it's only for tags that don't have an ending tag after something.  <b> </b> is still used to surround what it applies to.  The big three that are affected are <img> <hr> and <br>. 

Cool, thanks.
So, was my attached .pdf the same as what you see in your Edit box, in which case, I can just make the changes myself and send to you?
Preferred format for me to send to you - .doc, .odt., .pdf?
If not the same as what you see in your Edit box, pls copy/send your Edit box material as .doc or .odt. Thanks.

Ready to rock 'n roll on fixing this; just need to confirm whether the attachment here was in fact the same as you see in your Edit box. (I'll attach again.)
If so, all I need to do is edit it and e-mail it to you, and it should be a one-minute copy/paste item for you.

Please advise preferred format: .doc, .odt., .rtf., .txt., .pdf?

Also, just spotted another parody with the same pre-fix issue: "Econ 101 Turtle: TT"
(Maybe should quit writing on financial matters. >grin< )

If the attached isn't the same as your Edit box, please PM or e-mail me your lyrics content on those two, in any of the above formats except .pdf (I don't have a costly editor for that), and I'll edit and send back.  Reiterating the original parody in question: "California!"

TIA.

I DK if you can reproduce this, but I just had it happen twice in a row. The song is in the submission queue for today as I write this.

Background: Even after proofing a song draft endlessly, I still end up tweaking it in the submission form, finding mistakes better because of the nice pastel b/g and the WYSIWYG aspect; finding last-minute improvements, and because I'm rapidly going senile.

Problem: After a while, cookie expires. Loses all.

Solution, per ChuckyG: Hit "Send", with no pw or sec code; refreshes cookie when error message appears.

This last came up regarding the "dollar-sign bug" (somewhere on this forum), long since fixed, where the two numbers after a dollar sign were "eaten".

New problem: Text after colon disappears upon refreshing as above.

Title as correctly previewed:
Sarah, I'll Miss (Palin: "Not POTUS Candidate")

Upon refreshing cookie as above:
Sarah, I'll Miss (Palin:

IOW, everything after the colon was dropped from the title field.

Fixed it, twiddled with it some more, refreshed as above, by sending w/o pw; same thing happened.

Successfully submitted with the full title showing, and assume it came through that way.

Question: Is there anything in your code that a colon would signify, and are they not escaped out as dollar signs were supposed to be (but apparently weren't, until fixed)? .. and would cause this in the exact sequence described?

If you DK and can't easily reproduce, no big deal. Who knows if it will ever happen again? TIA.

I DK if you can reproduce this, but I just had it happen twice in a row. The song is in the submission queue for today as I write this.

Background: Even after proofing a song draft endlessly, I still end up tweaking it in the submission form, finding mistakes better because of the nice pastel b/g and the WYSIWYG aspect; finding last-minute improvements, and because I'm rapidly going senile.

Problem: After a while, cookie expires. Loses all.

Solution, per ChuckyG: Hit "Send", with no pw or sec code; refreshes cookie when error message appears.

This last came up regarding the "dollar-sign bug" (somewhere on this forum), long since fixed, where the two numbers after a dollar sign were "eaten".

New problem: Text after colon disappears upon refreshing as above.

Title as correctly previewed:
Sarah, I'll Miss (Palin: "Not POTUS Candidate")

Upon refreshing cookie as above:
Sarah, I'll Miss (Palin:

IOW, everything after the colon was dropped from the title field.

Fixed it, twiddled with it some more, refreshed as above, by sending w/o pw; same thing happened.

Successfully submitted with the full title showing, and assume it came through that way.

Question: Is there anything in your code that a colon would signify, and are they not escaped out as dollar signs were supposed to be (but apparently weren't, until fixed)? .. and would cause this in the exact sequence described?

If you DK and can't easily reproduce, no big deal. Who knows if it will ever happen again? TIA.




probably not the colon... might be the quote marks. I'm assuming it's something with the timeout things, because I'm pretty sure people have submitted titles like that before.  I forget how I tested these time out issues before so I can try and reproduce it.

probably not the colon... might be the quote marks. I'm assuming it's something with the timeout things, because I'm pretty sure people have submitted titles like that before.  I forget how I tested these time out issues before so I can try and reproduce it.

Don't think quotes inside the title field have been a problem before, e. g.

Who Put The "Blam" In The Ramadan Of Islam?
Ewe: "Don't Clone Me!"
Guess I'm An Old Fogey (The "F-Word" Song)

Those span from Sep 2007 to August 2009.

OK, just discovered easy way to reproduce - and you're right, it isn't the colon (or the timeout), it's the quotes.
I must not have spent so much time submitting the above, OR it's a regression error that sneaked in when other stuff was fixed post-August 2009

To reproduce:

Parody submission page: Enter in Title field,
Hello "World" (skip  the other fields)

Hit "Send"

Result: Error messages, of course.

Hit "Preview"

Preview now shows title as
Hello

So sending without security code, or wrong one (misreading sec code) chops off whatever is quoted in the title field. Haven't checked whether this applies to other fields.
But I just went through the above cycle several times, and it is 100% reproducible.

I can send screenshots if needed, but it seems you should get the same results.

Don't think quotes inside the title field have been a problem before, e. g.

Who Put The "Blam" In The Ramadan Of Islam?
Ewe: "Don't Clone Me!"
Guess I'm An Old Fogey (The "F-Word" Song)

Those span from Sep 2007 to August 2009.

OK, just discovered easy way to reproduce - and you're right, it isn't the colon (or the timeout), it's the quotes.
I must not have spent so much time submitting the above, OR it's a regression error that sneaked in when other stuff was fixed post-August 2009

To reproduce:

Parody submission page: Enter in Title field,
Hello "World" (skip  the other fields)

Hit "Send"

Result: Error messages, of course.

Hit "Preview"

Preview now shows title as
Hello

So sending without security code, or wrong one (misreading sec code) chops off whatever is quoted in the title field. Haven't checked whether this applies to other fields.
But I just went through the above cycle several times, and it is 100% reproducible.

I can send screenshots if needed, but it seems you should get the same results.




no that's cool... I'm pretty sure I have an idea of what it might be.  I'll fix it tomorrow

no that's cool... I'm pretty sure I have an idea of what it might be.  I'll fix it tomorrow


Great, thanks.

Great, thanks.


should be ok now... the quote marks needed to get re-encoded as HTML entities for display in the form.  Probably affected all the forms on the site that were single line text fields. Honestly surprised I never noticed it before.

should be ok now... the quote marks needed to get re-encoded as HTML entities for display in the form.  Probably affected all the forms on the site that were single line text fields. Honestly surprised I never noticed it before.


Well, aren't you glad to have ol' TT to find these things for you? (KIDDING!)

Seriously, thanks for prompt fix.  :)

Tried voting on a parody after I read it and commented, and it asked me to confirm my vote, then said I didn't have cookies enabled for AmIRight and can't vote until I enabled them.

I have my cookies enabled for sites that I visit, so I had to post this...



Andria

Tried voting on a parody after I read it and commented, and it asked me to confirm my vote, then said I didn't have cookies enabled for AmIRight and can't vote until I enabled them.

I have my cookies enabled for sites that I visit, so I had to post this...


no idea what the problem could be... I tried it with IE 6 and Firefox and both worked fine for me.  Someone else complained about it to me in email, so not sure what the commonality is between the two of you.  I believe the other person uses AOL.

Tried voting on a parody after I read it and commented, and it asked me to confirm my vote, then said I didn't have cookies enabled for AmIRight and can't vote until I enabled them.
I have my cookies enabled for sites that I visit, so I had to post this...

@ ChuckyG: Just confirmed this, in both Firefox 3.6.23, and in an old Fx 2.0.0.20, kept around for exactly such diagnostics. Starting from scratch (empty cookie folder), Both browsers whitelist cookies from both domains, AIR and 00s. Voting alone wouldn't even set the cookie, in either browser.
Commenting was not a problem and produced the cookie, www.amiright.com PHPSESSID, could click the vote radio buttons, but clicking "confirm" produced the error message Andria got,
You do not have cookies enabled!

So it won't give you a cookie at all just for voting; commenting produces a cookie, but it won't "read" it, or something.

If you need screenshots or more tech details, let me know.

Edit: Direct cable service, Win XP, NoScript with AIR and 00s whitelisted.

@ ChuckyG: Just confirmed this, in both Firefox 3.6.23, and in an old Fx 2.0.0.20, kept around for exactly such diagnostics. Starting from scratch (empty cookie folder), Both browsers whitelist cookies from both domains, AIR and 00s. Voting alone wouldn't even set the cookie, in either browser.
Commenting was not a problem and produced the cookie, www.amiright.com PHPSESSID, could click the vote radio buttons, but clicking "confirm" produced the error message Andria got,
You do not have cookies enabled!

So it won't give you a cookie at all just for voting; commenting produces a cookie, but it won't "read" it, or something.

If you need screenshots or more tech details, let me know.

Edit: Direct cable service, Win XP, NoScript with AIR and 00s whitelisted.



yeah, I just noticed the issue appears to be isolated to voting, not commenting.  Which is awful for me, because the code is at least ten years old and hasn't changed in almost as long a time. No idea what is causing the problem.

ARGH!!!! I figured it out... so simple, so stupid.  Guess it has been around ten years since I wrote it.

$expDate = "Wednesday, 09-Oct-11 00:00:00 GMT";

I hard coded the expiration date for the voting cookies... stupid stupid stupid.

I'll put the year in there based on the current year instead of picking a date ten years out from today.

Needless to say, I fixed the issue.

ARGH!!!! I figured it out... so simple, so stupid.  Guess it has been around ten years since I wrote it.

$expDate = "Wednesday, 09-Oct-11 00:00:00 GMT";

I hard coded the expiration date for the voting cookies... stupid stupid stupid.

I'll put the year in there based on the current year instead of picking a date ten years out from today.

Needless to say, I fixed the issue.


If you'll pardon me, ROFL! -- the Y2k bug, almost 12 years later.  :)
I would have caught that for you, except that by allowing session cookies only, "Expires:" always shows as "End of session", regardless of the actual exp date.
At one time I had Add 'n Edit Cookies add-on, which would have read the whole thing as written, but never used it, so dropped it.

Some sites use a date 30 or 40 years out. Then it won't bug (heh!) you for another 30 years....

You're saying that exp will be a variable, i. e.. {current.year+1} or something? Well, whatever works. This must have been a head-banger, though -- dealing with 10-yr-old code.
Sympathies.  8)

Edit:  $expDate = "Wednesday, 09-Oct-11 00:00:00 GMT";  ... would have been a Sunday. In 2001, was there not capability to look at dates ten years ahead? (part kidding, part curious - really)
XP came out in 2001, I didn't get it until SP2 in 2005, but the calendar runs until 2099.

If you'll pardon me, ROFL! -- the Y2k bug, almost 12 years later.  :)
I would have caught that for you, except that by allowing session cookies only, "Expires:" always shows as "End of session", regardless of the actual exp date.
At one time I had Add 'n Edit Cookies add-on, which would have read the whole thing as written, but never used it, so dropped it.

Some sites use a date 30 or 40 years out. Then it won't bug (heh!) you for another 30 years....

You're saying that exp will be a variable, i. e.. {current.year+1} or something? Well, whatever works. This must have been a head-banger, though -- dealing with 10-yr-old code.
Sympathies.  8)

Edit:  $expDate = "Wednesday, 09-Oct-11 00:00:00 GMT";  ... would have been a Sunday. In 2001, was there not capability to look at dates ten years ahead? (part kidding, part curious - really)
XP came out in 2001, I didn't get it until SP2 in 2005, but the calendar runs until 2099.


I think it was that I didn't know much about doing dates in PERL at the time, and didn't bother to research it further either.  I also think now it had to be eleven years ago, I seem to remember coding it in the fall of 2000.  Either way... yeah, I made it current year + 1 now.  Maybe I should change it so it doesn't expire so often.  I don't want to set it to some ridiculous number, because I think that might set some flags in a browser or cause other issues.

Didn't happen with the comment system, because I re-wrote that with PHP a few years.  The voting system has been due for a rewrite as well, the HTML portion at the very least.  I did a lot of things I'm not proud of.  It works though, so I don't feel like messing with it. 

The comment system needs a captcha replacement that is visually impaired friendly.  I've gotten at least one request for it.  Still not sure what to implement on that front. Don't want recaptcha because those are overkill, and frankly a little annoying.

I got around to making another little surprise tonight too... bet you find it first. 

<snip>.  Either way... yeah, I made it current year + 1 now.  Maybe I should change it so it doesn't expire so often.
If that's truly a variable drawn from the current year and adding one year, e. g. today's cookie expires Oct. 09, 2012, and tomorrow's expire Oct. 10, 2012, etc., I don't see that as a problem -- seems like a pretty good solution, IMHO. Even those who login "forever" or keep cookies "forever" would just get a new one when the old one expires -- *if* the code called for that, rather than giving an error message as per OP.

If it's not coded that way (to auto-replace expired cookies), then yeah, current date + 5 or 10 years might be less future trouble.

  I don't want to set it to some ridiculous number, because I think that might set some flags in a browser or cause other issues.

I've seen a lot of 30-year cookies around the Web, back when I used to look at expiration dates. I don't think anything up to 30 years upsets any browser AFAIK; if it does, I DK of it.

The comment system needs a captcha replacement that is visually impaired friendly.  I've gotten at least one request for it.  Still not sure what to implement on that front. Don't want recaptcha because those are overkill, and frankly a little annoying.

The standard solution is an audio file. Impaired reader types or dictates (to VRT) what s/he hears.

I got around to making another little surprise tonight too... bet you find it first. 


YAY!!!!

Actually, I was through with the site for the evening, but had a hunch after reading your post, and sure enough....

THANK YOU on behalf of us many klutzy typists. I know that Warren Baker, among others, begged for this too.
So, three Karmas, representing a huge improvement, and on behalf of those who will benefit, but don't follow this forum or know of the request by Your Humble Servant and others.

Edit:
OOPS.... "Can't give another Karma for 24 hrs." ... OK, they'll get there. And surely everyone else who appreciates this feature, originally requested by (cough) (cough) here and here, will be adding their own thanks to you.  8)

I've seen a lot of 30-year cookies around the Web, back when I used to look at expiration dates. I don't think anything up to 30 years upsets any browser AFAIK; if it does, I DK of it.


I haven't seen many issues with, but with all the focus on cookies and security lately, I start to wonder if people aren't going to begin noticing the dates these things have set more often.


The standard solution is an audio file. Impaired reader types or dictates (to VRT) what s/he hears.


yeah, I was trying to avoid that route and replace the image captcha with something else entirely.  Probably just going to wuss out and do the audio thing in the end.


Actually, I was through with the site for the evening, but had a hunch after reading your post, and sure enough....

THANK YOU on behalf of us many klutzy typists. I know that Warren Baker, among others, begged for this too.
So, three Karmas, representing a huge improvement, and on behalf of those who will benefit, but don't follow this forum or know of the request by Your Humble Servant and others.


I was waiting until I did the captcha overhaul, but when I was in there tonight, I decided to take a look. I was embarrassed at how dang easy it was to code up.  Should have done it when you asked... so maybe not worthy of three karmas... I'll take two instead.

I haven't seen many issues with, but with all the focus on cookies and security lately, I start to wonder if people aren't going to begin noticing the dates these things have set more often.

It's no trouble for me to re-install the Firefox cookie-editor add-on, and just notice the dates of a few. "People" don't notice them at all, only techies LOL -- and that's a very small minority. If 30-yr cookies aren't tripping alarms, it's probably cool. Will be back in a day or two or three with results of cookie exp. dates.

yeah, I was trying to avoid that route and replace the image captcha with something else entirely.  Probably just going to wuss out and do the audio thing in the end.

Other than the PM I recently sent you, here's an idea, FWIW: If you have only one such user, assign them a permanent security code via a validated e-mail address, or PM here may be even better.  (Maybe even more than three characters.) Hopefully, a small addition to the coding of validation (in pseudo-code):

Security.code=true OR Security.code = Ab18cs = (valid).

I was waiting until I did the captcha overhaul, but when I was in there tonight, I decided to take a look. I was embarrassed at how dang easy it was to code up.  Should have done it when you asked... so maybe not worthy of three karmas... I'll take two instead.


OK, but on behalf of those who supported the request and won't give the K, or maybe aren't here so much ....  ;)

Turns out I didn't need the cookie editor after all. The browser is locked down so tightly against storing any cookies beyond session, I just had to undo the Chinese-nested-box maze of security.  :-2041.

If the common site to access Flash player downloads and such isn't tripping browser alarms with cookies eight days shy of 30 years, I think we're safe with whatever number of years you think best.

That was easy. Back to session-only.  8)

Other than the PM I recently sent you, here's an idea, FWIW: If you have only one such user, assign them a permanent security code via a validated e-mail address, or PM here may be even better.  (Maybe even more than three characters.) Hopefully, a small addition to the coding of validation (in pseudo-code):

Security.code=true OR Security.code = Ab18cs = (valid).
OK, but on behalf of those who supported the request and won't give the K, or maybe aren't here so much ....  ;)


yeah, I thought about that too... but I'd rather have a more robust solution that doesn't require people to contact me first.

yeah, I thought about that too... but I'd rather have a more robust solution that doesn't require people to contact me first.


A couple of others I've seen, both in image form rather than text, to make it harder for bots:

"Multiply three and eight. Type the answer in the box" -- could be in large type for the visually-impaired, or they could click a button for a larger version.

"Cat, friend, car, bug. Type the one that is *not* a living thing" -- or something along those lines.
I don't think bots can do that, and doubt that AIR gets enough views for them to pay kids in Thailand to solve them all day long.

A couple of others I've seen, both in image form rather than text, to make it harder for bots:

"Multiply three and eight. Type the answer in the box" -- could be in large type for the visually-impaired, or they could click a button for a larger version.

"Cat, friend, car, bug. Type the one that is *not* a living thing" -- or something along those lines.
I don't think bots can do that, and doubt that AIR gets enough views for them to pay kids in Thailand to solve them all day long.


yeah, the Q&A thing was one of the routes I was thinking of.. I'll probably just do the audio thing though.

(second Karma for adding parody comment preview)

Turns out I didn't need the cookie editor after all. The browser is locked down so tightly against storing any cookies beyond session, I just had to undo the Chinese-nested-box maze of security.  :-2041.

If the common site to access Flash player downloads and such isn't tripping browser alarms with cookies eight days shy of 30 years, I think we're safe with whatever number of years you think best.

That was easy. Back to session-only.  8)


I did a little Google search, and apparently 2038 is the max date that should be set due to some browsers not supporting dates past that 64 bit boundary (the next Y2K type issue).  Either way, I'm happy enough with just pushing it out a year past the current year right now.

I did a little Google search, and apparently 2038 is the max date that should be set due to some browsers not supporting dates past that 64 bit boundary (the next Y2K type issue).  Either way, I'm happy enough with just pushing it out a year past the current year right now.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.... I thought it was the 32-bit boundary? Sources say 64 bits supports about 300 billion years -- I think we're all safe there --  ;D -- except where struct tm uses a 32-bit signed integer, in which case, it's barely more than two billion years. That's cutting it a bit close.  :o

"Most operating systems designed to run on 64-bit hardware already use signed 64-bit time_t integers, effectively eliminating the Year 2038 problem in any software that has been developed to use the extended format."

I'm sure that long before then, all browsers will support it.
My Fx 3 didn't have any trouble with Adobe's 2041 cookie now. (Edit: Neither does obsolete Fx2.) I DK how Firefox reads those, but whatever, I'm on a 32-bit system, and it works.

Glad you replied. Had wondered if my post about cookie lifespan was missed, or anything been done in that regard.

That site (Adobe) might be a good place to test all your stuff, and all supported platforms and browsers, to see if they support the post-2038 exp.date?

Only important thing left (assume you already did this) is to ensure that expired cookies are replaced with fresh ones, by default.
I'd guess that you're going to refresh the cookie, incl. exp. date, on each visit, but once in a while, someone who hasn't been here (AIR) in more than a year comes back.
If they had permanent cookie storage, and display the expired cookie, will your code as written auto-replace it, rather than give the error message in the OP?

(uh-oh. looks like someone sneaked in that third Karma after all.  :D )

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.... I thought it was the 32-bit boundary? Sources say 64 bits supports about 300 billion years -- I think we're all safe there --  ;D -- except where struct tm uses a 32-bit signed integer, in which case, it's barely more than two billion years. That's cutting it a bit close.  :o

"Most operating systems designed to run on 64-bit hardware already use signed 64-bit time_t integers, effectively eliminating the Year 2038 problem in any software that has been developed to use the extended format."

I'm sure that long before then, all browsers will support it.
My Fx 3 didn't have any trouble with Adobe's 2041 cookie now. (Edit: Neither does obsolete Fx2.) I DK how Firefox reads those, but whatever, I'm on a 32-bit system, and it works.

Glad you replied. Had wondered if my post about cookie lifespan was missed, or anything been done in that regard.

That site (Adobe) might be a good place to test all your stuff, and all supported platforms and browsers, to see if they support the post-2038 exp.date?

Only important thing left (assume you already did this) is to ensure that expired cookies are replaced with fresh ones, by default.
I'd guess that you're going to refresh the cookie, incl. exp. date, on each visit, but once in a while, someone who hasn't been here (AIR) in more than a year comes back.
If they had permanent cookie storage, and display the expired cookie, will your code as written auto-replace it, rather than give the error message in the OP?

(uh-oh. looks like someone sneaked in that third Karma after all.  :D )


I set it a year ahead.  if it expires, it requires new one to be set before you can vote.  I imagine that most people don't have them last that long anyways.  Maybe I could set it out further, but hardly seems necessary. 

I set it a year ahead.  if it expires, it requires new one to be set before you can vote.  I imagine that most people don't have them last that long anyways.  Maybe I could set it out further, but hardly seems necessary. 

Cool. Thanks.

Problem...
The pop up ad on this page cannot be removed, so one cannot click on the Latest Comments links (particularly mine!)

http://www.amiright.com/parody/authors/

Problem...
The pop up ad on this page cannot be removed, so one cannot click on the Latest Comments links (particularly mine!)

http://www.amiright.com/parody/authors/


There's no popup there for me, nor should there ever be a popup ad on any of my sites. I don't run ads like that.  You might have adware on your PC.


send me a screenshot if you still think it's on my end

There's no popup there for me, nor should there ever be a popup ad on any of my sites. I don't run ads like that.  You might have adware on your PC.


send me a screenshot if you still think it's on my end


I clicked on the link inside the ad, and it is "AdSense from Google".  I guess I have to adjust my gmail settings to deal with the problem (it happens on my Android phone and my laptop). Take a look at what I found if you are curious:
http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/static.py?hl=en&gl=US&client=ca-pub-1475700848612418&ts=1631343&page=ts.cs&adU=mediaplex.com&rd=3&contact=abg_afc&url=http:%2F%2Fwww.amiright.com%2Fparody%2Fauthors%2F&adT=ImageAd

EDIT: so I went in to Ads Preferences Manager to block the current demographics and preferences. To permenantly opt out of the AdSense automatic ad placement, i have to download a plugin from google...requiring IE 6. A lot of good that does on an Android phone! Yeesh.  :o >:(

And EDIT:  since I cant disable it permanently on my Android, now there is a white box where the ad was, about one third of the way down on the right side of the screen. I will be able to get the plugin for for the laptop I think. I will get  in touch with you if that doesnt seem to work there.

I clicked on the link inside the ad, and it is "AdSense from Google".  I guess I have to adjust my gmail settings to deal with the problem (it happens on my Android phone and my laptop). Take a look at what I found if you are curious:
http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/static.py?hl=en&gl=US&client=ca-pub-1475700848612418&ts=1631343&page=ts.cs&adU=mediaplex.com&rd=3&contact=abg_afc&url=http:%2F%2Fwww.amiright.com%2Fparody%2Fauthors%2F&adT=ImageAd

EDIT: so I went in to Ads Preferences Manager to block the current demographics and preferences. To permenantly opt out of the AdSense automatic ad placement, i have to download a plugin from google...requiring IE 6. A lot of good that does on an Android phone! Yeesh.  :o >:(

And EDIT:  since I cant disable it permanently on my Android, now there is a white box where the ad was, about one third of the way down on the right side of the screen. I will be able to get the plugin for for the laptop I think. I will get  in touch with you if that doesnt seem to work there.


strange.  I do run adsense ads, but I was under the impression they didn't allow popup ads.  I wonder if one of their partners is running them when they shouldn't.  weird that Google who makes the Chrome browser would require a plugin for IE6 to opt of something.

strange.  I do run adsense ads, but I was under the impression they didn't allow popup ads.  I wonder if one of their partners is running them when they shouldn't.  weird that Google who makes the Chrome browser would require a plugin for IE6 to opt of something.

I confused the issue by calling it a pop up ad. It isn't. Nevertheless the box still sits there on top of the content. I will have time tonight to hop on my laptop and see what is going on. Fortunately as far as the phone goes, I bookmarked the link to my latest comments a while ago, so it is really isnt that bad of an issue for me. But as you say, strange.

EDIT: So I did look on my laptop, and the Adsense ad is properly formatted to the far right, not covering any content.

I confused the issue by calling it a pop up ad. It isn't. Nevertheless the box still sits there on top of the content. I will have time tonight to hop on my laptop and see what is going on. Fortunately as far as the phone goes, I bookmarked the link to my latest comments a while ago, so it is really isnt that bad of an issue for me. But as you say, strange.

EDIT: So I did look on my laptop, and the Adsense ad is properly formatted to the far right, not covering any content.


I tried to make sure the ads wouldn't cover anything when scrunched way down, might be an issue with a particular page or something.  I'd definitely like to know, when you get the chance. 

This parody has a lot of symbols in it, mostly math. It always displayed properly, except for one slight glitch about the "function", ƒ , which was discussed with Red Ant in the Comments.

Recently revisited it for the first time in a long time. Reproduced the following on both currently-supported versions of Firefox, 3.6.25 and 9.01, on Windows XP:

Last line of third verse (not counting intro lines) was submitted as:

+ √e (- e - e - e)

and it displayed fine. I would have been using Firefox 2.x at the time.

Now, it shows as:

+ √ℯ (- ℯ - ℯ - ℯ)

Two more verses down, last line, successfully submitted and displayed as:

Probability: p (-e-e-e)

Same result: Now displays in both browsers as:

Probability: p (-ℯ-ℯ-ℯ)

(If the 21/2F is supposed to mean anything, I can't see that as "e" in any ASCII, Extended, etc. chart. Looks like "e" should be 65 in hex, or U+0065.)

I checked with JSView add-on for Firefox. AIR scripts and amiright.css are successfully called and loaded.
Brief search of the 35k .css showed only two specific references to Gecko (for everyone besides ChuckyG, that's the name of the internal "engine" of the Firefox browser, not an annoying car insurance advertisement character >wink< ), neither of which appeared to bear on this issue.

Only other thing I could think of was a change in site font, which did happen in the redesign, correct?
This is an old machine, and newer ones have a Fonts folder about 3x the size of this one.

Style sheet mentions Times New Roman, Arial, and sans-serif (MS Sans Serif, I hope?), all of which are indeed in my folder \Windows\Fonts. Helvetica and Georgia are also mentioned. Didn't find them in Fonts folder, but IIUC, in such cases, Windows is supposed to look and substitute the font closest in appearance, right?

Also, it doesn't matter whether I copy/paste here from the actual Web page, or from its source code. It shows the same goofy squares in both.

NoScript blocks @font-face, but there's no indication that the site is using that, and unblocking it doesn't change the display problem.

So: In what font are actual parodies displayed now? If I don't have it, it's easy enough to add.

Or can anyone else with Firefox on Windows (especially older Win) reproduce this?

btw, the rest of the song, including symbols, Σ, Δ, and √, still show up just fine. And so does the letter "e". It's the string,
"-e-e-e" that seems to glitch. Is that a clue? ... but the first instance had spaces between, and the second didn't.  ???

TIA.

ETA: I don't have any other browsers (IE, Safari, etc.) to test on, nor any other OS available.

This parody has a lot of symbols in it, mostly math. It always displayed properly, except for one slight glitch about the "function", ƒ , which was discussed with Red Ant in the Comments.

Recently revisited it for the first time in a long time. Reproduced the following on both currently-supported versions of Firefox, 3.6.25 and 9.01, on Windows XP:

Last line of third verse (not counting intro lines) was submitted as:

+ √e (- e - e - e)

and it displayed fine. I would have been using Firefox 2.x at the time.

Now, it shows as:

+ √ℯ (- ℯ - ℯ - ℯ)

Two more verses down, last line, successfully submitted and displayed as:

Probability: p (-e-e-e)

Same result: Now displays in both browsers as:

Probability: p (-ℯ-ℯ-ℯ)

(If the 21/2F is supposed to mean anything, I can't see that as "e" in any ASCII, Extended, etc. chart. Looks like "e" should be 65 in hex, or U+0065.)

I checked with JSView add-on for Firefox. AIR scripts and amiright.css are successfully called and loaded.
Brief search of the 35k .css showed only two specific references to Gecko (for everyone besides ChuckyG, that's the name of the internal "engine" of the Firefox browser, not an annoying car insurance advertisement character >wink< ), neither of which appeared to bear on this issue.

Only other thing I could think of was a change in site font, which did happen in the redesign, correct?
This is an old machine, and newer ones have a Fonts folder about 3x the size of this one.

Style sheet mentions Times New Roman, Arial, and sans-serif (MS Sans Serif, I hope?), all of which are indeed in my folder \Windows\Fonts. Helvetica and Georgia are also mentioned. Didn't find them in Fonts folder, but IIUC, in such cases, Windows is supposed to look and substitute the font closest in appearance, right?

Also, it doesn't matter whether I copy/paste here from the actual Web page, or from its source code. It shows the same goofy squares in both.

NoScript blocks @font-face, but there's no indication that the site is using that, and unblocking it doesn't change the display problem.

So: In what font are actual parodies displayed now? If I don't have it, it's easy enough to add.

Or can anyone else with Firefox on Windows (especially older Win) reproduce this?

btw, the rest of the song, including symbols, Σ, Δ, and √, still show up just fine. And so does the letter "e". It's the string,
"-e-e-e" that seems to glitch. Is that a clue? ... but the first instance had spaces between, and the second didn't.  ???

TIA.

ETA: I don't have any other browsers (IE, Safari, etc.) to test on, nor any other OS available.


I tried it with the preview function over on Metafilter and the browser renders it the same over there.  Must be something new with Firefox.  I'm guessing it sees the square root sign and renders everything after it in a math font of some sort.

I tried it with the preview function over on Metafilter and the browser renders it the same over there.  Must be something new with Firefox.  I'm guessing it sees the square root sign and renders everything after it in a math font of some sort.

OK, that would account for the first instance.

But the second instance has no symbols at all, only the letter "P", space, parenthesis:

Probability: p (-e-e-e)

? ? ?

ETA: Congrats on the Pats, if you're a fan. :-)

OK, that would account for the first instance.

But the second instance has no symbols at all, only the letter "P", space, parenthesis:

Probability: p (-e-e-e)

? ? ?

ETA: Congrats on the Pats, if you're a fan. :-)


no idea really.  it's a browser quirk I'm not aware of

I'm a casual fan at best... but I did watch it, and was stunned by the ending.  Not as stunned as Baltimore of course.

no idea really.  it's a browser quirk I'm not aware of
I know what a PITA it must be for site devs to have to code differently for IE vs. (the rest of the world, lol), but Firefox and Chrome are gaining market share rapidly. Depending on whose survey you read, IE may not even have a plurality any more, but it definitely doesn't have the majority share now, as it did ten years ago.

There's Bugzilla if you'd care to search for an existing bug or file a new one. There may be an easy fix - slight adjustment for if.Gecko.etc.

I'm a casual fan at best... but I did watch it, and was stunned by the ending.  Not as stunned as Baltimore of course.
Not a big follower myself, ever since a sandlot football game left a permanent knee injury  :(

But yeah, the 2nd-down catch in the end zone was full possession for at least a second -- play ends right there; touchdown; subsequent punch-out irrelevant. And 3rd down was blatant pass interference. The def. pushed the receiver three consecutive times before the ball arrived, beyond the permitted one contact < 5 yds from line of scrimmage. But no flag thrown.

Must be that "home-field advantage" they always talk about.  ;D (I have no particular affinity for either team.)

OK, that would account for the first instance.

But the second instance has no symbols at all, only the letter "P", space, parenthesis:

Probability: p (-e-e-e)


it's not the letter e, it's definitely some kind of UTF-8 character you used when submitting.  I just looked at the HTML source.  If I disable UTF by removing the  "charset=UTF-8" reference at the top of the page it goes away.  It has something to do with the browser font and how they want to display the character.  If you want the letter e and not the mathmatical constant ℯ I could see how that would be a problem?  Not sure what the problem is really. 

it's not the letter e, it's definitely some kind of UTF-8 character you used when submitting.  I just looked at the HTML source.  If I disable UTF by removing the  "charset=UTF-8" reference at the top of the page it goes away.  It has something to do with the browser font and how they want to display the character.  If you want the letter e and not the mathmatical constant ℯ I could see how that would be a problem?  Not sure what the problem is really.

Wow, this is weird. I just looked at the parody with Firefox 2, which would have been used to submit it in 2007, and Firefox 9, the latest version, side-by-side, on the same machine and OS.
F2 displays both sets of "e-e-e" just fine. F9 doesn't. (Neither did F3.)

So I took all three browsers to http://www.elizabethcastro.com/html/extras/entities.html, and *none* of them displayed all of the Math entity characters correctly - about 80% failure rate.

Yes, I did want the *look* of the math constant, Euler's Number, natural log base, etc. But since it wouldn't have previewed correctly in F2, I *think* I just went with italics. Which of course were stripped out by your editor and displayed as plain block text. (At the time, IDK that italics were restricted to top/bottom comments.) But "x", "y", and "p" converted OK, and I can see the "e" in F2. But not in F3-9. No clue.

In fact, when you used that log-base e character *here*, it displayed the same goofy box with the 212F in it. So I'm convinced it's nothing on your end. Could you please tell me the hex code or entity for that character, so that I can research it on my own a bit? It seems that for some reason, Firefox is not rendering a lot of math symbols, despite having its own math-related files.

Maybe there needs to be a special Math font in %windir%\Fonts. I can try to grab a newer machine, same browser, and see if it makes a difference.
But FWIW, Firefox has its own files for some of this.

Aha!
Without boring you too much, the math-related files, names, places, and contents are very different between F2 and F3. Clearly, for the worse in the latter. 

Every time they "improve" Firefox, they make it worse. (Same with anything else in IT-land, like, say, Windows Vista :evil grin:)
F3 was worse than F2. F9 is worse than F3. This issue occurs in F3-F9, but not in F2. Else I'd surely have complained about it when it was posted, right? (Is there F2 at that Metafilter site that you used, in case you're curious enough to confirm this?)

Anyway, I'll have to take this issue to Mozilla and find out what's going on, and what needs to happen to make these render correctly. Would you like the results posted here, or not? No offense taken either way.

Thanks for all your time and trouble.

In fact, when you used that log-base e character *here*, it displayed the same goofy box with the 212F in it. So I'm convinced it's nothing on your end. Could you please tell me the hex code or entity for that character, so that I can research it on my own a bit? It seems that for some reason, Firefox is not rendering a lot of math symbols, despite having its own math-related files.


I'm not getting the goofy box.  Your OS is using an incomplete font in the browser to render the page.  212F indicates the numeric value of the missing character.  Did you check the wiki page I linked to on the e above? Does that page render properly for you?

Did you check the wiki page I linked to on the e above? Does that page render properly for you?
Not here in your link, and not in the Address Bar at the Wiki article, but it shows OK in the article's title and throughout the article.

But it looks like they're just using an italic "e" in the latter two:

<!-- firstHeading -->
<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><span class="texhtml"><i>e</i></span> (mathematical constant)</h1>

<!-- /firstHeading -->
<!-- bodyContent -->
<div id="bodyContent">
<!-- tagline -->
<div id="siteSub">From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</div>
<!-- /tagline -->
<!-- subtitle -->
<div id="contentSub">  (Redirected from <a href="/w/index.php?title=%E2%84%AF&amp;redirect=no" title="ℯ">ℯ</a>)</div>
Note the <i>e</i> in the second line (article title), but (to me) goofy boxes or blank squares for "title=", right before the div closure.

Your OS is using an incomplete font in the browser to render the page.  212F indicates the numeric value of the missing character.
Agreed. As said, will grab a newer machine, and if the issue doesn't occur, see what font is missing and load it in the old one. ... Wait, are you saying a Windows font, or a font in Firefox?

212F hex = 8495 dec. Most of the hex codes I see for characters are only two hex bytes each. E.g., %21%2F (or 33-47 dec) = !/
"!/" can't be right. Do you have time to educate me? (quick learner >wink<)

Not here in your link, and not in the Address Bar at the Wiki article, but it shows OK in the article's title and throughout the article.

But it looks like they're just using an italic "e" in the latter two:


cheaters


212F hex = 8495 dec. Most of the hex codes I see for characters are only two hex bytes each. E.g., %21%2F (or 33-47 dec) = !/
"!/" can't be right. Do you have time to educate me? (quick learner >wink<)


UTF uses two bytes to describe characters, so it's really 21 and 2F hex.  There's some funkyness with the first byte so that it recognizes it's an extended character and reads the second byte as part of the character, so that non-extended characters A-Z, 0-9, etc are still just one byte.  I don't have to deal with it often (all MS web crap at work, no foreign language support needed) so I haven't studied it extensively.  I was building some JSON files a few months ago which is the only reason I even studied up on it to be honest.

The site wouldn't have converted to UTF-8 automatically... you must have cut/pasted them from somewhere at the time and you don't remember.

First, an "oops" correction:

Most of the hex codes I see for characters are only two hex bytes each.
Of course, I meant "two hex characters" = one byte. Sorry, and thanks for the free pass on that.

Not here in your link, and not in the Address Bar at the Wiki article, but it shows OK in the article's title and throughout the article. But it looks like they're just using an italic "e" in the latter two:

cheaters
ROFL!!!! ... indeed! 


UTF uses two bytes to describe characters, so it's really 21 and 2F hex.  There's some funkyness with the first byte so that it recognizes it's an extended character and reads the second byte as part of the character, so that non-extended characters A-Z, 0-9, etc are still just one byte.  I don't have to deal with it often (all MS web crap at work, no foreign language support needed) so I haven't studied it extensively.  I was building some JSON files a few months ago which is the only reason I even studied up on it to be honest.

The site wouldn't have converted to UTF-8 automatically... you must have cut/pasted them from somewhere at the time and you don't remember.
Probably. Still doesn't explain why F2 renders the "e-e-e" in the song OK to this very day, while the newer ones don't, but that's definitely my problem to solve now, not yours.

Are you interested in the results, if/when? Again, no offense taken if not.

And *thank you VERY much* for your time, effort, and education. (Karma)

Are you interested in the results, if/when? Again, no offense taken if not.


yes... I'm always getting asked about weird stuff on computers, so anything that furthers my knowledge even if I never use it again, generally helps me solve some other issue later.

yes... I'm always getting asked about weird stuff on computers, so anything that furthers my knowledge even if I never use it again, generally helps me solve some other issue later.

Same here. ... And thanks for the face-saving on two-byte UTF:
I don't have to deal with it often (all MS web crap at work, no foreign language support needed) so I haven't studied it extensively.  I was building some JSON files a few months ago which is the only reason I even studied up on it to be honest.
Now I don't feel so ignorant. >wink<

The font issue isn't super-high on the TODO list, so unknown time frame, but will def. post back with what I find.
Until then,
Cheers. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink004.gif

What I've discovered so far, as briefly as reasonably possible:

(abbr used)
F2 = Firefox 2.0.0.20 (obsolete), used when parody was originally submitted in 2007.
F3 =          3.6.25, still supported for security fixes
F9              9.01, latest supported version.

From http://www.marathon-studios.com/unicode/U212F/Script_Small_E:
U+212F is the Unicode hex value of the character Script Small E, which is categorized as "lowercase letter" in the Unicode 6.0 character table.

In addition, U+212F is a composite character comprising of one or more other Unicode characters modified or combined.
In line with what you said about using two bytes for one "special" character. Kudos.

Shows a rendering test on the side, with HTML, Hex, and Dec versions. All failed on F3-F9.

On F2, it shows as a plain, lower-case "e". Consistent with how the song renders in F2 (plain e) but not in F3/9.

Reproduced in Parody Submission Preview (makes a wonderful HTML editor for testing, TUVM)

Conclusion: F2 had a more graceful fallback mechanism for unrecognized font entities. Why throw that away?
*************************

Using a newer machine, the e-e-e renders as an actual script e on all three browsers.

Search Firefox Help (online)

Search "unicode"
Resulting link chosen (top link)

"Fonts not displaying properly"

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/907003?s=unicode&r=0&e=sph&as=s
A square box with numbers means that Firefox doesn't find a font that covers the Unicode range and in that case you need to install a font that does cover it.

Cranked up a newer machine, same Win XP.

Result: Script "e"s render properly in all three browsers.

Conclusion: The newer machine has a font that's needed in the older one.
Easy way out: Copy Font folder from new to old. But that adds about 360 more files.
Stubborn way: Find out which font.  Haven't done that yet.

Future way: If ever use Euler's # again, will just use an italic e -- d'oh.
*********************************

Other issue: the "function" symbol in the line that starts with f(x). Submitted with entity &fnof;

Doesn't render in *any* of the browsers, on *either" machine, but previews fine in Parody Submission, just as when I submitted it (or else, wouldn't have submitted until fixed).

Yet it renders fine in the Comments section. (See Red Ant and TT exchange.) - All three browsers, both machines.

Is there a difference in your coding, or parsing, of the actual parody display vs. Comments display?

Did the use of what was apparently a copy-pasted Euler's "e" trigger that UTF-8 in the parody itself -- while the remainder of the page was unaffected, thus allowing the function entity to render properly in the Comments?

I would like to return to editing the amiright categories that I used to work on, and/or those that haven't been edited in awhile (Commercial songs, Proposed Duets, etc.). Please update me on any changes in the editing process and send me a list of categories to choose from. My e-mail is naughty9@earthlink.net. Thanks. :)

Okay, today I noticed something weird.

This morning I was looking at an Artist Summary Page for a performer or two that I know has a ton of misheard lyric entries submitted to the site, yet it only listed one or two entries. I know that if there's more than four, a link will appear below that section of the page, saying "There are additional (performer name here) misheard lyrics available." And so I checked additional Artist Summary Pages for artists that have been around since the early days of the site, and I found similar situations. It seems that no misheard lyric entry submitted after March 2001 appears on an Artist Summary Page (except for certain artists with only one entry that were submitted later than that). However, the misheard lyric entries on the Misheard Lyric pages themselves are still intact.

Here's one such instance of an artist summary as described above:
http://www.amiright.com/artists/souliisoul.shtml
Only three misheard lyrics entries can be seen there (once you scroll down to the section where it says "Misheard Lyrics"). However, there are 16 total misheard entries for this band, as seen on the Misheard Lyrics page.

Methinks there must be a bug, which is why I'm discussing it here.

Okay, today I noticed something weird.

This morning I was looking at an Artist Summary Page for a performer or two that I know has a ton of misheard lyric entries submitted to the site, yet it only listed one or two entries. I know that if there's more than four, a link will appear below that section of the page, saying "There are additional (performer name here) misheard lyrics available." And so I checked additional Artist Summary Pages for artists that have been around since the early days of the site, and I found similar situations. It seems that no misheard lyric entry submitted after March 2001 appears on an Artist Summary Page (except for certain artists with only one entry that were submitted later than that). However, the misheard lyric entries on the Misheard Lyric pages themselves are still intact.

Here's one such instance of an artist summary as described above:
http://www.amiright.com/artists/souliisoul.shtml
Only three misheard lyrics entries can be seen there (once you scroll down to the section where it says "Misheard Lyrics"). However, there are 16 total misheard entries for this band, as seen on the Misheard Lyrics page.

Methinks there must be a bug, which is why I'm discussing it here.

It seems to have been fixed now. They are showing up properly.

It seems to have been fixed now. They are showing up properly.


weird.  I didn't do anything because I forgot to check into it, maybe the script timed out or something that day

It looks like the extended info in the parody author's area is offline. I've tried it on different computers and different browsers, but it looks like the table that has a list of parodies, number of views, ratings, etc. is not available. No error message. Just nothing there but the web mast and links to other areas on the site.

It looks like the extended info in the parody author's area is offline. I've tried it on different computers and different browsers, but it looks like the table that has a list of parodies, number of views, ratings, etc. is not available. No error message. Just nothing there but the web mast and links to other areas on the site.


Apparently my hosting provider upgraded my version of PHP and it broke the 3rd party tool I was using on that page.  Thankfully the fix was very simple.

I'm still dealing with a couple other problems that cropped up recently. So keep your eyes peeled for more fun

Sorry, Chuck, this old ape didn't see this post.

Anywho, I can't get the Amazon link, for a new parody cover, to go though.
Could it be IE 8?

Sorry, Chuck, this old ape didn't see this post.

Anywho, I can't get the Amazon link, for a new parody cover, to go though.
Could it be IE 8?


might be a change in how amazon handles things, not sure.  let me know the link and I'll test it

might be a change in how amazon handles things, not sure.  let me know the link and I'll test it


Here they are and thank you, Chuck.
http://www.amazon.com/there-Anybody-Out-There/dp/B00GCV9S3Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1391375681&sr=1-1&keywords=a+great+big+world+is+there+anybody+out+there

http://www.amazon.com/Too-True-Dum-Girls/dp/B00GZAHH6E/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1391375618&sr=1-1&keywords=dum+dum+girls+too+true

Here they are and thank you, Chuck.
http://www.amazon.com/there-Anybody-Out-There/dp/B00GCV9S3Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1391375681&sr=1-1&keywords=a+great+big+world+is+there+anybody+out+there

http://www.amazon.com/Too-True-Dum-Girls/dp/B00GZAHH6E/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1391375618&sr=1-1&keywords=dum+dum+girls+too+true


yeah, amazon definitely changed something on me, 'cuz nothing works.  I'll look into it.

fixed it... I upgraded my PHP version a couple weeks ago, it apparently broke a few scripts that used older methods for passing things around.

We're half way there, Chuck.

The Amazon link went through just fine but when I tried to upload me JPEG image, I got this...
File not supplied, or file too big. There appears to be a problem with either your image.

The one image, for the Dum Dum Girls parody, was 99K and the other larger, but not that much.
I even converted one image to a PNG and got - no response.

Windows 8 giveth &&&&&&&