And i think its still not fixed…


edit: ooh page 6

CellularData wrote:

ZZ9PluralZAlpha wrote:
CellularData wrote:
The title upon first sharing is its permanent title.

Problem: What if someone put the version number in the title and then couldn't change it when they updated the project (say from V1.0 to V1.1) Unless I'm reading this wrong, is it only the URL in your example that becomes permanent or does the project title become permanent as well? I might be having a dumb moment here…

Just in the URL. You could still rename it.

This is why when you first share a game, you should call it “Game Name”, not “Game Name 1.0”. Once it's shared, you can rename it to 1.0 though, and it wont affect the URL
Maybe you choose what shows in the URL and you can report innapropriate URLs

Now you have a different problem to deal with: multiple people trying to make projects with the same name. There are, for example, dozens of projects shared with the title “pong”, so each person would need to keep guessing things and trying to find an unused name.

Another thing: if someone really wants to share a phone number on scratch, they will find a way to work around any filter, so allowing 10 digit urls shouldn't be a big problem.

Using the recent tab, the most recent project I see is https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/171956674/ . So, that means the doomsday countdown is 828,043,326 projects to go. At the highest spike in multiple years, there seems to be 982,538 projects shared in a month. If someone could find the average between 01/01/17 and 30/06/17 (dates are not American, they follow the format of DD/MM/YY) I would appreciate that. So, with that information we can go on the high end and assume that 3.0 comes out by around October 2019. At this rate there are 26 (I think) months before Scratch 3.0 steps in to stop doomsday. That's 25,545,988 projects. So even at a high overestimation there is an extremely low chance that doomsday rolls around before 3.0 stops it. As long as the number of projects doesn't increase too dramatically (and stay that high), we should be fine.

Anybody see anything wrong with this? A contradiction, perhaps?
EDIT: If you need the numbers, then that means that we'll have about 197502662 projects by October 2019 if new project rates increase to and stay at the highest they've been in years (also my calculations would have to be right)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.                                                                                                                                                                                     
                          

Auroura_Wolf wrote:

Using the recent tab, the most recent project I see is https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/171956674/ . So, that means the doomsday countdown is 828,043,326 projects to go. At the highest spike in multiple years, there seems to be 982,538 projects shared in a month. If someone could find the average between 01/01/17 and 30/06/17 (dates are not American, they follow the format of DD/MM/YY) I would appreciate that. So, with that information we can go on the high end and assume that 3.0 comes out by around October 2019. At this rate there are 26 (I think) months before Scratch 3.0 steps in to stop doomsday. That's 25,545,988 projects. So even at a high overestimation there is an extremely low chance that doomsday rolls around before 3.0 stops it. As long as the number of projects doesn't increase too dramatically (and stay that high), we should be fine.

Anybody see anything wrong with this? A contradiction, perhaps?
EDIT: If you need the numbers, then that means that we'll have about 197502662 projects by October 2019 if new project rates increase to and stay at the highest they've been in years (also my calculations would have to be right)

Ah, but what happens when we reach 1800XXXXX? As we know, scratch blocks most numbers that start with 1800, so the doomsday may be closer than it appears, only 8,043,326 projects away.

garlicbreathinator wrote:

CellularData wrote:

ZZ9PluralZAlpha wrote:
CellularData wrote:
The title upon first sharing is its permanent title.

Problem: What if someone put the version number in the title and then couldn't change it when they updated the project (say from V1.0 to V1.1) Unless I'm reading this wrong, is it only the URL in your example that becomes permanent or does the project title become permanent as well? I might be having a dumb moment here…

Just in the URL. You could still rename it.

This is why when you first share a game, you should call it “Game Name”, not “Game Name 1.0”. Once it's shared, you can rename it to 1.0 though, and it wont affect the URL
Maybe you choose what shows in the URL and you can report innapropriate URLs

Now you have a different problem to deal with: multiple people trying to make projects with the same name. There are, for example, dozens of projects shared with the title “pong”, so each person would need to keep guessing things and trying to find an unused name.

Another thing: if someone really wants to share a phone number on scratch, they will find a way to work around any filter, so allowing 10 digit urls shouldn't be a big problem.

why not just use the 1.4 format?
just use percents for characters other than letters

garlicbreathinator wrote:

CellularData wrote:

ZZ9PluralZAlpha wrote:
CellularData wrote:
The title upon first sharing is its permanent title.

Problem: What if someone put the version number in the title and then couldn't change it when they updated the project (say from V1.0 to V1.1) Unless I'm reading this wrong, is it only the URL in your example that becomes permanent or does the project title become permanent as well? I might be having a dumb moment here…

Just in the URL. You could still rename it.

This is why when you first share a game, you should call it “Game Name”, not “Game Name 1.0”. Once it's shared, you can rename it to 1.0 though, and it wont affect the URL
Maybe you choose what shows in the URL and you can report innapropriate URLs

Now you have a different problem to deal with: multiple people trying to make projects with the same name. There are, for example, dozens of projects shared with the title “pong”, so each person would need to keep guessing things and trying to find an unused name.

Another thing: if someone really wants to share a phone number on scratch, they will find a way to work around any filter, so allowing 10 digit urls shouldn't be a big problem.

No, I said it would be like this

scratch.mit.edu/projects/CellularData/project-name-here/

jromagnoli wrote:

Auroura_Wolf wrote:

Using the recent tab, the most recent project I see is https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/171956674/ . So, that means the doomsday countdown is 828,043,326 projects to go. At the highest spike in multiple years, there seems to be 982,538 projects shared in a month. If someone could find the average between 01/01/17 and 30/06/17 (dates are not American, they follow the format of DD/MM/YY) I would appreciate that. So, with that information we can go on the high end and assume that 3.0 comes out by around October 2019. At this rate there are 26 (I think) months before Scratch 3.0 steps in to stop doomsday. That's 25,545,988 projects. So even at a high overestimation there is an extremely low chance that doomsday rolls around before 3.0 stops it. As long as the number of projects doesn't increase too dramatically (and stay that high), we should be fine.

Anybody see anything wrong with this? A contradiction, perhaps?
EDIT: If you need the numbers, then that means that we'll have about 197502662 projects by October 2019 if new project rates increase to and stay at the highest they've been in years (also my calculations would have to be right)

Ah, but what happens when we reach 1800XXXXX? As we know, scratch blocks most numbers that start with 1800, so the doomsday may be closer than it appears, only 8,043,326 projects away.

Right. Thats what I was missing still, the ST could skip anything starting with 1800 and we would have enough project numbers to last us. But surely there are already 1800 projects? What if there's one called https://scratch.MIT.edu/projects/001800465 ?

HEY!
IT'S THE HUMAN!
YOU'RE GONNA LOVE THIS PUZZLE!
IT WAS MADE BY THE GREAT DR. ALPHYS!
YOU SEE THESE TILES!?
ONCE I THROW THIS SWITCH...
THEY WILL BEGIN TO CHANGE COLOR!
EACH COLOR HAS A DIFFERENT FUNCTION!
RED TILES ARE IMPASSABLE!
YOU CANNOT WALK ON THEM!
YELLOW TILES ARE ELECTRIC!
THEY WILL ELECTROCUTE YOU!
GREEN TILES ARE ALARM TILES!
IF YOU STEP ON THEM...
YOU WILL HAVE TO FIGHT A MONSTER!!
ORANGE TILES ARE ORANGE-SCENTED.
THEY WILL MAKE YOU SMELL DELICIOUS!
BLUE TILES ARE WATER TILES.
SWIM THROUGH IF YOU LIKE, BUT...
IF YOU SMELL LIKE ORANGES!
THE PIRANHAS WILL BITE YOU.
ALSO, IF A BLUE TILE IS NEXT TO A,
YELLOW TILE, THE WATER WILL ALSO ZAP YOU!
PURPLE TILES ARE SLIPPERY!
YOU WILL SLIDE TO THE NEXT TILE!
HOWEVER, THE SLIPPERY SOAP...
SMELLS LIKE LEMONS!!
WHICH PIRANHAS DO NOT LIKE!
PURPLE AND BLUE ARE OK!
FINALLY, PINK TILES.
THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING.
STEP ON THEM ALL YOU LIKE.
HOW WAS THAT!? UNDERSTAND???

Auroura_WoIf wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

Auroura_Wolf wrote:

Using the recent tab, the most recent project I see is https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/171956674/ . So, that means the doomsday countdown is 828,043,326 projects to go. At the highest spike in multiple years, there seems to be 982,538 projects shared in a month. If someone could find the average between 01/01/17 and 30/06/17 (dates are not American, they follow the format of DD/MM/YY) I would appreciate that. So, with that information we can go on the high end and assume that 3.0 comes out by around October 2019. At this rate there are 26 (I think) months before Scratch 3.0 steps in to stop doomsday. That's 25,545,988 projects. So even at a high overestimation there is an extremely low chance that doomsday rolls around before 3.0 stops it. As long as the number of projects doesn't increase too dramatically (and stay that high), we should be fine.

Anybody see anything wrong with this? A contradiction, perhaps?
EDIT: If you need the numbers, then that means that we'll have about 197502662 projects by October 2019 if new project rates increase to and stay at the highest they've been in years (also my calculations would have to be right)

Ah, but what happens when we reach 1800XXXXX? As we know, scratch blocks most numbers that start with 1800, so the doomsday may be closer than it appears, only 8,043,326 projects away.

Right. Thats what I was missing still, the ST could skip anything starting with 1800 and we would have enough project numbers to last us. But surely there are already 1800 projects? What if there's one called https://scratch.MIT.edu/projects/001800465 ?

More news! The phone censor only seems to block 10 digit 1800 prefixes. With this new info, we should be able to push the doomsday back again to… well, long enough that 3.0 can still save us

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.                                                                                                                                                                                     
                          

Auroura_Wolf wrote:

Auroura_WoIf wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

Auroura_Wolf wrote:

Using the recent tab, the most recent project I see is https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/171956674/ . So, that means the doomsday countdown is 828,043,326 projects to go. At the highest spike in multiple years, there seems to be 982,538 projects shared in a month. If someone could find the average between 01/01/17 and 30/06/17 (dates are not American, they follow the format of DD/MM/YY) I would appreciate that. So, with that information we can go on the high end and assume that 3.0 comes out by around October 2019. At this rate there are 26 (I think) months before Scratch 3.0 steps in to stop doomsday. That's 25,545,988 projects. So even at a high overestimation there is an extremely low chance that doomsday rolls around before 3.0 stops it. As long as the number of projects doesn't increase too dramatically (and stay that high), we should be fine.

Anybody see anything wrong with this? A contradiction, perhaps?
EDIT: If you need the numbers, then that means that we'll have about 197502662 projects by October 2019 if new project rates increase to and stay at the highest they've been in years (also my calculations would have to be right)

Ah, but what happens when we reach 1800XXXXX? As we know, scratch blocks most numbers that start with 1800, so the doomsday may be closer than it appears, only 8,043,326 projects away.

Right. Thats what I was missing still, the ST could skip anything starting with 1800 and we would have enough project numbers to last us. But surely there are already 1800 projects? What if there's one called https://scratch.MIT.edu/projects/001800465 ?

More news! The phone censor only seems to block 10 digit 1800 prefixes. With this new info, we should be able to push the doomsday back again to… well, long enough that 3.0 can still save us

Hmm, the detector must be inconsistent because I once tried to post a link to https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/1800/ and it wouldn't let me.

jromagnoli wrote:

Auroura_Wolf wrote:

Auroura_WoIf wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

Auroura_Wolf wrote:

Anybody see anything wrong with this? A contradiction, perhaps?
EDIT: If you need the numbers, then that means that we'll have about 197502662 projects by October 2019 if new project rates increase to and stay at the highest they've been in years (also my calculations would have to be right)

Ah, but what happens when we reach 1800XXXXX? As we know, scratch blocks most numbers that start with 1800, so the doomsday may be closer than it appears, only 8,043,326 projects away.

Right. Thats what I was missing still, the ST could skip anything starting with 1800 and we would have enough project numbers to last us. But surely there are already 1800 projects? What if there's one called https://scratch.MIT.edu/projects/001800465 ?

More news! The phone censor only seems to block 10 digit 1800 prefixes. With this new info, we should be able to push the doomsday back again to… well, long enough that 3.0 can still save us

Hmm, the detector must be inconsistent because I once tried to post a link to https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/1800/ and it wouldn't let me.

That's interesting, because it lets me do it. Perhaps it's only for New Scratchers? I've tried it with loads of different numbers all including 1800, and nothing seems to happen to it

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.                                                                                                                                                                                     
                          

CellularData wrote:

I had an idea somewhat like that. So if you were linking to my 4th project (which is my best project tbh), it would look like this:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/CellularData/4/

…BUT the other problem with it is really old links. There are some links left on the site that look like this:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/andresmh/104/

Fortunately andresmh only has 25 projects, but if there were at least 104, that could be a HUGE issue.

yeah that would work really great, re-reading the posts.
Maybe just take out the /projects so it doesnt interfere with old links.
so itll be scratch.mit.edu/griffpatch/1/

miniepicness wrote:

CellularData wrote:

I had an idea somewhat like that. So if you were linking to my 4th project (which is my best project tbh), it would look like this:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/CellularData/4/

…BUT the other problem with it is really old links. There are some links left on the site that look like this:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/andresmh/104/

Fortunately andresmh only has 25 projects, but if there were at least 104, that could be a HUGE issue.

yeah that would work really great, re-reading the posts.
Maybe just take out the /projects so it doesnt interfere with old links.
so itll be scratch.mit.edu/griffpatch/1/

OMG YAS! This is a great idea! Support!
oh wait i'm on the B&G forum……..

Solution: Use codes like
xr54Gj454

ScriptedAwesome wrote:

Solution: Use codes like
xr54Gj454

no, inappropriate words could generate from that

ScriptedAwesome wrote:

Solution: Use codes like
xr54Gj454

We already discussed that

Maybe do it like this:

a1000a

Two letters. It would take a long time before this would become a problem again.

if this is an issue, please report it on the filter issues thread

braxbroscratcher wrote:

if this is an issue, please report it on the filter issues thread

I'm pretty sure this one deserves it's own thread though.

miniepicness wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

if this is an issue, please report it on the filter issues thread

I'm pretty sure this one deserves it's own thread though.

Since people is proposing ideas to override this problem, i agree.

i tried posting a ten-digit number but it got censored, so i retyped it over 9000 times and i did some weird stuff and i put a space between all numbers