I found a "new" way to write spoilers

[blue626]

Some months ago, I was reading the old posts, and I found one which wrote spoilers in this way: Hover a certain text for ≈1 second to reveal a yellow box like the ones that explain how to use things. THat box has the spoiler. Some time later I saw that post again and, because I was curious of how it's done, I quoted it. Some weeks ago I decide to post about this. Only now I quoted the post again to see the exact code and posted about this here here's how you used the code:

[abbr=(the hidden text)](text you need to hover to read the hidden text)[/abbr]

Write exactly like it's shown without quoting (to prevent transformation, I used the nobbc code, explained before in this forum).

Try it here:

Hover this for ≈1 second.

I think that this is better than highlighting white/gray text. Highlighting itself is harder than hovering (I think?), using white doesn't make it completely hidden (it's still hard to read, though), and it's hard to find the two exact background colours. What do you think?

[Dav999]

I think that this is better than highlighting white/gray text. Highlighting itself is harder than hovering (I think?), using white doesn't make it completely hidden (it's still hard to read, though), and it's hard to find the two exact background colours. What do you think?

Well, it's a good way to hide things completely! This is the first time I see it working, just because you said you have to hover for ≈1 second. I also found posts with 'Hover over this for hint', but it didn't work (I think I didn't hover long enough). What if you ever hide something in one character, then lock that thread? Totally impossible to find!

Anyway, I found a site with more interesting tags!

[time]1350412387[/time]   >   October 16, 2012, 06:33:07 PM

[FIQ]

I think that this is better than highlighting white/gray text. Highlighting itself is harder than hovering (I think?), using white doesn't make it completely hidden (it's still hard to read, though), and it's hard to find the two exact background colours. What do you think?

Well, it's a good way to hide things completely! This is the first time I see it working, just because you said you have to hover for ≈1 second. I also found posts with 'Hover over this for hint', but it didn't work (I think I didn't hover long enough). What if you ever hide something in one character, then lock that thread? Totally impossible to find!

Anyway, I found a site with more interesting tags!

[time]1350412387[/time]   >   October 16, 2012, 06:33:07 PM

Just alter the quote ID to the post with the "forever hidden" message, from replying to another thread, to work-around the fact that you cannot reply to locked threads.

[blue626]

Anyway, I found a site with more interesting tags!

[time]1350412387[/time]   >   October 16, 2012, 06:33:07 PM

Thanks! That's the SMF Manual. On the top of that page, there's a link to a more updated page on a wiki. There's something missing there, though. the glow code has 3 parameters including the color, while it doesn't show the 3rd (which I suppose it's the orientation in degrees). Actually Neither the 2nd nor the 3rd work for me.

[acronym=if I remember correctly]IIRC[/acronym] -> IIRC
(hover it for ≈1 second)
This one seems equal to abbr! Maybe I should use this or abbr sometimes when I write abbreviations...

EDIT: After I clicked post... "Your request timed out. Please request again." Reloaded and my post was posted.. after FIQ's post, which I didn't see!

[Dav999]

I think that this is better than highlighting white/gray text. Highlighting itself is harder than hovering (I think?), using white doesn't make it completely hidden (it's still hard to read, though), and it's hard to find the two exact background colours. What do you think?

Well, it's a good way to hide things completely! This is the first time I see it working, just because you said you have to hover for ≈1 second. I also found posts with 'Hover over this for hint', but it didn't work (I think I didn't hover long enough). What if you ever hide something in one character, then lock that thread? Totally impossible to find!

Anyway, I found a site with more interesting tags!

[time]1350412387[/time]   >   Tuesday 16 October 2012 - 20:33:07

Just alter the quote ID to the post with the "forever hidden" message, from replying to another thread, to work-around the fact that you cannot reply to locked threads.

Still, you have to know it's there. If you would know there is one hidden message in one of the >10000 posts in this forum, would you still quote all messages and if it's a locked topic, copy over all of the id's of the messages? Challenge denied!

The warning.

[blue626]

EDIT: After I clicked post... "Your request timed out. Please request again." Reloaded and my post was posted.. after FIQ's post, which I didn't see!

It happened again after I clicked Edit because Dav999 posted!
(And, it looks like he didn't see my post as he posted after FIQ posted but before me.)

EDIT: Again!? And nobody posted!?

EDIT 2: Wel, at least it didn't happen after the 1st edit in this post!

[Dav999]

EDIT: After I clicked post... "Your request timed out. Please request again." Reloaded and my post was posted.. after FIQ's post, which I didn't see!

It happened again after I clicked Edit because Dav999 posted!
(And, it looks like he didn't see my post as he posted after FIQ posted but before me.)

EDIT: Again!? And nobody posted!?

EDIT 2: Wel, at least it didn't happen after the 1st edit in this post!

Well, I got it too, when I wanted to post reply 4 in this thread. Normally it's a blue message box in SMF style, not a completely white page with times new roman at the top of the page. And again when I try to post this? It only happens in this thread.

[Dav999]

Well, I got the error again when I tried to post my new level. You have to go back, copy everything and click reply/new topic again if you want to post it, because just clicking post again doesn't work.

And now it happened again!

Anyways. Back on topic?

[N]

Well, I got the error again when I tried to post my new level. You have to go back, copy everything and click reply/new topic again if you want to post it, because just clicking post again doesn't work.

And now it happened again!

Anyways. Back on topic?

no

[Hilbert]

Well, I got the error again when I tried to post my new level. You have to go back, copy everything and click reply/new topic again if you want to post it, because just clicking post again doesn't work.

And now it happened again!

Anyways. Back on topic?

Yes

[N]

Well, I got the error again when I tried to post my new level. You have to go back, copy everything and click reply/new topic again if you want to post it, because just clicking post again doesn't work.

And now it happened again!

Anyways. Back on topic?

no