Disable timeline real-time updates

[hoodiek]

since we're under heavy load, and things aren't working very well, it's pointed out a problem.

i'd suggest a manual "update feed" button to resolve the issue with this, as well as options to maybe turn off automatic update for those who would rather do things piece at a time.

also a "refresh every (textbox or selector goes here for how many) seconds" would be appreciated.

thank you for listening.

[Gargron]

Adding settings for specifically the web UI will be a complicated task, I'm not keen on mixing them in with account or profile settings since those are independent of the UI you're using. But the thing is once web UI-specific settings will become a thing somehow, it'll pave way for re-ordering columns, adding new columns, choosing which types of notifications to show etc etc.

[Gargron]

Adding settings for specifically the web UI will be a complicated task, I'm not keen on mixing them in with account or profile settings since those are independent of the UI you're using. But the thing is once web UI-specific settings will become a thing somehow, it'll pave way for re-ordering columns, adding new columns, choosing which types of notifications to show etc etc.

[hoodiek]

sounds like a big task, but you seem up to it. take care, friend. thank you for listening.

[hoodiek]

sounds like a big task, but you seem up to it. take care, friend. thank you for listening.

[himselfv]

It's hard to click at anything precisely when toots are being shifted constantly by the stream of updates. The way twitter does this is much better, it shows the number of new tweets at the top and a button to download them.

It's also excessive to update this often. Even if there's a toot every second, people can't read at this speed. (At least most of us). One update every 30 seconds should be enough, unless the user specifically wants faster updates.

[himselfv]

It's hard to click at anything precisely when toots are being shifted constantly by the stream of updates. The way twitter does this is much better, it shows the number of new tweets at the top and a button to download them.

It's also excessive to update this often. Even if there's a toot every second, people can't read at this speed. (At least most of us). One update every 30 seconds should be enough, unless the user specifically wants faster updates.

[himselfv]

Is this fixed?

[himselfv]

Is this fixed?

[hoodiek]

no. i'd like to know why it's been closed, because it isn't fixed

[hoodiek]

no. i'd like to know why it's been closed, because it isn't fixed

[Gargron]

I have closed all issues opened by this user due to this comment: https://pleroma.site/objects/a00611de-f0ac-454e-ade0-cf949195f0fa

Normally, when people enter into a financial transaction, they do so knowingly: "I will do x in exchange for y", and the other person may agree or disagree. The user in question has submitted a whole array of feature requests, and way after that decided that they need reimbursement for it, even though there was no such agreement in advance. I see no other way than to close all feature requests by that user, and not use them.

On top of that, the user in question has claimed to be the inventor of features that multiple other people wanted, that there existed prior art for (e.g. Archive of Our Own, e-mail subject lines, whole community has been using ROT13 with a line of cleartext for the subject), and that other people have actually put in the work to implementing. For example, content warnings have been implemented in #460, and changed, polished and iterated on multiple times since, if you follow the code history.

In my view, the nature of bug reports and feature requests is mutually beneficial to the reporter and the project maintainer: You say what you want, and in the best case you get what you wanted. The project becomes better and your personal need is addressed. But in case you require more compensation than that, you must state so beforehand to give the project maintainer a chance to consent (and be prepared to hear a "no").

[Gargron]

I have closed all issues opened by this user due to this comment: https://pleroma.site/objects/a00611de-f0ac-454e-ade0-cf949195f0fa

Normally, when people enter into a financial transaction, they do so knowingly: "I will do x in exchange for y", and the other person may agree or disagree. The user in question has submitted a whole array of feature requests, and way after that decided that they need reimbursement for it, even though there was no such agreement in advance. I see no other way than to close all feature requests by that user, and not use them.

On top of that, the user in question has claimed to be the inventor of features that multiple other people wanted, that there existed prior art for (e.g. Archive of Our Own, e-mail subject lines, whole community has been using ROT13 with a line of cleartext for the subject), and that other people have actually put in the work to implementing. For example, content warnings have been implemented in #460, and changed, polished and iterated on multiple times since, if you follow the code history.

In my view, the nature of bug reports and feature requests is mutually beneficial to the reporter and the project maintainer: You say what you want, and in the best case you get what you wanted. The project becomes better and your personal need is addressed. But in case you require more compensation than that, you must state so beforehand to give the project maintainer a chance to consent (and be prepared to hear a "no").

[hoodiek]

i did not ask you to close my issues. i stated that i have not recieved credit for what i contributed, because i haven't. you hoard all credit for everything people contribute to you. i did not state that i demanded payment for my efforts, simply that i did not receive them, because i haven't

for you to close all my issues is hostile to your userbase, and i did not request it or require it. there is no reason for this, as far as i can tell, other than that you feel offended that i do not enjoy your method of operation

[hoodiek]

i did not ask you to close my issues. i stated that i have not recieved credit for what i contributed, because i haven't. you hoard all credit for everything people contribute to you. i did not state that i demanded payment for my efforts, simply that i did not receive them, because i haven't

for you to close all my issues is hostile to your userbase, and i did not request it or require it. there is no reason for this, as far as i can tell, other than that you feel offended that i do not enjoy your method of operation

[hoodiek]

@Gargron i would advise reopening the issues in question, as there was no reason for the closure other than 'some words i said, that you didn't like'. i will never be contributing to your project again, but your users do not need to suffer due to the bad blood between us. goodbye, and i hope to never meet you again. do not let that color your opinion of your users, or change how you treat them, however. they deserve all the best, regardless of whether or not you think i am in the wrong for having found issue with your method of operation

[hoodiek]

@Gargron i would advise reopening the issues in question, as there was no reason for the closure other than 'some words i said, that you didn't like'. i will never be contributing to your project again, but your users do not need to suffer due to the bad blood between us. goodbye, and i hope to never meet you again. do not let that color your opinion of your users, or change how you treat them, however. they deserve all the best, regardless of whether or not you think i am in the wrong for having found issue with your method of operation

[trwnh]

@Gargron This seems like an excessive response. Even if the issues in question were filed by a certain person, that does not mean they are the only person who wishes to see them implemented, or that they somehow solely own the idea, to the point that no one should get to have these issues resolved.

In the case of this specific issue, this is clearly something that more than one person wants, and something that would benefit people without a constant internet connection. In the case of other closed issues, they point to other widely-desired functionality like better lists, broad discussions around potential changes, etc.

As you yourself just said, without an agreement in advance and with prior art, one cannot expect compensation/etc, but that is altogether secondary and frankly unrelated to the issues themselves, which are just as valid regardless of who filed them. Please reconsider, for the sake of the community if nothing else. It would be a waste of everyone's time to refile the exact same issues and repeat the exact same discussions.

[trwnh]

@Gargron This seems like an excessive response. Even if the issues in question were filed by a certain person, that does not mean they are the only person who wishes to see them implemented, or that they somehow solely own the idea, to the point that no one should get to have these issues resolved.

In the case of this specific issue, this is clearly something that more than one person wants, and something that would benefit people without a constant internet connection. In the case of other closed issues, they point to other widely-desired functionality like better lists, broad discussions around potential changes, etc.

As you yourself just said, without an agreement in advance and with prior art, one cannot expect compensation/etc, but that is altogether secondary and frankly unrelated to the issues themselves, which are just as valid regardless of who filed them. Please reconsider, for the sake of the community if nothing else. It would be a waste of everyone's time to refile the exact same issues and repeat the exact same discussions.