webdiplomacy.net

As I said, the # anchors do do something in the old forum. It's just that there was no easy way to hyperlink specific posts.

If you want phpBB3 to do it, why do you keep asking here?

No JECE, I'm honestly not following on why any part of this conversation was needed after it was explained how you can get the link that works here.

It appears this is resolved. My best recommendation for anyone still confused is to go through and re-read. Come back with a question and I’ll do my best to answer them in a way that is understood. If it’s less about understanding and more about wanting a different answer my best advice is to sign up to volunteer to develop our site in your vision. Who knows your effort may result in a lasting change. :)

jmo1121109: There is no need to be rude. I "explained how you can get the link that works" myself in my original post at the top of the thread. And frankly, if you're not following, I don't know why you bothered to post in the thread at all.

I revived the thread because I was able to reproduce the problem. I thought that you all might be interested to know that there wasn't a bug in the coding and to understand where the conclusion lay. If you're not interested, fine. However, for whatever reason, you decided to respond by writing posts that asked me direct questions that had already been answered in the thread. You can't blame me for humoring you.

ghug: I understand what a # anchor does. You say that in the old Forum the # anchor did something but in all practicality was useless since it merely reproduced the threadID. That's exactly what I'm saying. When I saw repetition here, I instinctively ignored it.

I also understand, for the record, that this is improved functionality since I said as much in my original post at the top of the thread.

"If you want phpBB3 to do it, why do you keep asking here?"
How many times did I ask here, exactly? I'm not going to the phpBB forums because I don't have an account there and, as I already explained to jmo1121109, "I hardly think that they'd care about that." Maybe they would care, but it would make more sense for a dev to ask them for the feature than some random newbie.

jmo1121109: where the confusion lay

I'm going to hopefully wrap up this discussion, since I think it's become circular.
Reading back through the thread, I think everyone's now on the same page that there's no bug; the new forum's urls simply need a specific and complete form in order to function as intended.
One thing that still seems unaddressed is the dialogue box. It pops up because the primary function of the button is to be able to link others to the post. A link to that is not necessary if you are looking at the post, but a url to copy might be helpful, hence the pop-up link to copy.

I think the reason this confusion got out of hand is because jmo and ghug, among others, have put a lot of time into making this forum work. As it's being implemented, it has been important to find and address emergent issues and bugs as quickly as possible, to ensure it runs smoothly. In a lot of ways, this issue seems frivious when compared the rest of the work they do to keep the site functioning.

Since our dev team has very limited time, they often need to make hard choices about what to work on. That's why they might be short when asked about feature requests that don't add something new or fix an important problem. The go-to line from devs is often to ask people to implement their idea themselves, not as a mean-spirited response, but because the issue legitimately does not make the list of things to fix.

So, that being said, if this is something you truly believe needs to change, I would suggest researching the issue yourself, and either making a feature request on the GitHub, or learning to code the change yourself. Otherwise, the simple fact of the matter is that this is not going to change.

I hope that clears up the confusion, and resolves the issue here.