Post Rejected And Draft Deleted

Hi,

I've spent a significant amount of time today here creating and editing a message, then successfully previewing it several times but finally when I tried to post it it was rejected and I lost my draft post.

I received a strongly worded message telling me that I was trying to load unacceptable content.

I really object to this.

I have since successfully loaded the only three images that were involved in the test forum and each loaded successfully.

The text related to Cretan postal history and had no political or other questionable content.

I am at a loss as to what has happened here.

I must say I feel rather disappointed about this. It's hardly the end of the world but I fell like restricting any future posts I make to short notes and comments.

I'm not prepared to create content externally just in case the loading process rejects it and deletes my work.

Any chance you can hit the back button a few times to get to where it still sits?

Sorry, this behavior (not being able to use the Back button) greatly depends upon the operating system and browser, (and which combination of versions) you are using. The generic error message you saw, which was pretty benign, was just recently replaced by the message you saw. The intent was to be more descriptive, not to come across 'strongly'.

The message occurs if you try to post any disallowed links and software names that have previously broken the community rules.

Other than that, I am not aware of any other restricted content. 'Bad' words are restricted but do not throw that error.
Don

Thanks for the suggestion but I'm afraid not. :(

I'll let Bobby address this then, but to my knowledge that error only occurs if there was a disallowed link or software name in the post. But he is more knowledgeable than myself.
Don

Honestly, I don't understand why you are "at a loss" for what happened. The message explains it pretty well. 99% of the time it's because you tried to post a site name or URL that is not allowed here.



Clicking the back link would take you back to the posting box with your post in it unless your using Chrome as the current version is broken. Sorry, if that's the case but I do not code around broken browsers.

As far as the strongly worded message, I even prefix it explaining that it's sad I have to say it, but it HAS to be said. Before I added it the average repeat attempts is 9, with the record I believe at 37.

OK I've worked out what has happened but I'm not at all impressed.

I had included a single word (not a link or a URL) which the loader objected to and rejected the post.

I've repeated the test with a test post containing just the seven letter word and yes it failed.

Of course, I can't quote the word here...

but it is

*** Edited by Staff - You're freakin' kidding me right? ***

Why should such a "software name" name be rejected?

Even if this word is rejected why should the message be destroyed?

I need to cool off before I answer you.

Bobby,

I wasn't expecting that reaction. I apologise for any offence caused.

Nigelc, don't be upset: moderators are humans and 'errare humanum est'. On the other hand, software is made by humans and, guess what: 'errare humanum est' ...

For long posts I always first write in Word then copy/paste the copy here. Old habit learned decades ago when software glitches and crashes were much more common.

Unfortunately, you had a typical human response. Since you don't understand why it happened, you must be right and I must be wrong.

So when you posted yesterday at 5:38 you had already seen the self-proclaimed "strongly worded" warning at least 3 times from your original post and your testing. Plus once in the screenshot in my post above.

Given these facts, I can only conclude, that you must have decided something along the lines of "Screw him, I don't understand so he's wrong and I'm going to get around the block and post it. I don't give a crap if I get banned." There's really nothing else for me to think given the circumstances.

Now not that I owe you an explanation, but the owner of that site actively tried to steal money from me for months with affiliate spam using several different user IDs.... MONTHS. He also made legit Wikipedia editors lives miserable with automated affiliate spam throughout Wikipedia. He's a scumball and will never be allowed to be mentioned here as long as I own the place.

So you may say screw me, but I say screw him.... even if you still don't understand.

Hi Bobby,

Thanks for taking time to reply and explaining some of the background to this issue.


I was certainly frustrated though I didn't think of either of us as being right or wrong.


Yes, I assumed incorrectly at first this was an issue about the image content or format.

I had read the reference to "website or service" but had mistakenly interpreted this to refer to either a URL or another link.


That was not at all my intent. I was only trying, naively, to help you trouble-shoot my problem by isolating the relevant offending text string in what I thought was a safe context.

The word meant absolutely nothing to me other than referring to a website that I had heard of vaguely in the past.



I agree you do not owe me any explanation. However, I now understand why you feel so strongly about this.

My intent was only to record the source of a (third-hand) source of an image of a stamp. I have no interest in or knowledge of that site whatsoever.


That's not my style at all. I wish you and all our members continued success with SCF.

If I could chime in with a perspective specifically on the above...

As one who owns several hobby-related websites, but also maintains a higher education/corporate website as part of my day job, I understand how frustrating/maddening it is to deal with idiosyncratic browser behavior. For well over a decade, web developers fought through dealing with Internet Explorer and its ignoring of W3C and other standards, but ultimately we had to do it. Why? Market share.

It's ok to ignore browsers because they are a PITA when they constitute <3% of your visitors... it's a different matter when it's 20%... or in the case of Google Chrome approaching 50% (at least based upon the site analytics I utilize).

Idiosyncratic annoyance or not, the fact of the matter is that Google Chrome is now the big dog on the desktop browser landscape. Given that fact, if Chrome's behavior re: caching or backwards navigation is "broken" with respect to the methods you are using, is it possible that the methods being employed are no longer current, or that there are now alternatives or workarounds that are actively utilized given Chrome's prevalence?

Numbers from my largest music site for the last 6 months, in number of users:

Chrome: 56,010 (45.80%)
Firefox: 18,835 (15.40%)
Safari: 18,394 (15.04%)
Internet Explorer: 14,210 (11.62%)
Edge: 5,476 (4.48%)

The higher-education site, while smaller raw numbers, is similar, with Chrome at 41.61%, Internet Explorer at 24.20%, Safari at 16.32%, Firefox at 7.51%, and Edge at 7.09%.

My other sites are similar. Regardless of how the "also rans" place, Chrome is now the leader in browser usership.

I say the above not as criticism, but rather that Chrome users probably shouldn't be ignored as they are probably no longer a minor proportion of site visitors. It's a pain, but realistically a necessary pain.

I think I also got this message once and did not understand it, I think no member can understand it directly without all the background that the owners/moderators here may have. So I think this should be mentioned in the forum rules (of course without mentioning names, but indicating that there may be some content not allowed which is related to other software/sites and so on) where normally would be the place for it. All in all I think Nigel's post(s) in this thread can be seen as useful for all members and also for the forum itself, as we see that now some hopefully productive discussion is following it. (Also, I think that most users today use Chrome and if the message does not work with Chrome, this should at least be mentioned within the message.)

The message works 100% perfectly with Chrome.

The broken part is when you hit the back button your post is gone.