Zup wrote on 2026-04-29, 05:01:

I can't mark forums read since monday. Every time I try it, it spawns a window saying:

AJAX error
Something went wrong when processing your request.

I've tried it with Firefox (Windows 11, Firefox ESR 140.10.0+uBlock origin+noscript) and Opera (using my Android tablet). Has anyone else experienced it?

I tried with Firefox and Chrome, still no luck.

16ShadesOfOrange wrote:

4. Regarding HTTP (non-HTTPS) for old school browsers - Unfortunately turning off HTTPS for the forum will lead to search engines and browsers marking the site as "non-secure" even though there's no real "secure" data. Hackaday had an additional non-HTTPS version of their site - however I don't see much point for a forum, especially since there's proxies and other workarounds available now.

You can make it so it allows older browsers to stay HTTP and the site will be fine..

spiritualforums.com/vb does that.. (I can get there direct (HTTP) on IE6 (MyIE2))

ldeveraux wrote on 2026-05-04, 15:40:

Zup wrote on 2026-04-29, 05:01:

I can't mark forums read since monday. Every time I try it, it spawns a window saying:

AJAX error
Something went wrong when processing your request.

I've tried it with Firefox (Windows 11, Firefox ESR 140.10.0+uBlock origin+noscript) and Opera (using my Android tablet). Has anyone else experienced it?

I tried with Firefox and Chrome, still no luck.

Same error here with Firefox 115.35.1esr on Win7/64 and also Supermium 122.0.6261.85 on Vista/32

Zup wrote on 2026-04-29, 05:01:

I can't mark forums read since monday. Every time I try it, it spawns a window saying:

AJAX error
Something went wrong when processing your request.

I've tried it with Firefox (Windows 11, Firefox ESR 140.10.0+uBlock origin+noscript) and Opera (using my Android tablet). Has anyone else experienced it?

It seems to work now, thanks.

Can we get the auto image compression to not save at 5% quality?

It will compress a 1.35MB pic down to 80KB. It is not just compressing it, but auto resizing as well.

Manually saving at 84% quality makes it not resize or compress any more.

Huge waste of time having to do this every time.

Can we get the forum config to just auto compress to 84% since that is the threshold? Please don't make the threshold even lower.

Another problem keeps popping up. When I try to post, I'll get an error that the page is not responding or the weird BSOD like error pops up that the forum has.

If I hit refresh, it will double post. If I hit back on the browser and then go back into the sub-forum I was in if it kicks me back to the main page the post that I just tried to post will be there.

This is on both mobile and windows browsers.

Something is having issues.

The images in the quoted posts are not in original order.
In some cases, this can lead to confusion.

Example: Original post, Quote (images are in reverse order).

Since yesterday, I’ve been unable to access Vogons on my desktop computer. I’m posting this from my phone. Same local LAN for Internet access so it’s not an issue with my ISP or my IP being banned or something. Ungoogled Chromium 149 on my desktop there. Always gives me a HTTP2 protocol error. Doesn’t work in incognito either. What gives?

Edit: just tested in Firefox. It works there. I can update Chromium to see if that helps, but why would this even happen in the first place?

I sense dystopia.

My guess is admin are trying to block robots, the robots are spoofing, and we are the collateral damage.

Happy to be corrected.

MattRocks wrote on 2026-08-25, 19:27:

I sense dystopia.

My guess is admin are trying to block robots, the robots are spoofing, and we are the collateral damage.

Happy to be corrected.

Yes, certain user agents are blocked.

But I'm just using Chromium on Linux. Why would that user agent be blocked?

keenmaster486 wrote on 2026-08-25, 19:58:

But I'm just using Chromium on Linux. Why would that user agent be blocked?

I suspect a heuristic match: Either a confirmed bot is using the same user agent string as Chromium on Linux, or they share a common substring.

Many years ago I recall Trillian (a network independent chat client) using a re-engineered "OSCAR" AOL messenger protocol. Trillian argued they were not changing the relationship between AOL customer and AOL service. AOL argued Trillian was providing unauthorised access. CNET noted Trillian enabled customers to circumvent curated banner adverts or some such. Trillian countered with evidence that AOL had a free basic "TOC" protocol so customers could chat without adverts so no loss. AOL pushed back suggesting that OSCAR provided customers with extra protection and Trillian hacks into their system. Trillian denied hacking, insisted AOL customers retained full control of their own usernames and passwords, and Trillian was was protecting AOL customers by adding end-to-end Blowfish encryption. The two sides went to war with each few hours AOL modifying the protocol to break Trillian connections, Trillian modifying their version to reactivate connections. CNET provided coverage of what was an amusing cat-and-mouse act, with occasionally both sides making mistakes such as releasing an update that knocked their customers offline.

And, it feels relevant here today because we are witnessing another cat-and-mouse act where one side is trying to gain access and another side is trying to block access - and the ordinary users are the ones bruised in the crossfire. Some sites block the IP range of my ISP, and maybe that is because some other ISP customer is running bots - who knows but it makes me seek out lesser known VPNs as the big ones are blocked also.

I think the eventual outcome may have already been explored in the Matrix or other soon-to-be non-fiction.

keenmaster486 wrote on 2026-08-25, 19:58:

But I'm just using Chromium on Linux. Why would that user agent be blocked?

I don't think we'll ever get the answer to that question. I asked 4 months ago...

Just spoof Chromium 117 or one of the retro browsers.

UCyborg wrote on 2026-08-26, 00:17:

keenmaster486 wrote on 2026-08-25, 19:58:

But I'm just using Chromium on Linux. Why would that user agent be blocked?

I don't think we'll ever get the answer to that question. I asked 4 months ago...

Just spoof Chromium 117 or one of the retro browsers.

Its due to bot attacks on this webpage. I do not know the details as I'm not the admin/webhost, but its a very very few legitimate users who have issues.

As non-sensical as user agent filtering may seem, I guess it's a small price to pay, especially considering we get zero Cloudflare / Anubis BS challenges here unlike many other places.

I had to set custom user agent on my phone, but browsing from PC is pretty much unaffected as I browse almost exclusively with Pale Moon (using native user agent) and bots/scrappers don't tend to be pretend to be that browser. 😀

I guess Chromium is going to be most problematic as every bastard will use its headless version...

Well, I upgraded from Chromium 149 to 151, and Vogons lets me back in now.

Doesn’t really matter as I have to have a modern machine to use Vogons anyway now. Or at least a heavy modern browser of some kind. So I only ever use it on my modern machines any more. I used to really enjoy using it in Windows 9x.

I’ve always felt a small number of threads belong as either a sticky or in a forum specifically for being extraordinarily useful (as decided by a 3rd party like a mod).

This issue is partially solved by things like the retro web and its ilk but…

I have linked many times to posts that provide utilities and a process to map out “unknown” isa memory cards so you can get them running and other similar information dense threads.