Search Ideas

What if somebody wanted to post something related that isn’t a comment or criticism? Where/how would they do that?

Yes.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.

You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.

There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.

I have largely inexplicit criticisms of the word ‘arena’ in this context, but one that bubbled up to the explicit level is that the word reminds me of Pokemon for some reason 😅

6623c22 implements #2802 and there is no difference in background between footer and page body anymore.

Maybe I’ll figure out the Brave quirk more generally someday, but it’s not noticeably anymore.

If I wanted to keep and share information on Karl Popper, it would be a lot more intuitive to produce an article on him in encyclopedia style—where I can present information in a hierarchy, rather than creating a discussion and then making each detail about him a top-level idea, which is more chaotic.

You already don’t have to do divvy it up like that. Nothing is stopping you from creating a discussion called ‘Karl Popper’ and then posting a single, long-form, top-level idea where you present information in a hierarchy.

Forget the term ‘article’ for a second. It sounds like you want the ability to post ideas without having to associate them with a discussion, is that right?

‘page’ status

What is a page status? How did you determine that an idea’s page status is not the same as a Wikipedia article’s?

As far as search engines are concerned, every idea page is already a standalone page. Not an SEO expert but I cannot imagine search engines penalize URLs containing an ID.

Done as of a12ffb3, see eg https://veritula.com/discussions/veritula-meta/activities and the new link to ‘Activity’ at the top of each discussion.

Dennis suggested I create this discussion and tag @dirk-meulenbelt and @darren-wiebe.

Logan Chipkin has also suggested I get in contact with @darren-wiebe in regards to putting together a CR encyclopedia or something of the sort.

I could simply give the footer the same background color as the rest of the page. There’s a discrepancy between light and dark mode anyway. And on horizontal overscroll, the difference in background is painful.

In Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black gap underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear; seems to be a Brave quirk.

This UI bug essentially exacerbates a wider issue: that the footer color does not match the background color of the html element, which becomes apparent with scroll inertia on the bottom of the page.

Correct, but the gap wouldn’t be noticeable anymore.

That wouldn’t remove the gap.

That wouldn’t remove the gap.

In Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black gap underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear.

This UI bug essentially exacerbates a wider issue: that the footer color does not match the background color of the html element, which becomes apparent with scroll inertia on the bottom of the page.

I could prevent vertical overscroll.

I could simply give the footer the same background color as the rest of the page.

In Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black bar underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear.

This UI bug essentially exacerbates a wider issue: that the footer color does not match the background color of the html element, which becomes apparent with scroll inertia on the bottom of the page.

In Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black bar underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear.

On iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black bar underneath the gray footer.

Fixed as of 0178828.

Done as of 765ba05.

These are not standalone pages in the sense that a Wikipedia page is a standalone page.

Articles would have the same ‘page’ status as the discussion pages that currently exist. (Forgive my lack of technical vocabulary.)

A possible counter-factual that may or may not be relevant to the goals of Veritula: An article with title metadata ‘Boron’ would presumably be much more search engine-friendly than a top-level ideas for Boron where the metadata title is ‘#[ID]’ and the actual desired title is merely included as the first line of the body text, while it is effectively a subpage of a discussion of another name.