Unwelcome arrow links surrounding tags

[jordannamorgan]

So, as of DW's latest code push, I'm seeing little arrow-shaped links on either side of every single tag on my journal entries. These links do nothing more useful than point to the last entry using that tag (or worse, an error page, if there's no earlier/later entry to point to). This seems like utterly redundant, pointless clutter to me.

Very simply, I do NOT want to be seeing these arrow links. If someone could provide me with some code for getting rid of them, I would tremendously appreciate it. Thank you.

Comments

[branchandroot]

Terms like "begone: vile creature" and "monstrosity" are not simple statements of opinion, they are derogatory. I'm happy to hear you do appreciate the difficulties involved in coding a feature like this, and the extent to which some objections to the feature got personal in some very unpleasant ways. If that understanding were reflected in your current comments, I wouldn't have felt the need to remark, but, as you note, the response has been immoderate to say the least. Repeating terms like "vile creature" and "monstrosity" feed that fire, and now that the heat of the moment has passed I'd really appreciate it if you could use some less inflammatory ones to express your opinion. That's a fire that really, really doesn't need more fuel; quite the reverse. I think a little effort to tone down our expressions, as for example you do in the above comment, is a useful move right now. I can assure you, I'm making that effort myself as well.

[marahmarie]

Yes, my intent - while never clearly stated until one comment ago - was not to inflame but more simply to remark on my dislike of the looks of the new feature. But I don't view "the looks of the new feature" as being the dev's fault, either, since arrows are arrows and there is no making them look any better, and arrows are what was chosen for this project, a decision which I doubt was within the dev's control as it was a compromise chosen over other possible implementations for a number of reasons.

And my reason for linking to the comment in question (which I have not explained until now, either, so just to clear that up) was to not give myself credit for what I viewed as the best way to code for this issue, as it belongs to the person making the less-than-diplomatic comments, not to me. I have a thing about not taking credit unless of course I would've thought of that solution myself (but I would never have thought of that one, I can assure anybody).

I was probably thinking that since the patch dev has been responding to comments in the DW News post pretty diligently even if they're not directly addressed to them and even if they do seem at least a bit inflammatory in nature that my agreeing with the tone of the comment I linked to was not a big deal (or otherwise I would never have put things the way I did - and no, just because I justified it to myself that way at the time does not make it right - not in hindsight).

Point taken all around; if the dev is or was hurt by and/or has expressed to you or anyone that my comments are an issue then I apologize, both for the tone of my words and for not thinking much more on this before posting - so as to save the feeding of any and all fires - and I thank you for having this discussion with me.