Anonymous ID: ffe610 Dec. 8, 2019, 12:30 p.m. No.7457208   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7215 >>7221 >>7321

ANONS please help restore image hover function

As far as i know, it is universally impossible to view images that are not in the current thread by hovering over it. That means we can't view images in other threads (PB or projectDcomms) without actually going to the other thread. Most people find this very inconvenient. It makes Notables pretty useless for catching up.

 

Three days ago, I sent an email to admin@8kun.top about this problem but it bounced back:

If you are still having issues, please send an email to admin@8kun.top.

 

Next I sent a request to Ron, who directed me to admin@isitwetyet.com.

 

So I sent this message to admin@isitwetyet.com:

 

PROBLEM: Images do not appear from previous threads with hover function.

In QResearch, we generate noteworthy news stories–notables–that go out to other sources. It's a 24/7 operation. Once a bread is baked (new thread created), the notables from the previous thread appear at the top of the new thread, where hundreds or thousands of anons come to read them. The hover function enables researchers to quickly scan the news and images from previous threads.

This is no longer working except within the current thread.

Can someone please take a look at this? Big deal from our perspective.

 

Could you also reply to this email, just so we know we're 'in the loop'? Thanks much.

——————

 

I didn't get an acknowledgment back and the hover function still doesn't work.

can anons plz send requests to admin@itiswetyet.com requesting hover function restoration?

 

I know they're busy but this is important. More voices should help.

Anonymous ID: ffe610 Dec. 8, 2019, 12:47 p.m. No.7457321   🗄️.is 🔗kun

RE: hover function problem

 

>>7457215

Just checking to make sure:

when you hover over a notable link, can you actually view the images there? if you can, then the problem is not universal. but so far, seems like it is.

 

>>7457221

>hover function just a matter of convenience>>7457208

 

I would not use the word "just" because if anons have to click on every single link that contains an image to see what's there (and then go back to the notables list to see the next post), that is not a minor inconvenience. And for phone fags, it's especially bad.

 

>>7457208