View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0003031 | unreal | ircd | public | 2006-08-20 14:17 | 2023-12-29 07:36 |
Reporter | Muisje | Assigned To | |||
Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | always |
Status | feedback | Resolution | open | ||
OS | Any | OS Version | Any | ||
Product Version | 3.2.5 | ||||
Summary | 0003031: Ability to hide Ulines from /Lusers | ||||
Description | I've been thinking which resulted the following idea of a feature. It's purpose is to hide uline connections from lusers. This would make the counting more realistic besides Ulines are normally just bots so i doubt they should be counted as Users. So my request is to have them not counted along in the lusers or atleast from non opers. Since they don't need to know. Please feel free to let me know wether you think this would be a good idea or not with a reason please. | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
3rd party modules | |||||
duplicate of | 0003198 | closed | When using lusers, users from u:Lined servers appear |
|
I like this idea. It would save me the hassle of maintaining custom statistics services for my network. (Some of the features of those services, at least). A list of servers somewhere, would be even better though. I have multiple non-ulined non-user servers that I dont want counted. |
|
Unlined bots/clients behave as normal users, they shouldn't be hidden. I object. |
|
Pinstrate, i'm not talking about UNLINED i'm talking about ULINED bots. And a good network makes sure only Services will be on ULINES. So in that case they should really be able to be hidden in the lusers. I never saw a Services bot behave as a normal user. |
|
I agree, for similar reasons to JasonTik. It would also help correct some issues with SearchIRC and such showing a global count that includes services-bots. Quick, but fugly, way to go up in SearchIRC rankings would be to make 200 chanbots. Hopefully no-one has ever done so. otoh, I think netsplit.de has statistical filtering for networks that have usercounts that hardly fluctuate, for this or similar reasons. |
|
Maybe the best way to implement is to let the end user decide wether or not they want to hide Ulined bots. I request the add of the following configuration directive: set::options::hide-ulines-from-lusers; or something shorter. I think it would be good to exclude it from IRCOP's aswell, because they will most likely find out a way to see how many users are on ulines. (eg /map and then count up the uline numbers.) EDIT: In response to JasonTik's idea, i think it would be wrong to exclude real users... I doubt that will work without desyncs. :/ |
|
I really like this idea, but only with the condition that it would be configurable in the config file with an option like: set::options::hide-ulines-from-lusers; or: set::options::hide-lusers-ulines; |
|
djGrrr , i like this idea alot... but i think it be best to have em set seperately..... such as this.... ulines { services.mynetwork.com; options { hideuline; }; ### OR ### stats.mynetwork.com; options { display yes; }; }; something like that... although you would have to have it set on each server, it be a nice feature so that you can pick and choose the ulines you want hidden.. |
|
Bump. Is this feasible or not? |
|
I agree with this but as a config setting. |
|
For now, I think it needs a careful hand and seen if it can be modularized (yes, I think it can), as a /lusers replacement, so moving it to 3rd party module wishlist |
|
I don't know if we should really wishlist command replacements, because IMO that's overkill especially with a small change such as this |
|
As mentioned on IRC by others, if you want to hide services in the "opers online" counts then just set them +H (hide oper status). This does not affect the "global users" count though. For LUSERS me and my predecessors had lots of trouble getting things right, it took many releases, it's so easy to make a counting mistake (yes, proper counting, duh!). It was a nightmare. It's mostly for that reason that nobody dared to touch the code again since. I'm still not enthusiastic about it, so i just keep this lingering -grin-. |
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
---|---|---|---|
2006-08-20 14:17 | Muisje | New Issue | |
2006-08-20 15:07 | JasonTik | Note Added: 0012197 | |
2006-08-20 15:09 | JasonTik | Note Edited: 0012197 | |
2006-08-20 17:42 | pinstrate | Note Added: 0012198 | |
2006-08-20 19:07 | Muisje | Note Added: 0012200 | |
2006-08-22 02:13 | tabrisnet | Note Added: 0012203 | |
2006-08-22 03:17 | Muisje | Note Added: 0012204 | |
2006-08-22 03:39 | Muisje | Note Edited: 0012204 | |
2006-08-22 14:04 | djGrrr | Note Added: 0012209 | |
2006-08-26 21:29 | the0ry | Note Added: 0012245 | |
2007-01-12 17:17 | syzop | Relationship added | duplicate of 0003198 |
2007-04-19 04:49 |
|
Note Added: 0013601 | |
2007-04-19 08:20 | vonitsanet | Note Added: 0013603 | |
2007-04-27 03:11 |
|
Status | new => feedback |
2007-06-11 16:05 |
|
Relationship added | child of 0003284 |
2007-06-11 16:06 |
|
Note Added: 0014325 | |
2007-06-11 16:12 | Stealth | Note Added: 0014326 | |
2019-10-14 15:41 | syzop | Relationship deleted | child of 0003284 |
2023-12-29 07:36 | syzop | Note Added: 0023130 |