New media handler

[FishPants]

** Poll running for this weekend above; I'll close it sometime Sunday evening or Monday morning.

I've migrated away from a (VERY) deprecated media handler we were using to embed Youtube videos on the forum. From what I can tell the previous embedded videos still show up properly, but going forward ANY media that you want embedded needs to use a MEDIA open and /MEDIA closing tag (vs the YOUTUBE and /YOUTUBE tags).

The neat thing is now we can embed a LOT more than the few things previously, there's too many to list - I had added Bluesky as well but that bombed out (it was from a forum post on their support channel so I'll go ask why it didn't work).

But for example some of the categories that you can embed with the MEDIA handler:

X, National Geographic, Twitch, Youtube, Vimeo, ABC news, Kickstarter, CNN, Instagram, MLB, Reddit, Pinterest, Liveleak - the list is huge, so if you want to embed something you can just stick it in the media tags and see if it works.

I also have the option to just parse a plain text URL posted in a post WITHOUT the media tags, but I've turned that off for now - I want to hear from you on whether you'd rather just see URLs parsed without having to do the media block around it. Let me know what you think here.

[Rumpy]

I would personally go with the auto-parsing, but that's just me. It's quicker and it removes a step.

[FishPants]

I would personally go with the auto-parsing, but that's just me. It's quicker and it removes a step.

Make your vote, there's a poll at the top - thanks for the input, I'm thinking the same thing but want to see what everyone thinks before ramming in a change like that - we are all old curmudgeons that don't appreciate change; I don't need anyone freaking out at the local bridge tournament about URL parsing.

[jztemple2]

we are all old curmudgeons that don't appreciate change; I don't need anyone freaking out at the local bridge tournament about URL parsing.

Well, as one of the oldest curmudgeons here, I approve this change and I voted in the poll. Thanks for asking us.

[Rumpy]

I would personally go with the auto-parsing, but that's just me. It's quicker and it removes a step.

Make your vote, there's a poll at the top - thanks for the input, I'm thinking the same thing but want to see what everyone thinks before ramming in a change like that - we are all old curmudgeons that don't appreciate change; I don't need anyone freaking out at the local bridge tournament about URL parsing.

Yeah, voted. But I do have a question in regards to spam related to this. Assuming we have one of the many bots doing a drive-by spamming, does the parser work for any unrecognized URL, or does it stick to known websites?

[Daehawk]

I have no idea.

[FishPants]

I would personally go with the auto-parsing, but that's just me. It's quicker and it removes a step.

Make your vote, there's a poll at the top - thanks for the input, I'm thinking the same thing but want to see what everyone thinks before ramming in a change like that - we are all old curmudgeons that don't appreciate change; I don't need anyone freaking out at the local bridge tournament about URL parsing.

Yeah, voted. But I do have a question in regards to spam related to this. Assuming we have one of the many bots doing a drive-by spamming, does the parser work for any unrecognized URL, or does it stick to known websites?

Good question - it only parses URLs that it knows (and that I have enabled). For example I opted to not enable URLs for mail.ru <-- I don't even know what mail.ru is, but what I do know is I don't want to manage whatever the hell comes from that domain.

[Rumpy]

Yeah, good call. Thanks. And I'm assuming this can be tweaked further if needed.

[LordMortis]

I see merit in both methods, as sometimes people don't actually want previews but most of the time most of us would rather "things just work" without having to know how. So I'll go with the old curmudeony option, as that best describes me. Which one is that again?

Also, as always THANK YOU!

[Alefroth]

Are there any disadvantages to doing it automatically?

[FishPants]

If you want to see the categories/types of media I have enabled currently (This will change if I see spam, problems with certain file types or frankly some of these I don't even know what they are - if they end up being "bad" I'll pull them).

[$iljanus]

I would personally go with the auto-parsing, but that's just me. It's quicker and it removes a step.

Make your vote, there's a poll at the top - thanks for the input, I'm thinking the same thing but want to see what everyone thinks before ramming in a change like that - we are all old curmudgeons that don't appreciate change; I don't need anyone freaking out at the local bridge tournament about URL parsing.

Yeah, voted. But I do have a question in regards to spam related to this. Assuming we have one of the many bots doing a drive-by spamming, does the parser work for any unrecognized URL, or does it stick to known websites?

Good question - it only parses URLs that it knows (and that I have enabled). For example I opted to not enable URLs for mail.ru <-- I don't even know what mail.ru is, but what I do know is I don't want to manage whatever the hell comes from that domain.

In Russia, the domain manages…you

If you can reasonably filter out suspicious domains then why not embrace the new shiny tech? If it’s a clusterfuck for moderation for some reason we can always revert back I assume.

[FishPants]

Are there any disadvantages to doing it automatically?

I think the only real change may be inadvertently allowing spammers to get more media embedded.. Although I'm sure I can make new users not have access somehow if it becomes a problem (its a permission flag, and I think there's a "role" for "newly registered users").

But really I guess not much downside that I can see.

[FishPants]

I have also just disabled "RuTube" which is some Russian media site; pretty much anything out of Russia I am going to filter - these days there's not a lot of anything from there that we would want to see embedded here I don't think.

[Rumpy]

Yeah, I guess I was mainly worried that allowing more to be parsed would create more crud via bots.

[Alefroth]

Are there any disadvantages to doing it automatically?

I think the only real change may be inadvertently allowing spammers to get more media embedded.. Although I'm sure I can make new users not have access somehow if it becomes a problem (its a permission flag, and I think there's a "role" for "newly registered users").

But really I guess not much downside that I can see.

Thanks!

[Blackhawk]

I don't see any issues with any of those. Spotify embedding will be nice. LiveLeak could be abused, but this isn't 15 years ago - as long as people are considerate, I don't see it becoming an issue.

Of course, the last thing I want to see is every thread with TikToks.

[Victoria Raverna]

Yeah, I guess I was mainly worried that allowing more to be parsed would create more crud via bots.

Bots need to have an account to post anything, so maybe something like not let new accounts to have the ability to post URLs.

[Isgrimnur]

LiveLeak could be abused, but this isn't 15 years ago

Liveleak is dead.

[Lassr]

If both are equal (no huge advantage or disadvantage) then I vote simplicity.

[Lassr]

So I just tried to post a youtube video...All it did was post a link, I'm not sure what to do now.

"[youtube] [/youtube]" did nothing
using media instead of youtube causes an error

[Rumpy]

Yeah, I guess I was mainly worried that allowing more to be parsed would create more crud via bots.

Bots need to have an account to post anything, so maybe something like not let new accounts to have the ability to post URLs.

Yeah, that'd be fair. And have a certain postcount to unlock links. If it's possible.

So I just tried to post a youtube video...All it did was post a link, I'm not sure what to do now.

"[youtube] [/youtube]" did nothing
using media instead of youtube causes an error

He did say the Youtube tag wouldn't work going forward.

[Kraken]

Just tell me what to do.

[stessier]

So I just tried to post a youtube video...All it did was post a link, I'm not sure what to do now.

"[youtube] [/youtube]" did nothing
using media instead of youtube causes an error

Same on the media tags - error is "you can not use certain BBcodes: MEDIA".

[Sudy]

I don't know what I want and I'm having a really hard time visualizing how these choices might affect me in the future, but I went with the first option because everyone else was and I figure I prefer being lazy even if it ruins my life.

[LordMortis]

I don't know what I want and I'm having a really hard time visualizing how these choices might affect me in the future, but I went with the first option because everyone else was and I figure I prefer being lazy even if it ruins my life.

[FishPants]

So I just tried to post a youtube video...All it did was post a link, I'm not sure what to do now.

"[youtube] [/youtube]" did nothing
using media instead of youtube causes an error

Same on the media tags - error is "you can not use certain BBcodes: MEDIA".

You got an error using Media tags? Interesting, now I need to figure out these roles and permissions then sorry, it's working for me but I guess that's being an admin. Let me take a look.

[FishPants]

So I just tried to post a youtube video...All it did was post a link, I'm not sure what to do now.

"[youtube] [/youtube]" did nothing
using media instead of youtube causes an error

Same on the media tags - error is "you can not use certain BBcodes: MEDIA".

Ok try with the media tag now, the group "Registered Users" didn't have permission to use the media tag which I've turned on for all of the forums.

[LordMortis]

works for youtube



Is there a list of other handlers? I tried to do a CNN snipped because I know that's the sort of thing people like Grif would appreciate. It didn't work, presumably because it's not in the package.

Edit: NVM I see the list upthread. That list had disappeared when last I looked.

Odd it says CNN works and yet..

[MEDIA]https://www.cnn.com/weather/live-news/l ... index.html[/MEDIA]

Maybe only for videos and it doesn't thumbnail stories. Ah well, can't let the perfect be the enemy of good.

[Lassr]

I noticed this morning that on Tapatalk, through my phone, the video image was already there. I added Media tag and the youtube image popped up on the PC. So this media tag is only needed on the web forum and not tapatalk...

[FishPants]

Is there a list of other handlers? I tried to do a CNN snipped because I know that's the sort of thing people like Grif would appreciate. It didn't work, presumably because it's not in the package.

Yes you can access the list of supported sites and examples of the URLs HERE. It definitely only embeds the audio/video feeds from sites like CNN, so straight news articles don't embed.

[The Meal]

NO AUTOPLAY! Auto parsing is fine, though.

[Sudy]

I only want autoplay if everything on the page loads and plays at once.

[Rumpy]

So I just tried to post a youtube video...All it did was post a link, I'm not sure what to do now.

"[youtube] [/youtube]" did nothing
using media instead of youtube causes an error

Same on the media tags - error is "you can not use certain BBcodes: MEDIA".

You got an error using Media tags? Interesting, now I need to figure out these roles and permissions then sorry, it's working for me but I guess that's being an admin. Let me take a look.

Well, at least we know it won't work with bots...

[Blackhawk]

There are no circumstances under which I want autoplay.

[Rumpy]

Yeah, definitely no autoplay. That'd get annoying very quickly in a page of full of videos.

[Sudy]

Autoplay is a horrible idea, I can't believe we're voting on this!

[FishPants]

Ok well clearly having this auto generate the media vs using the tags is the majority. I'll park this poll in meta and push the button on the config to allow straight URL parsing.

[stessier]

Autoplay is a horrible idea, I can't believe we're voting on this!

Fwiw, we're not. We're voting on auto parsing.

[FishPants]

Ok any URLs going forward should be auto parsed (FYI It will show the video in line if you don't paste it on its own line)