I'd like to know who's behind the "NOT ANONYMOUS" box check thing personally. Have them killed.
Ah feel yo-ah
pain. But if you have the culprit killed, who will keep the CathInfo hardware & software running?[‡]
The "
Anonymous Posts Allowed" subforum has a surprisingly
user unfriendly implementation on CathInfo:
• "
NOT ANONYMOUS"
check-box is
not sticky (i.e., I must repeat my original
check-mark in its
check-box after each & every
Preview")[†]. A significant aspect of the problem is that it's placed below even the "Attach" options (which I practically
never use, and therefore tune out everything below it), so when I'm getting exasperated (esp. by the bulleted point below), I often overlook the obnoxiously required recheck-marking.
• When I click the "
Post" button, instead of posting as I commanded it to do, SMF will often (as this morning) intercept that click, refusing to post my typically already-"Preview[ed]" message that I plainly wanted to be "
Post[
ed]" right
then-and-there, and instead, SMF displays my unposted message with the header "
Warning - while you were reading [
number]
new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.", about which I don't give an
[expletives deleted]. When I click "
Post", then SMF
[expletive deleted] well ought to do
exactly what I just
[expletives deleted] commanded it to do!
• If "
Warning - while you were reading [
number]
new replies have been posted" is really a valuable feature for other users, then create a
new button that performs exactly that check, but is
completely independent of the "Post" operation.
-------
Note ‡: 'Fraid so: I believe that the "
Anonymous Posts Allowed" subforum was custom-replicated from the old MercuryBoard implementation of CathInfo, after migrating it to a Simple Machines Forum implementation. Extra software effort (beyond mere migration) that signifies
active approval of the feature instead of mere passive acquiescence to it. I recognize that I was
not granted a vote on the matter.
Note †: Just like the "Notify me of replies" check-box, which I practically
never want in effect, is not
sticky. It's obviously not an issue of implementation difficulty: Both the "Subject:" and "Message Icon:" values are
sticky (as indeed they
should be).