ICM Forum Q&A

[Coryn]

This is giving me a headache. I use ICM for my watchlists and I had a few noirs and Korean movies listed for next month. As well as some of the newer features and documentaries.
Now I used the button 'remove checked movies' and now my order has been totally ruined. It uses position now instead of date added ...

I can change it of course by clicking twice on 'Date added' but it's horrible to do this on a phone. Any way to get my list back to date added as default ?

Thanks in advance.

Sorry for bumping but it is really annoying me and I am starting to think about using something else to get my watchlists on.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Do you use position for anything? I think I know what happened:
The default has always been position. By default position and date added are the same. If you move a movie (or click remove movies) while in a different view, it'll renumber the positions to that view.. To fix it, sort by date added move a movie up or down one slot, then move it back if you wish, and it'll reorder the whole list by date added.

[Coryn]

Never saw your reply, sorry
But it is solved

[Cinepolis]

What am I doing wrong? I typed this:
[img/]https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0400667/me ... 2194510592[/img]
But without the slash in the first [img].

[PeacefulAnarchy]

imdb doesn't allow hotlinking images like that.

[GruesomeTwosome]

What am I doing wrong? I typed this:
[img/]https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0400667/me ... 2194510592[/img]
But without the slash in the first [img].

If you're using Chrome, right-click that image and select "Copy image address", which gives you the actual .jpg address for that image. Then you can paste that here and use the [img] [/ img] around the link. Similar deal for Firefox, it's worded as "Copy Image Location" but same idea.

[Cinepolis]

Thanks. I guess Microsoft Edge isn't really comfortable with phpbb-pages.

[joachimt]

You don't use the actual image url. This is it:

Code: Select all

[img]https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTM0NzI3MDQ3Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzE1OTQ0MQ@@._V1_.jpg[/img]

[Cinepolis]

Thank you all. Edge doesn't have the option to copy an image's address. I guess I'll use Chrome from now on.

[GruesomeTwosome]

Thank you all. Edge doesn't have the option to copy an image's address. I guess I'll use Chrome from now on.

Oh, I use Edge on my work computer. It's just a slightly different way to do it there than on Chrome or Firefox. Just right-click the image on that IMDB link you posted, and then select "Ask Bing about this picture". Click the "See full-size image" link that appears to the right, and there's your URL that you can copy and paste here.

[Cinepolis]

Thanks again. Every day's a school day.

[Onderhond]

Save as minor edit

Don't know about you guys, but this little thing drives me crazy every time I want to update my list. I simply can't remember what it means. Is it:

A/ Save the list but don't add it as an official list update, as it is only a minor edit.
B/ Save this edit as an official list update.

Can we please change the wording of that to something more descriptive?

[weirdboy]

Save as minor edit

Don't know about you guys, but this little thing drives me crazy every time I want to update my list. I simply can't remember what it means. Is it:

A/ Save the list but don't add it as an official list update, as it is only a minor edit.
B/ Save this edit as an official list update.

Can we please change the wording of that to something more descriptive?

I would also like to add that once you save a list as a minor update, it also screws up the dates used/displayed in the history.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Minor update is for when you make a mistake. So it acts as if the change you did was part of the last update, preserving the previous history and numbering and new entries etc.
Not checking the box makes it a proper update, so the previous list gets saved in the history as is and the new update shows changes from it.

[weirdboy]

Minor update is for when you make a mistake. So it acts as if the change you did was part of the last update, preserving the previous history and numbering and new entries etc.

Except it DOES change the date associated with that list version.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Huh, I'm pretty sure it didn't in the past.

[Reflect]

Hey, is there a way to change your username?

[AdamH]

Hey, is there a way to change your username?

I'll change it. Either PM me the new name or post it on here.

[Minkin]

This is dumb, but I can't get a signature to work.

I go to the User Control Profile and go to signature - and it shows up there just fine. But the signature isn't appearing on my posts for some reason. Am I missing something?

Edit
Figured it out - there's the option to turn it on on the post itself .... which seems rather odd. You'd think turning it on for the board would turn it on for the post. Do I have to click that button everytime I make a post?

[Lammetje]

Do I have to click that button everytime I make a post?

Nope:

[Minkin]

Thanks!

There's alot of steps just to add a signature. I would've thought the creation screen would've been enough.

[xianjiro]

I don't remember having to do anything more than drop in the text. Could your signature have been turned off somehow? Can't say I have any guesses how it could happen.

[Minkin]

I don't remember having to do anything more than drop in the text. Could your signature have been turned off somehow? Can't say I have any guesses how it could happen.

The "attach my signature" defaults with no, which seems like an odd choice. Is there anyway to make it default to yes? That way all one has to do is add a signature and its already to go.

[xianjiro]

Wish I could remember what I did when I migrated here, but it's been a while. I'm in the habit of reviewing all settings when I start using a forum or website, so maybe I just changed that without much thought. I'm sure PA had a good reason though (or the software comes with that set to off from the developer).

[PeacefulAnarchy]

I have no idea if I set it to off or if that's the default. I do remember changing some other settings on the sigs (length and such) though. It's a setting you only change once when you set up a signature so most likely I just left whatever the default was.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

The forum seems to be having some load issues. I did something that may or may not fix it. I don't have time to troubleshoot it right now, but if it persists I'll be looking into it tomorrow.

[xianjiro]

do load issues have anything to do with 'guests'?

[PeacefulAnarchy]

That was my thought. They did last time we had an issues. But it may be something else.

[xianjiro]

It seems better now - though it doesn't appear guests have diminished much, but I'm only looking at what displays near the bottom of the page. Never really figured out how accurate that "Who Is Online" bit it though. Is it supposed to mean that "Users browsing this forum: mightysparks, Onderhond, sebby, tirefeet, xianjiro and 32 guests" have this page open? Are actively navigating? It doesn't make sense that we are the only people logged in.

I wonder how quickly the guests that cause trouble (bots most likely) are opening pages. That would certain cause problem if we had 50 or 100 guests opening every page on the forum sequentially. Otherwise, not really sure what might be the issue. Could it be that they are trying to post in every reply box or something? (Say, like a BBS DoS attack or at least, misuse)

[mightysparks]

It seems better now - though it doesn't appear guests have diminished much, but I'm only looking at what displays near the bottom of the page. Never really figured out how accurate that "Who Is Online" bit it though. Is it supposed to mean that "Users browsing this forum: mightysparks, Onderhond, sebby, tirefeet, xianjiro and 32 guests" have this page open? Are actively navigating? It doesn't make sense that we are the only people logged in.

When you're browsing a thread the 'users browsing' bit means people in that section of the forum (eg, Off-Topic). When you're on the homepage it will show more. I think it shows everyone who has been active within the last hour or something.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

We had over 300 "guests" last night. It's not so much the number as how frequently they're doing something, as mighty said the users online list covers the span of an hour. We can support more than that in an hour, but not that many at the literal same time. I think blocking them still lets them make page requests, so it still takes a bit after they're blocked for them to go away. I'll be digging into things later when I have time.

[sol]

I'll be digging into things later when I have time.

Thanks, PA. I have noticed this a bit myself lately. Good to know that you're on the case!

[xianjiro]

It seems better now - though it doesn't appear guests have diminished much, but I'm only looking at what displays near the bottom of the page. Never really figured out how accurate that "Who Is Online" bit it though. Is it supposed to mean that "Users browsing this forum: mightysparks, Onderhond, sebby, tirefeet, xianjiro and 32 guests" have this page open? Are actively navigating? It doesn't make sense that we are the only people logged in.

When you're browsing a thread the 'users browsing' bit means people in that section of the forum (eg, Off-Topic). When you're on the homepage it will show more. I think it shows everyone who has been active within the last hour or something.

Thanks. Remembered there was something of time issue (last hour) but now I'm clear on the who is where bit. Makes a lot more sense to me now.

Now if we only knew what our guests were doing. The Internet really is a strange place.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Admins can see what the guests are doing (well, to the extent we can see anything, it just says "browsing x page").

[sol]

I don't mind guests not having access to 'Active Topics', but with what you have changed, this looks a little cold and uninviting.

This board has no forums.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Yeah I agree that probably isn't inviting. It's probably fine for a day or two until I get a chance to look into things.

[sol]

I didn't change that?

Huh. Sorry - I assumed that you had since the change only happened overnight and you said you were doing something to try to limit the amount of guest traffic. Should I be asking Lauren or Adam to fix that?

[PeacefulAnarchy]

I didn't change that?

Huh. Sorry - I assumed that you had since the change only happened overnight and you said you were doing something to try to limit the amount of guest traffic. Should I be asking Lauren or Adam to fix that?

I could change it back but it's probably best to leave it for right now. I do agree it's not a long term solution, and I don't know if it's actually helping, but better safe than sorry for now.

[sol]

I could change it back but it's probably best to leave it for right now. I do agree it's not a long term solution, and I don't know if it's actually helping, but better safe than sorry for now.

OK, no problem.

[xianjiro]

I don't mind guests not having access to 'Active Topics', but with what you have changed, this looks a little cold and uninviting.

This board has no forums.

You could try This forum has no broads.