>>9072136

Hey Baker, and ALL BAKERS, I just noticed in the notables some words that are 'spoilered'. I wanted to let you know as an archivefag, that on an archived thread, there is no ability to mouseover it and see what the words are because archive.today strips all the various scripts from the page.

If I could politely request that nothing in notables be spoilered, can this be passed along to other bakers?

Could I go further and request the spoiler **s to be removed from those notables in the dough? (If any cranky/obsessed anon makes a fuss I will take responsibility and support bakers, like always).

Thank you.

>>9072490

It just shows solid black, this is last thread:

htps://archive.fo/gv4Pf

Because archive.today strips all scripts, the ability to mouseover and see the text is gone. The spoiler in the css is all that shows - a black block (like a redaction)

>>9072519

Will do, thank you.

>>9072543

I understand, that's perfect, thank you. I appreciate it.

THANK YOU BAKERS for being understanding and responsive! It really is appreciated.

>>9072565

Yes, well considering everyone here is very curious to see what's in there, I doubt that would be a problem. Even those who aren't calling out a block of pages to review/make notes would be reading them and if there's fuckery, someone will definitely call it out.

It was very efficient, and I have a sneaky feeling that mockingbirds/staff was lurking and used what we found b/c anons were thorough and efficient and very quick and accurate.