That's cookie-based and I really don't want to create another for a single page. I tested loading it on Dazz's profile (with an admittedly powerful computer and decent connection) and even loading 9,000+ icons, it's fine. In reality, there aren't many profiles that have more than 1,000, let alone 9,000, so I think it's probably fine as is. Thanks for the suggestion though! I do like having options for viewing and organizing data.
You're welcome, and no problem, I can make due with having lots of icons loaded anyways since I have a pretty powerful machine and good internet.
(05-06-2019, 11:10 AM)Petie Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2019, 10:37 AM)Retro64 Wrote: [ -> ]A new section should probably be made for these minus world stages rather than putting them with the regular stages:
https://www.spriters-resource.com/nes/su...et/116496/
https://www.spriters-resource.com/nes/su...et/116497/
I feel like they fit in with the stages just fine. Is there a specific reason you think they should be broken out?
I felt they should be separated because:
- They are all JPN exclusive
- They aren't technically real levels and are just garbage data
- There are over 200 of them and would make the normal levels harder to find if they are all in the same section
So then I feel the better question is should we keep them at all?
I say we should keep them, but only the -1 and -3 of the Japanese version since they look unique enough and they're far easier to reach than other "Minus/Glitch Worlds" which require hacking or other forms of manipulating the cartridge/rom- you only have to do the Minus World trick on the Famicom Disk System version to get these two particular levels.
Not to mention they start to get pretty uninteresting and repetitive the further in you explore, like "Here's a Coin Heaven or 6-3 but it's underwater" or "Here's a castle level but it's underground and filled with brick blocks instead of castle wall tiles and has weird geometry".
If anything you're better off compiling the more unique and interesting ones into a .zip so they don't clutter the main section.
If we're only keeping two of them, I'd say they're fine in the main levels section. If someone wants to rip all of them, I'd agree that a zip would likely make sense at that point.
For a while I've been thinking of seeing a recently uploaded/updated sheets section on each user's profile page that shows their most recently-submitted sheets on the site, sort of like what you see on the main home page but containing only sheets by one user.
The problem is that the home page recent table is populated based on user ID whereas the submitter profiles are based on the submitter name/ID. I suppose I could just retrieve the [x] highest sheet IDs from a specific submitter ID or link the three tables to get a submission time to get around that but as it stands, there is no direct link between a submitter and the date/time a sheet was submitted. That's not to say it's not possible but it would require a bit of planning. Remind me about this a bit later and I'll see what I can do.
(06-24-2019, 11:31 AM)Petie Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is that the home page recent table is populated based on user ID whereas the submitter profiles are based on the submitter name/ID. I suppose I could just retrieve the [x] highest sheet IDs from a specific submitter ID or link the three tables to get a submission time to get around that but as it stands, there is no direct link between a submitter and the date/time a sheet was submitted. That's not to say it's not possible but it would require a bit of planning. Remind me about this a bit later and I'll see what I can do.
Alright. It's no big deal anyways if it can't be done.
I'd really like some sort of bulk upload feature on a per-section basis due to how time-consuming doing it manually can be. Submission names would be based on the filenames and thumbnail filenames would probably have to be the same to ensure they match up correctly.
Maybe use htmlspecialchars() to replace dangerous characters with HTML entities on the main four websites instead of the current system that can result in the removal of text.
(07-21-2019, 08:39 PM)Simpsons Dumper Wrote: [ -> ]I'd really like some sort of bulk upload feature on a per-section basis due to how time-consuming doing it manually can be. Submission names would be based on the filenames and thumbnail filenames would probably have to be the same to ensure they match up correctly.
I get that it's somewhat impractical to submit a ton of stuff at once right now but we specifically did not include a bulk upload feature as it could too easily be abused.
(07-25-2019, 05:02 PM)Simpsons Dumper Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe use htmlspecialchars() to replace dangerous characters with HTML entities on the main four websites instead of the current system that can result in the removal of text.
Where are you referring to specifically? That function is indeed used in certain scripts but not all of them.
That's understandable if not including a bulk uploader was a conscious choice. Perhaps the ability to bulk-upload, among other features if you have any ideas, could be unlocked after an account is marked as "trusted" by a staff member. But I also understand implementing stuff like this adds hassle on your end for the benefit of not that many users.
For the special characters, I think it's easiest to explain with examples.
The first place I noticed any special character filtering is when I uploaded
this submission and saw the file listings got truncated. Out of curiosity, I left it as-is and it shows up on the public website the same as it did in the "pending submissions" page. If you want me to fix it by getting rid of "<", I can.
So what I've now done today (because I find thoughts take a while to trigger) is experiment in a comment I made on The Sounds Resource which is too old for anyone to notice is being edited, at least as far as the public-facing comments page goes. Anything enclosed in "<" and ">" gets removed unless separated by an HTML tag, for example a line break. Anything at all after a lonely < gets removed, which can include the entire comment (though it can't actually be submitted if it is made empty like this).
Because of the removal of "<" in particular is quite aggressive, I couldn't do anything that you certainly would not want like adding custom JavaScript. What I did manage, however, is to add custom attributes to an element. I chose the YouTube player - this might work on others but I've not tried. By inserting "[youtube]" style="height: 1000px" [/youtube]", for example, I can have a 1000px-tall YouTube player. It's fairly harmless, which is why I'm not contacting you privately about this, but it's still a bit of a vulnerability nonetheless.