Made this today on my lunch break. So far it only hides Rich Houston-NYG-WR-1971, but I'm gonna make it configurable so you can even hide anyone, even me.
FYI, you have to click it to make it clear the page on each post. I wanted to get this part working before I have it do it on every page automatically since I don't have a settings page yet.
any names I add will remember my settings and keep the poster automatically blocked. It seems like you got the hard part done.
Yeah, it remembers settings in the version I just uploaded. I am gonna be a bit careful with the auto filter just because I have a change then to insert a problem into every BBI Forum request. I'll set that up and use it for a few days before publishing.
Do you have the source code on GitHub or anything to peek at?
I was just noodling around with Extensions today as an idea for a project here at work. Needed something to try and Rich's Jets post was my inspiration.
Lemme get the auto-hide feature sussed out and then I can put it on github and throw some comments in there to explain what I'm doing if you're curious. There's like 40 lines of javascript in the whole thing.
RE: I should have mentioned that I only use my phone to access BBI
Do you have the source code on GitHub or anything to peek at?
I was just noodling around with Extensions today as an idea for a project here at work. Needed something to try and Rich's Jets post was my inspiration.
Lemme get the auto-hide feature sussed out and then I can put it on github and throw some comments in there to explain what I'm doing if you're curious. There's like 40 lines of javascript in the whole thing.
New members? Like say they won't be shown if you choose that for the first month of their membership?
Not sure I would do that. If that got a critical mass of users then it might inhibit newbies joining the site. If it existed in 3/05, I might have gotten bored and not stuck around this long. It's one thing for a member to wear out their welcome and get on a lot of lists. It's another to blanket block folks.
No. There's no logging or saving to any central location. The names are saved in your local browser storage. The scope of that data is such that you have to set up the list on every machine where you want to use it.
New members? Like say they won't be shown if you choose that for the first month of their membership?
Not sure I would do that. If that got a critical mass of users then it might inhibit newbies joining the site. If it existed in 3/05, I might have gotten bored and not stuck around this long. It's one thing for a member to wear out their welcome and get on a lot of lists. It's another to blanket block folks.
Yeah its not for the majority, its the ones that show up for one day and then are gone..I see though that could be a problem. Anyhow great BF, very neat buddy
Install the extension provided in the link.
Once installed, right click and choose Options
Add the name of the posters you wish to block separated by commas.
Hit save.
When those names are in threads, click the extension icon and choose "click here"
Posters names who you've added will disappear.
Install the extension provided in the link.
Once installed, right click and choose Options
Add the name of the posters you wish to block separated by commas.
Hit save.
When those names are in threads, click the extension icon and choose "click here"
Posters names who you've added will disappear.
Works pretty well. It would be nice if the extension had an option to hide posters by default and the "click here" functioned as a toggle instead of a hide, but (a) I haven't looked at the extension code at all, and (b) who cares it's still a really great tool, albeit something that's a standard feature in modern forum software coughcoughcough.
BeerFridge, FWIW I'm a full stack engineer, my current job keeps me plenty busy but once you get this up on GitHub I'd be happy to help with tweaking the extension.
to viruses or yet vulnerable to being hacked to you guys using it?
I wouldn't think so. The extension isn't doing anything more complicated than parsing the page contents and deleting the contents of any thread_post div whose poster matches a value from the list. That's really basic (I mean that as a positive - simple is good) and there's no real potential for harm.
Also, to clarify something BeerFridge said in re: storing lists of blocked users in a central location (I looked at the source code a few minutes ago) - he is telling the truth, this extension doesn't send any information to anywhere he would be able to access. What it does do - and this is a good thing - is save your blocked user list to sync storage rather than local storage. This means that if you have Chrome set up to sync your extensions (which I think is the default setting), and you connect Chrome to your Google account, your blocked user list should automatically sync if you log into Chrome on another computer and install the extension there. So if you use Chrome at home and at work on separate computers, you don't need to maintain the same blocked user list in both places.
Was getting to a point where the negativity on BBI was too much for me - really taking away my interest in interacting with some fans here. Had already identified a few who I'd rather never read or respond to - they add nothing to my enjoyment of the Giants, the NFL or BBI. I like how everything else stays the same - just those posters and their comments are removed.
I also like that it isn't permanent - allows me to read what I want then activate when I see someone I want to avoid. I can see my list of posters growing here.
Thanks again!
RE: RE: just wondering, is this program susceptible
to viruses or yet vulnerable to being hacked to you guys using it?
I wouldn't think so. The extension isn't doing anything more complicated than parsing the page contents and deleting the contents of any thread_post div whose poster matches a value from the list. That's really basic (I mean that as a positive - simple is good) and there's no real potential for harm.
Also, to clarify something BeerFridge said in re: storing lists of blocked users in a central location (I looked at the source code a few minutes ago) - he is telling the truth, this extension doesn't send any information to anywhere he would be able to access. What it does do - and this is a good thing - is save your blocked user list to sync storage rather than local storage. This means that if you have Chrome set up to sync your extensions (which I think is the default setting), and you connect Chrome to your Google account, your blocked user list should automatically sync if you log into Chrome on another computer and install the extension there. So if you use Chrome at home and at work on separate computers, you don't need to maintain the same blocked user list in both places.
Heh, I think basic is a compliment and I spent probably an hr and a half yesterday on this thing. I'm not sure I'll get to it today.
Setting up something to steal your information or give you a virus would take me more work than that. This extension doesn't send any information to outside resources, nor does it request information from outside resources. And yes, I guess as Audible describes it should sync between your browsers, assuming you are signed into chrome with your google acct. I haven't tried that.
Heh, I think basic is a compliment and I spent probably an hr and a half yesterday on this thing. I'm not sure I'll get to it today.
Setting up something to steal your information or give you a virus would take me more work than that. This extension doesn't send any information to outside resources, nor does it request information from outside resources. And yes, I guess as Audible describes it should sync between your browsers, assuming you are signed into chrome with your google acct. I haven't tried that.
I haven't tested the sync either but I'll look at that today. FWIW the chrome.storage doc is incredibly entertaining by the standards of developer documentation. Probably my favorite part:
Quote:
chrome.storage is not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled, and if they are filled when you put your message in, it gets in line, and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material.
that this is even necessary...what happened to will power and choosing to ignore someone? kudos to the programmer, though...
Not sure what's childish. Wouldn't getting into a bickering match be more childish? And will power argument is bullshit when certain posters consistently come in to derail threads with their idiocy. Using will power is no different than using technology...while the means may be different, the end desire/result is still the same.
Hey Fridgie -- the toggle works so well now that an entire thread in the menu is gone if one of your blocked posters happens to be in it -- LoL -- for instance -- I've listed chris r in my options and he posted on your thread announcing the HideAPoster Chrome Extension - and I can't see your announcement thread anymore in the index page of threads
Hey Fridgie -- the toggle works so well now that an entire thread in the menu is gone if one of your blocked posters happens to be in it -- LoL -- for instance -- I've listed chris r in my options and he posted on your thread announcing the HideAPoster Chrome Extension - and I can't see your announcement thread anymore in the index page of threads
and have the .0.0.4 version installed. I cannot figure out how down update to the .0.0.5 version. Do I need to uninstall and then download the .0.0.5 version?
and have the .0.0.4 version installed. I cannot figure out how down update to the .0.0.5 version. Do I need to uninstall and then download the .0.0.5 version?
yes - exactly - uninstall first -- but I would wait until Fridgie fixes the current bugs
and have the .0.0.4 version installed. I cannot figure out how down update to the .0.0.5 version. Do I need to uninstall and then download the .0.0.5 version?
yes - exactly - uninstall first -- but I would wait until Fridgie fixes the current bugs
Hey Fridgie -- the toggle works so well now that an entire thread in the menu is gone if one of your blocked posters happens to be in it -- LoL -- for instance -- I've listed chris r in my options and he posted on your thread announcing the HideAPoster Chrome Extension - and I can't see your announcement thread anymore in the index page of threads
ok, thanks for the heads up. I will check that out. It's checking the whole row, I guess I need to make sure it's just the started by poster.
I think it's hiding if the poster started or is the last poster on a thread. obviously, you want just the posts they started.
I think it's blocking more than that - if the user is quoted, for example. I tested the "Ahmed's clock" thread (this extension is a godsend for threads like that) with hudson - every instance of the string 'hudson' disappears when I toggle on the extension.
In some ways, for users whose handle isn't a frequently used word, this is almost better than if the extension was working "correctly" - it ends up extinguishing any mention of the poster, so you don't get these weird stubs where two posters are going back and forth and you only see one side of the conversation. But it would probably better if the extension worked as intended.
I have to say, though, being able to leave the plugin toggled on makes my BBI experience way, way better. So awesome job BeerFridge!
I think it's hiding if the poster started or is the last poster on a thread. obviously, you want just the posts they started.
I think it's blocking more than that - if the user is quoted, for example. I tested the "Ahmed's clock" thread (this extension is a godsend for threads like that) with hudson - every instance of the string 'hudson' disappears when I toggle on the extension.
In some ways, for users whose handle isn't a frequently used word, this is almost better than if the extension was working "correctly" - it ends up extinguishing any mention of the poster, so you don't get these weird stubs where two posters are going back and forth and you only see one side of the conversation. But it would probably better if the extension worked as intended.
I have to say, though, being able to leave the plugin toggled on makes my BBI experience way, way better. So awesome job BeerFridge!
Yeah, keeping the toggle on is nice.
I noticed that it removes any comment with a mention of a poster, quoting a poster or if someone types the poster's name. That poster is like an un-person. I think that's the way it is supposed to work.
The comment from me that you are pointing out is meant to be about the list of posts in the forum. There, I am not differentiating from hiding posts "started by" the hidden posters or if they are the "last post" to respond to the post. Basically, any mention of the poster in the row of the table and i am hiding it. That's why the post in the list was appearing and disappearing for gideifor (I think). I am guessing the expected behavior is for the posts to not be hidden if they were started by someone else, even if a hidden poster is the "last post". This, I would say, is a bug.
I think it's hiding if the poster started or is the last poster on a thread. obviously, you want just the posts they started.
I think it's blocking more than that - if the user is quoted, for example. I tested the "Ahmed's clock" thread (this extension is a godsend for threads like that) with hudson - every instance of the string 'hudson' disappears when I toggle on the extension.
In some ways, for users whose handle isn't a frequently used word, this is almost better than if the extension was working "correctly" - it ends up extinguishing any mention of the poster, so you don't get these weird stubs where two posters are going back and forth and you only see one side of the conversation. But it would probably better if the extension worked as intended.
I have to say, though, being able to leave the plugin toggled on makes my BBI experience way, way better. So awesome job BeerFridge!
Yeah, keeping the toggle on is nice.
I noticed that it removes any comment with a mention of a poster, quoting a poster or if someone types the poster's name. That poster is like an un-person. I think that's the way it is supposed to work.
The comment from me that you are pointing out is meant to be about the list of posts in the forum. There, I am not differentiating from hiding posts "started by" the hidden posters or if they are the "last post" to respond to the post. Basically, any mention of the poster in the row of the table and i am hiding it. That's why the post in the list was appearing and disappearing for gideifor (I think). I am guessing the expected behavior is for the posts to not be hidden if they were started by someone else, even if a hidden poster is the "last post". This, I would say, is a bug.
But, I don't have time to fix it today.
Makes total sense. I think either approach while in-thread (block all mentions of poster vs. block only posts by that poster) is sensible. Would be really cool to have settings to choose one or the other, but I understand if that seems like a bridge too far. If you put it up on GitHub at some point I might fiddle with it.
Like I said, I'm gonna make it configurable. Lots of folks will probably want a BeerFridge free BBI experience, too. :)
Hold off on downloading, please.
Yes, the initial cut of the extension was "hide the dipshits". Sorry about that. :)
thanks! I'll take it.
I see you added yourself to the hide list
Enable the extension!
Whew!
Should work on both. Should hide the posts started by Rich and the comments. On my machine, I have the comma delimited list thing working.
That way, every time something doesn't go the Giants' way, I can come to the site and read relatively normal conversations about it
Feel free to put "BeerFridge" in the list. :)
Yeah, it remembers settings in the version I just uploaded. I am gonna be a bit careful with the auto filter just because I have a change then to insert a problem into every BBI Forum request. I'll set that up and use it for a few days before publishing.
For now yes. I will add it to every page load tonight or tomorrow.
Quote:
hides everybody
LOL. Uh, I didn't try it with no one in the list. version 0.0.4 coming up.
Uploaded a fix for having it enabled and not having any names in the list.
Google chrome only. Should be an 'add to chrome' button at the OP link.
Thanks for the contribution :)
Thanks for the contribution :)
Just saw you said you uploaded an updated version, I'll try again tonight or tomorrow.
or, go to Chrome://extensions and there should be a link to the options there, too.
Yeah, can't help you with that. You're stuck with seeing posts from Rich, radar and me.
Alternately, I could extend it to just change the list of posters handle to "dipshit" and all their comments to "derp"
Quote:
.
Yeah, can't help you with that. You're stuck with seeing posts from Rich, radar and me.
Aw, thanks. I agree. We will never agree on a political thread but I often agree with what you post about sports.
But if I don't know its there it's perfect. You are a hero.
I'm not sure how Funkhouser slipped in there -- you may have to reprogram the dipshit setting
I was just noodling around with Extensions today as an idea for a project here at work. Needed something to try and Rich's Jets post was my inspiration.
Lemme get the auto-hide feature sussed out and then I can put it on github and throw some comments in there to explain what I'm doing if you're curious. There's like 40 lines of javascript in the whole thing.
What type of phone? I have Chrome on my droid, though not sure if this will work for it.
Quote:
Do you have the source code on GitHub or anything to peek at?
I was just noodling around with Extensions today as an idea for a project here at work. Needed something to try and Rich's Jets post was my inspiration.
Lemme get the auto-hide feature sussed out and then I can put it on github and throw some comments in there to explain what I'm doing if you're curious. There's like 40 lines of javascript in the whole thing.
I'd be interested!
Not sure I would do that. If that got a critical mass of users then it might inhibit newbies joining the site. If it existed in 3/05, I might have gotten bored and not stuck around this long. It's one thing for a member to wear out their welcome and get on a lot of lists. It's another to blanket block folks.
Based on the political threads, there are a lot of votes I can count on not getting.
No. There's no logging or saving to any central location. The names are saved in your local browser storage. The scope of that data is such that you have to set up the list on every machine where you want to use it.
Quote:
New members? Like say they won't be shown if you choose that for the first month of their membership?
Not sure I would do that. If that got a critical mass of users then it might inhibit newbies joining the site. If it existed in 3/05, I might have gotten bored and not stuck around this long. It's one thing for a member to wear out their welcome and get on a lot of lists. It's another to blanket block folks.
Yeah its not for the majority, its the ones that show up for one day and then are gone..I see though that could be a problem. Anyhow great BF, very neat buddy
Install the extension provided in the link.
Once installed, right click and choose Options
Add the name of the posters you wish to block separated by commas.
Hit save.
When those names are in threads, click the extension icon and choose "click here"
Posters names who you've added will disappear.
Quote:
In English?
Install the extension provided in the link.
Once installed, right click and choose Options
Add the name of the posters you wish to block separated by commas.
Hit save.
When those names are in threads, click the extension icon and choose "click here"
Posters names who you've added will disappear.
You're hired. Software Support Engineer.
Rich is one of the most entertaining posters on here.
BeerFridge, FWIW I'm a full stack engineer, my current job keeps me plenty busy but once you get this up on GitHub I'd be happy to help with tweaking the extension.
I wouldn't think so. The extension isn't doing anything more complicated than parsing the page contents and deleting the contents of any thread_post div whose poster matches a value from the list. That's really basic (I mean that as a positive - simple is good) and there's no real potential for harm.
Also, to clarify something BeerFridge said in re: storing lists of blocked users in a central location (I looked at the source code a few minutes ago) - he is telling the truth, this extension doesn't send any information to anywhere he would be able to access. What it does do - and this is a good thing - is save your blocked user list to sync storage rather than local storage. This means that if you have Chrome set up to sync your extensions (which I think is the default setting), and you connect Chrome to your Google account, your blocked user list should automatically sync if you log into Chrome on another computer and install the extension there. So if you use Chrome at home and at work on separate computers, you don't need to maintain the same blocked user list in both places.
I also like that it isn't permanent - allows me to read what I want then activate when I see someone I want to avoid. I can see my list of posters growing here.
Thanks again!
Quote:
to viruses or yet vulnerable to being hacked to you guys using it?
I wouldn't think so. The extension isn't doing anything more complicated than parsing the page contents and deleting the contents of any thread_post div whose poster matches a value from the list. That's really basic (I mean that as a positive - simple is good) and there's no real potential for harm.
Also, to clarify something BeerFridge said in re: storing lists of blocked users in a central location (I looked at the source code a few minutes ago) - he is telling the truth, this extension doesn't send any information to anywhere he would be able to access. What it does do - and this is a good thing - is save your blocked user list to sync storage rather than local storage. This means that if you have Chrome set up to sync your extensions (which I think is the default setting), and you connect Chrome to your Google account, your blocked user list should automatically sync if you log into Chrome on another computer and install the extension there. So if you use Chrome at home and at work on separate computers, you don't need to maintain the same blocked user list in both places.
Heh, I think basic is a compliment and I spent probably an hr and a half yesterday on this thing. I'm not sure I'll get to it today.
Setting up something to steal your information or give you a virus would take me more work than that. This extension doesn't send any information to outside resources, nor does it request information from outside resources. And yes, I guess as Audible describes it should sync between your browsers, assuming you are signed into chrome with your google acct. I haven't tried that.
Wooooo Hoooooo!!!!!
radar vanishes
LMFAO!!!!
Thanx
Setting up something to steal your information or give you a virus would take me more work than that. This extension doesn't send any information to outside resources, nor does it request information from outside resources. And yes, I guess as Audible describes it should sync between your browsers, assuming you are signed into chrome with your google acct. I haven't tried that.
I haven't tested the sync either but I'll look at that today. FWIW the chrome.storage doc is incredibly entertaining by the standards of developer documentation. Probably my favorite part:
chrome.storage API - ( New Window )
Awwwww, I'm gonna miss your stupidity, Stan!!
You have that moron thing down pat...
Still polishing to do. I'm really a back end coder, my UI usually sucks. :)
Not sure what's childish. Wouldn't getting into a bickering match be more childish? And will power argument is bullshit when certain posters consistently come in to derail threads with their idiocy. Using will power is no different than using technology...while the means may be different, the end desire/result is still the same.
I'll put it up on github later tonight. Gotta get back to other stuff now.
Hey Fridgie -- the toggle works so well now that an entire thread in the menu is gone if one of your blocked posters happens to be in it -- LoL -- for instance -- I've listed chris r in my options and he posted on your thread announcing the HideAPoster Chrome Extension - and I can't see your announcement thread anymore in the index page of threads
Hey Fridgie -- the toggle works so well now that an entire thread in the menu is gone if one of your blocked posters happens to be in it -- LoL -- for instance -- I've listed chris r in my options and he posted on your thread announcing the HideAPoster Chrome Extension - and I can't see your announcement thread anymore in the index page of threads
Hey Vinnie - I only use Chrome for certain things --- haha -- not anymore
I guess that's right -- I can;t see this thread in the menu no matter what position the toggle is in
yes - exactly - uninstall first -- but I would wait until Fridgie fixes the current bugs
yes - exactly - uninstall first -- but I would wait until Fridgie fixes the current bugs
Quote:
.
Hey Fridgie -- the toggle works so well now that an entire thread in the menu is gone if one of your blocked posters happens to be in it -- LoL -- for instance -- I've listed chris r in my options and he posted on your thread announcing the HideAPoster Chrome Extension - and I can't see your announcement thread anymore in the index page of threads
ok, thanks for the heads up. I will check that out. It's checking the whole row, I guess I need to make sure it's just the started by poster.
I think it's blocking more than that - if the user is quoted, for example. I tested the "Ahmed's clock" thread (this extension is a godsend for threads like that) with hudson - every instance of the string 'hudson' disappears when I toggle on the extension.
In some ways, for users whose handle isn't a frequently used word, this is almost better than if the extension was working "correctly" - it ends up extinguishing any mention of the poster, so you don't get these weird stubs where two posters are going back and forth and you only see one side of the conversation. But it would probably better if the extension worked as intended.
I have to say, though, being able to leave the plugin toggled on makes my BBI experience way, way better. So awesome job BeerFridge!
Am I just missing it or is this the desired functionality.
If so... BRAVO!!!
Am I just missing it or is this the desired functionality.
If so... BRAVO!!!
yeah, that's new for version 0.0.5
yankees78 : 1:25 pm : link : reply
This might be the greatest thing ever
Quote:
I think it's hiding if the poster started or is the last poster on a thread. obviously, you want just the posts they started.
I think it's blocking more than that - if the user is quoted, for example. I tested the "Ahmed's clock" thread (this extension is a godsend for threads like that) with hudson - every instance of the string 'hudson' disappears when I toggle on the extension.
In some ways, for users whose handle isn't a frequently used word, this is almost better than if the extension was working "correctly" - it ends up extinguishing any mention of the poster, so you don't get these weird stubs where two posters are going back and forth and you only see one side of the conversation. But it would probably better if the extension worked as intended.
I have to say, though, being able to leave the plugin toggled on makes my BBI experience way, way better. So awesome job BeerFridge!
Yeah, keeping the toggle on is nice.
I noticed that it removes any comment with a mention of a poster, quoting a poster or if someone types the poster's name. That poster is like an un-person. I think that's the way it is supposed to work.
The comment from me that you are pointing out is meant to be about the list of posts in the forum. There, I am not differentiating from hiding posts "started by" the hidden posters or if they are the "last post" to respond to the post. Basically, any mention of the poster in the row of the table and i am hiding it. That's why the post in the list was appearing and disappearing for gideifor (I think). I am guessing the expected behavior is for the posts to not be hidden if they were started by someone else, even if a hidden poster is the "last post". This, I would say, is a bug.
But, I don't have time to fix it today.
Quote:
In comment 12502668 BeerFridge said:
Quote:
I think it's hiding if the poster started or is the last poster on a thread. obviously, you want just the posts they started.
I think it's blocking more than that - if the user is quoted, for example. I tested the "Ahmed's clock" thread (this extension is a godsend for threads like that) with hudson - every instance of the string 'hudson' disappears when I toggle on the extension.
In some ways, for users whose handle isn't a frequently used word, this is almost better than if the extension was working "correctly" - it ends up extinguishing any mention of the poster, so you don't get these weird stubs where two posters are going back and forth and you only see one side of the conversation. But it would probably better if the extension worked as intended.
I have to say, though, being able to leave the plugin toggled on makes my BBI experience way, way better. So awesome job BeerFridge!
Yeah, keeping the toggle on is nice.
I noticed that it removes any comment with a mention of a poster, quoting a poster or if someone types the poster's name. That poster is like an un-person. I think that's the way it is supposed to work.
The comment from me that you are pointing out is meant to be about the list of posts in the forum. There, I am not differentiating from hiding posts "started by" the hidden posters or if they are the "last post" to respond to the post. Basically, any mention of the poster in the row of the table and i am hiding it. That's why the post in the list was appearing and disappearing for gideifor (I think). I am guessing the expected behavior is for the posts to not be hidden if they were started by someone else, even if a hidden poster is the "last post". This, I would say, is a bug.
But, I don't have time to fix it today.
Makes total sense. I think either approach while in-thread (block all mentions of poster vs. block only posts by that poster) is sensible. Would be really cool to have settings to choose one or the other, but I understand if that seems like a bridge too far. If you put it up on GitHub at some point I might fiddle with it.