Forum backup URL alteration

[Domochevsky]

Hey,

is there a special reason for the backup software to alter the URL of threads to /forumbackup.html instead of the normal /forums/showthread.php? This has been occuring for a while now. I remember a time where this wasn't the case.

IE, you view a thread at
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184423&page=16 and then reload the page, only to now stare at "yo, forum backup in progress" at
http://www.giantitp.com/forumbackup.html?t=184423&page=16 .

You can't even click the "back" button, as it just alters that URL too. The only way to get back to the thread you were looking at afterwards is to either manually navigate there from somewhere else or to rewrite the URL.

[Rawhide]

Hey,

is there a special reason for the backup software to alter the URL of threads to /forumbackup.html instead of the normal /forums/showthread.php? This has been occuring for a while now. I remember a time where this wasn't the case.

IE, you view a thread at
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184423&page=16 and then reload the page, only to now stare at "yo, forum backup in progress" at
http://www.giantitp.com/forumbackup.html?t=184423&page=16 .

You can't even click the "back" button, as it just alters that URL too. The only way to get back to the thread you were looking at afterwards is to either manually navigate there from somewhere else or to rewrite the URL.

Yes, there is. To show that message. The forum software is being backed up, so you are being redirected in a different way.

You are remembering incorrectly. It has always been that way, ever since the message was introduced.

[InaVegt]

Yes, there it. To show that message. The forum software is being backed up, so you are being redirected in a different way.

You are remembering incorrectly. It has always been that way, ever since the message was introduced.

I seem to share Domochevsky's recollection.

In fact, I distinctly remember that refreshing used to be a valid way to recover a post lost to the backup.

[Rawhide]

I seem to share Domochevsky's recollection.

In fact, I distinctly remember that refreshing used to be a valid way to recover a post lost to the backup.

Then you are also remembering incorrectly. It has been this way since it was implemented. I even tested it before it was implemented and noted that it did that.

[InaVegt]

Then you are also remembering incorrectly. It has been this way since it was implemented. I even tested it before it was implemented and noted that it did that.

No, I am not remembering incorrectly. Because I have logs of IRC conversations in which I explained this behavior to others.

[Rawhide]

No, I am not remembering incorrectly. Because I have logs of IRC conversations in which I explained this behavior to others.

It has been this way since the redirect has been put in place, it has never been any other way.

Prior to the redirect, there was a password prompt, which allowed admins to bypass the closure. This confused people, was never used, and was ultimately rather pointless. It was disabled in favour of the redirect.

Prior to that, there was no redirect and the forums would just not respond for 15 or so minutes.

But, at no point, has the behaviour of the redirect changed since it was first implemented. Even prior to implementation, it has behaved this same way. The redirect and redirect page has not been altered.

[Domochevsky]

That is more than odd, because i distinctively remember the same as Ina, not half a year ago. Otherwise i wouldn't bring it up. :smallconfused:

[Renegade Paladin]

Funny, I've always been able to just hit the back button and go back to the page I was on just fine.

[Mercenary Pen]

Funny, I've always been able to just hit the back button and go back to the page I was on just fine.

Maybe your browser was reloading the thread from cache in those instances?

[Zherog]

That is more than odd, because i distinctively remember the same as Ina, not half a year ago. Otherwise i wouldn't bring it up. :smallconfused:

When was the redirect installed?

[Renegade Paladin]

Maybe your browser was reloading the thread from cache in those instances?
Of course it was. That's what the back button does. I don't know what kind of crazy settings they've got their browsers on that it doesn't. :smalltongue:

[The Bushranger]

As a rule, by my observation, IE will reload when you click 'back', while Firefox will load from the cache.

I've lost a lot fewer posts that used to be 'eaten' since switching to Firefox.

[Trixie]

That is more than odd, because i distinctively remember the same as Ina, not half a year ago. Otherwise i wouldn't bring it up. :smallconfused:

I seem to share the same recollection as you two. It used to be a lot less annoying before 2010.

[The Rose Dragon]

Frankly, I recall the same thing as well. The message was there, but in the same URL as whatever page you were on.

((I'm starting to feel that either we are experiencing mass delusion, Rawhide is remembering something wrong, or this is a case of "We've Always Been at War with Eastasia".))

[Renegade Paladin]

As a rule, by my observation, IE will reload when you click 'back', while Firefox will load from the cache.

I've lost a lot fewer posts that used to be 'eaten' since switching to Firefox.
Ah. Then that's a consequence of using Internet Exploder. Why does anyone actually employ that, again? :smallconfused:

[Tavar]

Because some sites, for whatever reason, are only compatible with IE? No, it doesn't make sense, but there are some out there.

[LordZarth]

Right, and the rest of the internet only actually works properly with... anything but IE. :P

[Rawhide]

Considering that, and I will repeat, absolutely nothing has changed with the redirect/forum closed message, at all - it has always changed the url since the first time it was introduced - the only possible change is your client systems or your incorrect memory. The script was written to change the url, this was tested and confirmed to take place before implementation.

[Domochevsky]

So you're saying that all of us are in fact at war with Eastasia? :smallconfused:

[Rawhide]

Ok, fine. Give me more work for something as pointless as this.

I've just checked and the backup url redirection was last modified on Aug 20 2008. This is directly from the server itself.

[Mystic Muse]

Out of curiosity, does this thread really serve any purpose anymore? the question has been answered and it sounds like Rawhide has more important things to do with his time when it comes to working on the site.

I don't mean to come across as rude, I was just wondering.

[Trixie]

Out of curiosity, does this thread really serve any purpose anymore? the question has been answered and it sounds like Rawhide has more important things to do with his time when it comes to working on the site.

Yes, the minute he spent writing this post can doom us all in the future, due to the lack of proper server care. Why are you bothering the only person who stands between us and dreaded 500 errors, people? :smallcool:

[Rawhide]

Checking things like this is a little more involved than that, given the security measures in place on the server. It's also completely pointless and not really something I'd like to be doing/arguing about with a cyclone knocking at my door. But it's not even that, not really, I'm just a little frustrated that I have been told, repeatedly, that I have done something which I have already stated, several times, that I have not done.

I created it, I tested it, I implemented it, and I have never changed it. It has been that way since 2008. It is not a case of pretending that nothing has changed, it literally has never changed, ever.

[Rockphed]

Checking things like this is a little more involved than that, given the security measures in place on the server. It's also completely pointless and not really something I'd like to be doing/arguing about with a cyclone knocking at my door. But it's not even that, not really, I'm just a little frustrated that I have been told, repeatedly, that I have done something which I have already stated, several times, that I have not done.

I created it, I tested it, I implemented it, and I have never changed it. It has been that way since 2008. It is not a case of pretending that nothing has changed, it literally has never changed, ever.

Memory is a fickle thing. I suspect that people are confusing what happened before the forum backup warning was initiated with what happened afterward. After all, before it was initiated we got a 404 when we tried to reach the forum, right? I really don't remember. And it is that lack of memory that stopped me from even trying to comment on this. I'm not even sure I ran into the forum backup before 2008. It happens about 4 am eastern time, right? I don't think I was staying up that late all that often before 2008.

[PhoeKun]

Memory is a fickle thing. I suspect that people are confusing what happened before the forum backup warning was initiated with what happened afterward. After all, before it was initiated we got a 404 when we tried to reach the forum, right? I really don't remember. And it is that lack of memory that stopped me from even trying to comment on this. I'm not even sure I ran into the forum backup before 2008. It happens about 4 am eastern time, right? I don't think I was staying up that late all that often before 2008.

For the entire time this argument has been going on, this (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/103) has been the only thing I can think about.

Memory is kind of a scary thing.

[Rawhide]

For the entire time this argument has been going on, this (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/103) has been the only thing I can think about.

Memory is kind of a scary thing.

Thank you for that article. I've read and bookmarked it.

---

The thread was left open for further clarification requests, but none seem to be forthcoming, so this thread is now being closed.