scratchusername40 wrote:

Jeffalo wrote:

(#3415)
ocular-rewritten will further deemphasize the login/statuses/reaction systems

will statuses and reactions still exist?

You don't really need statuses thanks to aviate, but reactions aren't really bad or spammable per se, because you're limited to preselected symbols (which scratch allows as chat in cloud projects!)

I agree reactions shouldn’t be discouraged as they are only a couple and you can’t add them, so I don’t see the issue with them.

dertermenter wrote:

scratchusername40 wrote:

Jeffalo wrote:

(#3415)
ocular-rewritten will further deemphasize the login/statuses/reaction systems

will statuses and reactions still exist?

You don't really need statuses thanks to aviate, but reactions aren't really bad or spammable per se, because you're limited to preselected symbols (which scratch allows as chat in cloud projects!)

I agree reactions shouldn’t be discouraged as they are only a couple and you can’t add them, so I don’t see the issue with them.

If you can't add reactions to an individual post, then why keep reactions?

Jeffalo wrote:

thanks scratch team - authentication is currently limited due to moderation actions taken by the scratch team.

ocular-rewritten will further deemphasize the login/statuses/reaction systems as it is clear that the scratch team does not want external services that interact with scratch to have account systems. i think this is for the better because ocular being a standalone search service will make it more maintainable and less prone to getting banned and stuff.

that being said, there are no current plans to phase out any authentication dependent features — just to focus ocular on the main thing, search.

It makes no sense what they're doing.

Like I totally get that they're trying to keep everyone on Scratch safe, but if they don't want people spending hours upon hours of their time to create a service that in the end they can't share despite breaking the Community Guidelines in exactly zero ways, they should emphasize that somewhere instead of taking down mentions of these services and giving their basic copy-paste response that explains literally nothing. I know they are working on better defining what is and isn't allowed with external sites, but if they came to a decision, where is the decision? I don't see a forum post or anything outlining this decision? I don't see an explanation in Scratch Auth's take-down alert other than that copy-pasted response? And then they encourage everyone to use Contact Us, which clearly doesn't help? The creator of Scratch Auth put the project back up the first time because the Contact Us reply they received in absolutely no way described any issue with Scratch Auth. I get they may be trying to “just be safe,” but still, it makes no sense. If you want people to not do something, or to change something, then give a definitive answer explaining exactly that? I don't want to waste any more of the hours of time I'm putting into a site I'm making just for the ST to take down mentions of it just because you can log in via a service that basically functions through nothing but Scratch Cloud Data and simple server setup to handle everything. It in exactly zero ways will break the CGs and TOU, and I'm taking extra precautions to ensure it abides, but at this point I feel I can't even be sure, and no matter what I'll be walking on eggshells.

If you don't want users doing something that nowhere is disallowed, then make a statement, make changes, something. It isn't fair that we have to spend hours of our time making something that literally abides by the Community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and every other rule hidden around in forum posts just for mentions of it to be taken down for a reason that no one can seem to explain.

Bump

LegoManiac04 wrote:

ocular on the main thing, search.

It makes no sense what they're doing.

Like I totally get that they're trying to keep everyone on Scratch safe, but if they don't want people spending hours upon hours of their time to create a service that in the end they can't share despite breaking the Community Guidelines in exactly zero ways, they should emphasize that somewhere instead of taking down mentions of these services and giving their basic copy-paste response that explains literally nothing. I know they are working on better defining what is and isn't allowed with external sites, but if they came to a decision, where is the decision? I don't see a forum post or anything outlining this decision? I don't see an explanation in Scratch Auth's take-down alert other than that copy-pasted response? And then they encourage everyone to use Contact Us, which clearly doesn't help? The creator of Scratch Auth put the project back up the first time because the Contact Us reply they received in absolutely no way described any issue with Scratch Auth. I get they may be trying to “just be safe,” but still, it makes no sense. If you want people to not do something, or to change something, then give a definitive answer explaining exactly that? I don't want to waste any more of the hours of time I'm putting into a site I'm making just for the ST to take down mentions of it just because you can log in via a service that basically functions through nothing but Scratch Cloud Data and simple server setup to handle everything. It in exactly zero ways will break the CGs and TOU, and I'm taking extra precautions to ensure it abides, but at this point I feel I can't even be sure, and no matter what I'll be walking on eggshells.

If you don't want users doing something that nowhere is disallowed, then make a statement, make changes, something. It isn't fair that we have to spend hours of our time making something that literally abides by the Community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and every other rule hidden around in forum posts just for mentions of it to be taken down for a reason that no one can seem to explain.

Exactly. They want to confuse people by doing these dumb copypasting. If they want users to understand what they did wrong, why are they still copypasting these templates that people are sick of seeing? And why would they ask users to use their online customer contact service while you barely even get a reply? Yes, Scratch's traffic has overgrown because of the pandemic, and so does Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., but their contact-us doesn't suck. You almost always get a reply.
Look, when someone complains about an alert, a takedown, or a block, they just respond with “go to Contact Us lol” instead of “You've shared a link with …, specifically in the subdomain/URL … and this button/text … contains one or multiple inappropriate elements, which is against the Community Guidelines. Hope you understand and please remember to keep your posts appropriate. If you have any further questions, please use Contact Us.” Why, ST? Like they've already seen the context of the post, why do they still act like they don't know what the person is saying? Wouldn't it be better if they could've straight up told the user what they did wrong so they don't have to use Contact Us, which unnecessarily clogs up Scratch Team's mail, and you never get a reply?

-iviedwall- wrote:

Look, when someone complains about an alert, a takedown, or a block, they just respond with “go to Contact Us lol” instead of “You've shared a link with …, specifically in the subdomain/URL … and this button/text … contains one or multiple inappropriate elements, which is against the Community Guidelines. Hope you understand and please remember to keep your posts appropriate. If you have any further questions, please use Contact Us.” Why, ST? Like they've already seen the context of the post, why do they still act like they don't know what the person is saying? Wouldn't it be better if they could've straight up told the user what they did wrong so they don't have to use Contact Us, which unnecessarily clogs up Scratch Team's mail, and you never get a reply?

They don't want to use the public forms to share that information but I don't understand why they don't explain what exactly what's wrong when they take something down.

Jeffalo wrote:

(#2747)

CST1229 wrote:

LandonHarter wrote:

ocuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuular

i like this idea. if i paginate searches (it's currently only topics because scratchdb doesn't tell me the total amount of posts) i'll do something like this.

ocular rewritten:


jeffalo pls implement

CST1229 wrote:

jeffalo pls implement

might not be able to do this because the amount of pages is unlimited (eg. some searches have up to 100 visible pages of results), and there are some cases where the amount of pages is unknown (because scratchdb provides inaccurate data) so there would be no end to ocuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuular.

would be happy to accept a pr from someone who wants to do it anyways though

Jeffalo wrote:

(#3428)

CST1229 wrote:

jeffalo pls implement

might not be able to do this because the amount of pages is unlimited (eg. some searches have up to 100 visible pages of results), and there are some cases where the amount of pages is unknown (because scratchdb provides inaccurate data) so there would be no end to ocuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuular.

would be happy to accept a pr from someone who wants to do it anyways though

Google just caps the number of visible pages at once at 10 (and centers the range near the current page number):


(Although i can understand why you wouldn't want to do that, because you can see all the pages *up to 200 at once currently and doing this would remove that feature.)

Just discovered that I have 131 pages worth of forum posts. That's pretty cool.
Definitely an ocuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuular if I've ever seen one.

CST1229 wrote:

Jeffalo wrote:

(#3428)

CST1229 wrote:

jeffalo pls implement

might not be able to do this because the amount of pages is unlimited (eg. some searches have up to 100 visible pages of results), and there are some cases where the amount of pages is unknown (because scratchdb provides inaccurate data) so there would be no end to ocuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuular.

would be happy to accept a pr from someone who wants to do it anyways though

Google just caps the number of visible pages at once at 10 (and centers the range near the current page number):


(Although i can understand why you wouldn't want to do that, because you can see all the pages *up to 200 at once currently and doing this would remove that feature.)

Or it could be an optional thing in the settings that users can enable/disable.

LegoManiac04 wrote:

Or it could be an optional thing in the settings that users can enable/disable.

Please not! Changing the theme is already locked behind an account, and I wouldn't like customizing ocular to completely be a feature where an account is required…

mybearworld wrote:

LegoManiac04 wrote:

Or it could be an optional thing in the settings that users can enable/disable.

Please not! Changing the theme is already locked behind an account, and I wouldn't like customizing ocular to completely be a feature where an account is required…

Why not just use local storage, or cookies?

Jeffalo wrote:

some searches

my profile jumpscare moment right there

ScolderCreations wrote:

mybearworld wrote:

LegoManiac04 wrote:

Or it could be an optional thing in the settings that users can enable/disable.

Please not! Changing the theme is already locked behind an account, and I wouldn't like customizing ocular to completely be a feature where an account is required…

Why not just use local storage, or cookies?

local storage is not great because there will be a flash of the server side rendered theme first.

using cookies is alright, but it becomes pretty tricky with more advanced settings (i could store json in a cookie but if someone edits it and its invalid ugh. and theres size limit per cookie and cookie limit per page).

i might add themes for logged out users under cookies, but any more advanced settings will be for accounts. i think this is a reasonable compromise. let me know what you think.

DifferentDance8 wrote:

Jeffalo wrote:

some searches

my profile jumpscare moment right there

bruh i remember everyone going crazy over the image in your pfp

HeliosTheSuperior wrote:

DifferentDance8 wrote:

Jeffalo wrote:

some searches

my profile jumpscare moment right there

bruh i remember everyone going crazy over the image in your pfp

??

Jeffalo wrote:

i might add themes for logged out users under cookies, but any more advanced settings will be for accounts. i think this is a reasonable compromise. let me know what you think.

The amount of people who scratch with Norton Family and can't make an account because the authentication service is blocked is significantly high. Either integrate an account system without scratch auth or not use accounts at all.

DifferentDance8 wrote:

Either integrate an account system without scratch auth or not use accounts at all.

that sounds like a problem with your anti virus or scratch auth.. really not my fault.

Jeffalo wrote:

DifferentDance8 wrote:

Either integrate an account system without scratch auth or not use accounts at all.

that sounds like a problem with your anti virus or scratch auth.. really not my fault.

Still, add an integrated account system seperate to scratch auth. Keep scratch auth but also make another account system. Please.