The Spoiler Tag

docvego · Post by **docvego** » Fri May 20, 2005 1:20 pm

I think this got mentioned in passing in a few spots, but I think it's worthy of a topic since I think there are quite a few other people interested in this as well.

A lot of phpBB forums have a Spoiler BBCode that users can wrap around post text. After the post is made, text in a spoiler bracket can only be seen when it is highlighted.

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Fri May 20, 2005 4:44 pm

Spoiler:

Let's see.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Fri May 20, 2005 4:55 pm

I think a lot of people use the white font to accomplish this. Of course, you need the subsilver background for that to work.

CeeKay · Post by **CeeKay** » Fri May 20, 2005 6:43 pm

And there is this color if you are using the black background.

hog · Post by **hog** » Fri May 20, 2005 6:51 pm

So to make sure that nobody can see the spoiler with either theme, you'd have to write it twice, once in each theme's invisible color.

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Fri May 20, 2005 6:58 pm

The Hogenator wrote:So to make sure that nobody can see the spoiler with either theme, you'd have to write it twice, once in each theme's invisible color.

I invite you to try that, then revel in the universal cries of outrage it will engender.

- Ash

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Sat May 21, 2005 2:47 am

You could use a well planned combination.

Or the simple *spoiler warning*

Spoiler here.

Suitably Ironic Moniker · Sat May 21, 2005 4:09 am

LawBeefaroni wrote:You could use a well planned combination.

Or the simple *spoiler warning*
<snip>
Spoiler here.

That is definitely an option. The automated spoiler function is a lot more elegant though and protects against accidental exposure to spoilers.

Huw the Poo · Post by **Huw the Poo** » Sat May 21, 2005 4:52 am

Well, for what it's worth I'd love to see a spoiler tag.

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Sat May 21, 2005 2:15 pm

I do think the issue was the different backgrounds that were used. The spoiler tags essentially change the color of the text to match the background (like some have done manually in this thread), but since we have both light and dark backgrounds that people can use, it doesn't work for everyone.

Of course, if the spoiler tags could somehow be automated to correct for the different backgrounds, that would be great. I'll leave the feasibility of something like that to Gedd, though.

Tscott · Post by **Tscott** » Sat May 21, 2005 2:54 pm

The Drod forum has [secret] tags that hide the text behind a 'click here to view' message. I don't know much about modding forums, so I don't know if something like this is available with what the OO forum uses, but it is possible with some forum software to have tags that'll work no matter what background is used.

Here's a good example of it in use from a thread asking for hints in a room:
http://www.drod.net/forum/viewtopic.php ... ge=0#63878

Oh, and I'm all for spoiler tags. The Drod forums and DVDTalk both use them and they work really great. It could've saved a few headaches in our recent 'best episode of TV' thread which was full of spoilers.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sat May 21, 2005 3:38 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:You could use a well planned combination.

Or the simple *spoiler warning*

Of course, if the spoiler includes a fairly long description, it would take an hour to write the post.

I'm all in favor of spoiler tags - they work really well, and let you read the meat of a post without trying to guess where the spoilers stop.

Gedd · Post by **Gedd** » Sat May 21, 2005 9:22 pm

I believe there are several phpBB mods for adding in spoiler tags. I'll look into what's involved. If you haven't heard back from me in 2 weeks please remind me (I'm on vacation next week).

Huw the Poo · Post by **Huw the Poo** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:19 pm

Gedd wrote:If you haven't heard back from me in 2 weeks please remind me

Gedd · Post by **Gedd** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:20 pm

Lookout!

Spoiler:

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:27 pm

It's interesting to me that the tags weren't retroactively applied to Tareeq's post.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:28 pm

Tareeq wrote:
Spoiler:
Could this be a hidden feature here?
Let's see.

Testing if catches 'reeq's post.

Spoiler:

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:35 pm

I forsee a dark future in which hordes of black bars are strewn liberally across my previously beautiful subsilver landscape.

[edit] - It seems that the code is only parsed once when you hit post . . . after that it's just text in the html. Which makes sense, now that I think about it. It'd be cumbersome if phpBB had to compile the thread continuously.

Gedd · Post by **Gedd** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:38 pm

Fretmute wrote:It's interesting to me that the tags weren't retroactively applied to Tareeq's post.

It is. What your seeing with Tareeq's post is the difference in the way information is stored in the database, and how it's rendered. When phpBB stores a tag, it's actually stored in the format [sometag:sid] where sometag is the tag and sid is some sort of session id number. If there's no session id number, phpBB treats it as normal text when it renders. Because is now recognized as a phpBB tag, it stores it in the database in the aforementioned format.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:38 pm

Spoiler:

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:39 pm

Who will be the first to let loose this upon EBG?

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:42 pm

I believe Fed once had a good line about unleashing the Uruk-Hai in the Smurf's village. Only evil can come from this.

[edit] - Or not, my spoiler bars are now a very pleasing shade from the subsilver palate. Carry on.

Gedd · Post by **Gedd** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:43 pm

Fretmute wrote:I forsee a dark future in which hordes of black bars are strewn liberally across my previously beautiful subsilver landscape.

That was just my initial take on it. I may make more changes in the future, but this will do for now.

[edit] - It seems that the code is only parsed once when you hit post . . . after that it's just text in the html. Which makes sense, now that I think about it. It'd be cumbersome if phpBB had to compile the thread continuously.

Nope, it's actually re-rendered every time, which actually makes sense so you can change the HTML represented by each code on the fly. So if tomorrow I wanted to switch the bold and italic tags, I could make a change in two files (for each theme) and it would automatically handle all the old posts.

While rendering the page each time may be more burdensome on the server, writing the posts to the database as HTML would make the database that much bigger.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:44 pm

The Preacher wrote:Who will be the first to let loose this upon EBG?

Spoiler:

Apparently, smilies can't be spoilers. That should make for some interesting hidden paragraphs.

Gedd · Post by **Gedd** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:47 pm

Fretmute wrote:I believe Fed once had a good line about unleashing the Uruk-Hai in the Smurf's village. Only evil can come from this.

I'll note that like anything this tag, like avatars, sigs, etc. is a courtesy to our board members. If it gets abused, or folks use it for the wrong reasons, like masking large amounts of profanity or insults in order to make it tough for mods to see, the staff will take appropriate action. If it becomes abused on a larger scale we'll take it back out.

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:50 pm

Gedd wrote:<Technical notes>

I stand corrected. Further evidence that I never really have a clue what I'm talking about, yet make my opinions known regardless. It's all part of my charm.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:52 pm

Fretmute wrote:
Gedd wrote:<Technical notes>
I stand corrected. Further evidence that I never really have a clue what I'm talking about, yet make my opinions known regardless. It's all part of my charm.

Spoiler:

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:56 pm

The Preacher wrote:
Spoiler:
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

It's like unwrapping a present, except it's really the opposite of that. "Gee, I hope he wrote something nice . . . . oh, it's a burn! Nooooooooooooo!"

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:06 pm

Fretmute wrote:
The Preacher wrote:
Spoiler:
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
It's like unwrapping a present, except it's really the opposite of that. "Gee, I hope he wrote something nice . . . . oh, it's a burn! Nooooooooooooo!"

Yes, this power will be used for great, great evil.

warning · Post by **warning** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:15 pm

Spoiler:

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:19 pm

Tareeq wrote:
Spoiler:
Could this be a hidden feature here?
Let's see.

Then how come Tareeq's post at the top of this thread *isn't* being re-parsed?

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:21 pm

warning wrote:
Spoiler:
Kevin Bacon is Keyser Soze

Spoiler:

Gedd · Post by **Gedd** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:22 pm

Then how come Tareeq's post at the top of this thread *isn't* being re-parsed?

Gedd, earlier in the thread wrote:It is. What your seeing with Tareeq's post is the difference in the way information is stored in the database, and how it's rendered. When phpBB stores a tag, it's actually stored in the format [sometag:sid] where sometag is the tag and sid is some sort of session id number. If there's no session id number, phpBB treats it as normal text when it renders. Because is now recognized as a phpBB tag, it stores it in the database in the aforementioned format.

To further expand, Tareeq's post was made when it wasn't a tag, so it doesn't have that sid information attached to it in the database, so phpBB ignores it. If Tareeq were to edit his post, it would now be stored with the sid and would render as a spoiler.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:23 pm

It burns!

warning · Post by **warning** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:39 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:
warning wrote:
Spoiler:
Ralph-Wiggum is a man

Spoiler:
Liar!

Hmm...

Gedd · Post by **Gedd** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:42 pm

Oh, one thing I forgot. I have also programmed in a super-advanced function for seeing all spoiler text on the page. Simply press CTRL-A and all secrets shall be revealed.

Huw the Poo · Post by **Huw the Poo** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:45 pm

Cool, nice work Gedd.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:04 pm

Gedd wrote:Oh, one thing I forgot. I have also programmed in a super-advanced function for seeing all spoiler text on the page. Simply press CTRL-A and all secrets shall be revealed.

Hey, I tried it in Word and it does it there too. It does it everywhere!WTF did you do to my computr!???!!??!?/

Gedd · Post by **Gedd** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:08 pm

Don't worry LB. As part of my advanced programming skills I foresaw your issue. Simply follow CTRL-A in Word with CTRL-X and the problem will disappear.