|
||||||
|
Views:
16,871,332 |
   
Main
| FAQ
| IRC chat
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Latest posts
| Stats
| Ranks
| Online users
| Search
|
11-01-25 09:05 PM |
||||
| Guest: Register | Login | ||||||
| 0 users currently in AcmlmBoard II Software/Bug Report Forum | 1 guest | 1 bot |
| Main - AcmlmBoard II Software/Bug Report Forum - thread title's size limit should be increased |
| Lili~ ♥ |
| ||
|
Normal User
Queen Lesbian of Kafuka Level: 162    
Posts: 307/8412 EXP: 54818136 Next: 473140 Since: 01-06-12 Last post: 3308 days Last view: 1831 days |
When you create a new thread, the thread title field has a really small limit so it's impossible to create thread names which are anything beyond super short. Amusingly, once the thread is created, the Rename link has a much higher limit (I haven't bothered to figure out how high it is) so you can immediately rename your thread and give it a long name this way.
I think the thread title field's size limit should be increased a bit. |
| Kawa |
| ||
Retired Staff
 Not okay Prophet of Celestia Level: 95
Posts: 458/2423 EXP: 8478199 Next: 190408 Since: 01-01-12 From: The Netherlands Last post: 2583 days Last view: 898 days |
Any absolute suggestions? |
| Lili~ ♥ |
| ||
|
Normal User
Queen Lesbian of Kafuka Level: 162
Posts: 309/8412 EXP: 54818136 Next: 473140 Since: 01-06-12 Last post: 3308 days Last view: 1831 days |
Jul has a limit of 100, which seems pretty reasonable to me. The current limit of 60 we have is really too short. |
| Kawa |
| ||
|
Retired Staff
Not okay Prophet of Celestia Level: 95
Posts: 459/2423 EXP: 8478199 Next: 190408 Since: 01-01-12 From: The Netherlands Last post: 2583 days Last view: 898 days |
The database field's length is 80 according to my testing copy. Good thing increasing that value (which I can't do) doesn't affect the thread titles we already have  |
| Main - AcmlmBoard II Software/Bug Report Forum - thread title's size limit should be increased |
 Acmlmboard v2.5.6 (06/11/2024) © 2005-2025 Acmlm, Emuz, et al. |
|
MySQL - queries: 77, rows: 507/541, time: 0.705 seconds. |
