years ago)

One of the codes just removes the posts completely, Eric. The other one replaces the post with "Post by So-And-So removed".

― Allyzay rankin u boobage...!! (allyzay), Sunday, 11 February 2007 04:17 (eighteen years ago)

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b288/lasttycoon/killfile_engage.jpg

― Tep (ktepi), Sunday, 11 February 2007 04:23 (eighteen years ago)

Haha.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Sunday, 11 February 2007 04:26 (eighteen years ago)

I totally thought for two seconds it just rubbed out the username, then I saw the Tuomas removal thing.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Sunday, 11 February 2007 04:27 (eighteen years ago)

Aha! That would be pretty awesome, though. The WDYLL killfile would just blur our the faces of ignored users.

― Tep (ktepi), Sunday, 11 February 2007 04:29 (eighteen years ago)

hmm i now can't see any of the posts on this thread

― Save The Whales (688), Sunday, 11 February 2007 11:17 (eighteen years ago)

This is a test post (formatting of the old username+display name shit is going to make this very annoying and difficult I suspect)

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 22 February 2007 14:33 (eighteen years ago)

anyone wanna test my update? based on will's original, updated xpath to match new code.

// ==UserScript==
// @name kilxor
// @namespace
// @description
// @include http://ilx.wh3rd.net/*
// @include http://ilx.p3r.net/*
// @include http://www.ilxor.com:8080/*
// ==/UserScript==

//Put the login names you want to excise in this array like so:
var fules = ['name', 'name2'];
//And that's it for configuration.

for(var k = 0; k < fules.length; k++)
{
var fule = fules[k].replace(' ', '+');
var posts;
posts = document.evaluate("//div/em[@class='name'][a='" + fule + "']",
document,
null,
XPathResult.UNORDERED_NODE_SNAPSHOT_TYPE,
null);
//GM_log('number of posts by ' + fule + ': ' + posts.snapshotLength);
for (var i = 0; i < posts.snapshotLength; i++)
{
var thisLink = posts.snapshotItem(i);
thisLink.parentNode.parentNode.removeChild(thisLink.parentNode);
}
}

― koogs, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 10:46 (eighteen years ago)

Works great koogs! Can you work out a way to put a "Post removed" indicator in? I was playing with it in the sandbox but didn't get far.

― Jaq, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:13 (eighteen years ago)

I was mostly fiddling with ReplaceChild instead of RemoveChild btw.

― Jaq, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:14 (eighteen years ago)

Hmmm - it's not working with names that have spaces, with or without the spaces replaced by +s.

― Jaq, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:22 (eighteen years ago)

god dammit koogs I SWEAR I put that same xpath into mine the other day and it didn't work. probably fucked up the quotes though

need to replace "em" with a wildcard in that though since the next build will eliminate the italicized names in favor of old-skool "-- Ned Raggett, Wedensday, February etc. etc"

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:45 (eighteen years ago)

Jaq I'm having the same problem BTW

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 16:17 (eighteen years ago)

Oh I got it. You just have to eliminate the replace function altogether. I haven't tested it on every conceivable username but it works on most so far. A bit of polish and I'll upload.

Thanks koogs for knowing xpath arguments! I couldn't get that shit to work at ALL

might consider adding a replace function to at least dump an extra hr in there since this makes ignored posts COMPLETELY disappear as it stands

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 16:49 (eighteen years ago)

here's what I got working

http://home.gwu.edu/~tombot/kilxor2.user.js

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 16:55 (eighteen years ago)

Excellent!

― Jaq, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 17:04 (eighteen years ago)

and here for whenever that link dies

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/7717

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 17:17 (eighteen years ago)

Pathetic

― Dr. Morbius, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 22:13 (eighteen years ago)

they can't see what you just said though!

if its any consolation, i can. i won't killfile you dr. morbius. i wouldn't killfile anyone, much less a doctor

― 688, Thursday, 1 March 2007 06:54 (eighteen years ago)

three weeks pass...

I'm being moran because I can't get the new KF to work. The only place that I have to specify the jerks is here, right?

var jerks = ['Leee'];
var posts;

(copied and pasted straight from the .js installed on this machine.

Also, do I have to do anything for spaces? Or would plain and simple 'Ned Raggett' work?

― Leee, Friday, 23 March 2007 23:40 (eighteen years ago)

Bump. (Sorry if I'm being dense.)

― Leee, Monday, 26 March 2007 18:11 (eighteen years ago)

if the URL of the page you're looking at right now starts like this: http://www.ilxor.com/ILX (ie does not have an :8080 in it) then what you need to do is add another line to the nukilxor script that reads // @include http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/* up near the top of the script, right below the similar looking lines. TOMBOT, you should probably add this to the userscript version.

if it does have the :8080, then i dunno.

― W i l l, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 07:39 (eighteen years ago)

after you edit the script, go back to Greasemonkey's Manage User Scripts window and check to see if the Included Pages listbox now contains http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/* If it doesn't, put it in manually. Greasemonkey doesn't seem to reload the included URLs right away, maybe not until restart or something like that.

― W i l l, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 07:47 (eighteen years ago)

Thanks for responding, W i l l. Unfortunately, that didn't seem to fix it, even after I closed FF and restarted it. I'm using the wh3rd URL, and in my nukilxor I have ilx.wh3rd.net/* and ilx.wh3rd.net/ILX/* in the Greasemonkey "Included Pages" list and in the script itself. (The 8080 address is also included, but that's a moot point because 8080 is blocked at w0rk, which is where I'm posting from. Then again, I have the same problem @h0me too.)

― Leee, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 17:33 (eighteen years ago)

hmm. is the Enabled checkbox in the Manager User Scripts window checked for nukilxor? (not trying to insult your intelligence, just eliminating the obvious first.) do you have any other Greasemonkey scripts installed and working?

you could try going into the script and uncommenting the // GM_log line. then go to the Tools menu and open Javascript Console. reload a thread and look for a new message in the console that says /nukilxor: number of posts by name: X. if that's not there, then the script either isn't running or is throwing an error before that point. if it's an error then there should be a new error message in the console.

― W i l l, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 20:34 (eighteen years ago)

Leeee, because you put the var posts; after your var jerks line, I'm wondering if you didn't change the wrong place. Don't change anything inside the curly braces. Here's what the script should look like:

// ==UserScript==
// @name nukilxor
// @namespace
// @description
// @include http://ilx.wh3rd.net/*
// @include http://ilx.p3r.net/*
// @include http://www.ilxor.com/*
// ==/UserScript==

// Put the names of boring jerkwads in this array like so - just cut and paste:

var jerks= ['Leee','Jaq'];

// And that's it for configuration.

for(var p = 0; p < jerks.length; p++)

{
var jerk = jerks[p];
var posts;
posts = document.evaluate("//div/*[@class='name'][a='" + jerk + "']",
document,
null,
XPathResult.UNORDERED_NODE_SNAPSHOT_TYPE,
null);

//GM_log('number of posts by ' + jerk + ': ' + posts.snapshotLength);

for (var i = 0; i < posts.snapshotLength; i++)
{
var thisLink = posts.snapshotItem(i);
thisLink.parentNode.parentNode.removeChild(thisLink.parentNode);
}
}

― Jaq, Thursday, 29 March 2007 02:09 (eighteen years ago)

Jaq, that was it! Thanks!

― Leee, Thursday, 29 March 2007 02:38 (eighteen years ago)

Somehow I didn't seem to notice the lack of TOMBOT and adam schefter haha posts which should've tipped me off. :\

― Leee, Thursday, 29 March 2007 02:41 (eighteen years ago)

most important step in the process is to publicly notify each individual you are killfileing

― ▒█▄█ ▄▄ ▒█▄█, Thursday, 29 March 2007 02:52 (eighteen years ago)

I suggest you reread my post.

― Leee, Thursday, 29 March 2007 16:17 (eighteen years ago)

what are you talking about Lee?

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 29 March 2007 16:20 (eighteen years ago)

This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.