Graphics not acting like they did prior to upgrade

Question

We are seeing some changes since the g2g upgrade went in concerning graphics.  

In the past, we could open the prior Weekend Chat and copy and paste the leading graphics.  That worked fine for years.  Now when you do that, it looks like it is working to the person who posts the chat but often others do not see the lead in graphics but see a little square box and the word image.   I do have an email that shows this if someone needs to see it I can forward it just let me know where to forward it.  

I have also noticed that copying bullets or numbered text from a word document it looks ok until you press Ask the Question.  Then I have to go in and edit the text for readability.  

Any ideas what we can do to make sure this works as it once did?

Comments

It also gets even worse when you try to copy a citation from another web page to paste in a G2G comment or answer in order to give information that answers a question.  The entire HTML code underlying the citation comes along with it and prints here as text, which often makes your comment or answer too long, so you get that nastygram when you try to add it.

---

Yes but it did that before the upgrade too.   But yes it would be good if it only pasted in what you want which  a much smaller amount of code.

---

No, Laura, before the "upgrade" (in quotes because I consider "up" to be improving something, while on balance the negative things this did far outweigh any positive value that I can see) when you copied text from a webpage (such as a census record from family search) and pasted it here, you ONLY got the text.  What you're suggesting would be good is not "a smaller amount of code" but, instead, just plain text - G2G does not interpret codes well (if at all), so it's much better to just put text in here.  After all, there's probably a reason why they call the edit page here a "text box."

---

Gaile I have not seen that.  I recently pasted in a link from Family Search and it did not seem to bring the entire code.   Are you copying the URL or data from a URL?   Just want to understand what you are seeing.

---

I didn't just copy the link, nor did I just copy the citation.  I copied the record and pasted it here, along with the citation below it - I'll try one now, just for kicks, to see if 1 record isn't too big - nope - I got the red warning that max length is 12000 characters.  If you want to see what I tried, go to https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?facetType=ON&query=%2Bsurname%3AWeatherley%7E%20%2Bbirth_year%3A1904-1909%7E%20%2Brecord_country%3A%22United%20States%22%20%2Brecord_subcountry%3A%22United%20States%2CArkansas%22&count=75&collection_id=1810731

and copy starting from:   Name      Richard H Weatherley
and continuing to the final quote in the citation under all the data.

I am able to copy just the citation and have it paste here with very little editing to remove HTML tags that are displayed, but when answering someone's question with a record that has been found, I think it's much nicer to include all the data that's in the record instead of just giving them a link.

---

Grrrrr - I intended the answer to be a comment in reply to you, Laura - sorry - had not noticed that it was going in as an answer instead.

Ahhh ... at least we still have the ability to convert an answer to a comment - see immediately above this!

---

Ok so it does sound like that is also different.   I had not done that since the upgrade but I had added the URL sources.  And that worked ok.  

I agree that it would be better if it just added stuff as text and not bring the code.  Unless you are bringing in an image through the image link.

---

Another thing we lost in the new version is the ability to indent text.  The indent and remove indent buttons in the edit box are only active when you're working on number or bullet lists.  Another problem, which is not a new one, is that number lists start with numeric but when you indent to the next level, it adds an indent and starts with 1 and continues still in numeric - I want to see 1,2,3, etc for the first level and a,b,c for the second level.

---

Probably the biggest problem - which seems to me to be a show stopper that should send us immediately back to the old version - is that people using phones and tablets are completely unable to paste in the edit box, no matter what they do.  I think there are also editing issues for Macs, but believe the people using them have managed to find workarounds.

---

In the old version I always copied and pasted in numbered text from Word.  It worked more than not.  Sometimes I had to fix the numbering but if it was simple cut and past it seemed to work ok.

Now when I do the same thing it looks right until I press add comment.  Then what shows up is weird coding that I have to then go in and edit out, delete the number, retype it in.  Do this for each bullet or number.  Then when I we save it by add comment it works.

---

Yup - you're describing what happens when I try to paste a record from familysearch, except that I wouldn't call the coding "weird" - I'm a retired systems engineer, now with my own business developing high-end database driven websites, so code is often far less weird to me than English.