What would you rather it say besides `[spoiler]`? It already says "Hide"/"Show".

Ornette wrote:What would you rather it say besides `[spoiler]`? It already says "Hide"/"Show".

how about '[may or may not be a spoiler]'?

"Hide"/"Show" is fine on its own, really.

Otherwise [extra] or [more] might be suitable alternatives to [spoiler]

chazthesilencer wrote:"Hide"/"Show" is fine on its own, really.

Otherwise [extra] or [more] might be suitable alternatives to [spoiler]

"More" might be ok, I'm fine with that. My only concern with this is when there actually is a real spoiler (and there's going to be a whole lot soon), would:

1. people remember to actually say "Spoiler" before putting said spoiler in a [more] tag,
2. barring that, would people who show up inevitably because of the new movie know inherently that this Show/Hide buttons in posts are actually hiding spoilers?

I suppose we can make a [more] without actually removing [spoiler], but I'm sure people would still use them interchangeably.

...

Just seems needlessly confusing to me. What we've got now works for everything so adding something else doesn't really seem necessary.

Of all people, I actually like how 4chan does this: They coat the spoiler in the colour that matches the text, and you highlight so it shows up.

Stryker wrote:Of all people, I actually like how 4chan does this: They coat the spoiler in the colour that matches the text, and you highlight so it shows up.

Yeah, tvtropes has a similar mechanism for their spoilers. On 4chan, you just need to hover over the spoilertext for it to show up. On tvtropes, you actually need to highlight the text in order to read it.

riffraff11235 wrote:Yeah, tvtropes has a similar mechanism for their spoilers. On 4chan, you just need to hover over the spoilertext for it to show up. On tvtropes, you actually need to highlight the text in order to read it.

It's one of the things i most love about TV Tropes, in fact i think it's an almost perfect system.

child of Lilith wrote:Just seems needlessly confusing to me. What we've got now works for everything so adding something else doesn't really seem necessary.

I tend to agree. People who spoiler photos or blocks of text are usually clear about what they're doing and why, so I don't see the need to change anything. Assume it's an actual spoiler unless the poster says it isn't. Where's the difficulty?

Bagheera wrote:I tend to agree. People who spoiler photos or blocks of text are usually clear about what they're doing and why, so I don't see the need to change anything. Assume it's an actual spoiler unless the poster says it isn't. Where's the difficulty?

Second.

Stryker wrote:Of all people, I actually like how 4chan does this: They coat the spoiler in the colour that matches the text, and you highlight so it shows up.

That system only works with in-line spoilers (and you can do that now anyways, people have in the past, by simply using the [color] tag). It doesn't work for images, or, if someone is posting a large spoiler filled review, you wouldn't want to scroll through a page of blank nothing if you wanted to skip it.

Shouldn't it be obvious from the context if there's a funny image or something Q related?

A Q related thread will of course have Q material in the tags, as will a post where someone goes
"Yes, blabla, but in Q... {spoiler box}".

The only confusion potential I see is when the fanarts of Q rush in and there's a pic featuring something comparable to the Rei rescue action in plot relevance and fanart volume.
In such case and other ambigious situations, people could just write "Q spoiler: {spoiler box} or {spoiler=Q} Pianos!{/spoiler}

Seele00TextOnly wrote:There should probably be a new function added 'Expand' or 'Hide' or 'More' that is for the general use (pictures, long divergence, etc)

Ornette wrote:I suppose we can make a [more] without actually removing [spoiler]

I should have worded my last two posts a little better- but basically this is what I was gunning for.

[spoiler] tags stay. We’ll use them for spoilers.
[more] tags introduced. We’ll use them for walls of text/divergences/images (essentially what spoiler tags are being used for 90% of the time right now)

Spoilers for spoilers.
More for more.

Makes sense, right?

chillith wrote:What we've got now works

Bagheera wrote:I don't see the need to change anything. Assume it's an actual spoiler unless the poster says it isn't.

As I said earlier- I know the current system isn’t necessarily broken, we’ve all just been raping the poor spoiler tag silly these last 3 years that it is barely used for its original purpose anymore.
I love the spoiler tag. I just want to restore its purpose in life.

Might be worth noting that we already have an option for TVTropes-style spoilers, like so: we don't need no stinkin' spoilers, see?

So if you wanna be hardcore about it the option's already there.

Actually the background of the posts isn't exactly white, in fact it's possible to read the text of your post without selecting the text, it alternates between this colour and this other one

Hyper Shinchan wrote:Actually the background of the posts isn't exactly white, in fact it's possible to read the text of your post without selecting the text, it alternates between this colour and this other one

Now that's weird. The first color you used is the same as mine, but I can't see mine in my post while I can see it in yours, and I can see both in the quote. And here I thought I'd stumbled across something clever. Ah well.

It's really weird, actually I didn't notice that you used the same colour of the light background, is it possible that the alternation between the light and dark colour isn't consistent between different browsers? Or maybe it could be influenced by our boards' settings.
Anyway this is how I see those two posts.

Hyper Shinchan wrote:It's really weird, actually I didn't notice that you used the same colour of the light background, is it possible that the alternation between the light and dark colour isn't consistent between different browsers? Or maybe it could be influenced by our boards' settings.
Anyway this is how I see those two posts.

It looks like those are the generic alternating background colors for the forum's posts, meaning which you see will depend on your preferences (i.e., it will be offset if you see the last post on the previous page as the first post on this one -- so something invisible in the one color will be faint on the other). I had thought that that color choice made the text the same color as the background, since that's how it had worked out for me in the past (but my sample size was two, so by chance it worked out for me). Turns out that doesn't seem to be the case.

I don't think browser choice is a factor.

You're right, your spoiler colour works correctly if I change my settings to "no overlap".