Limitations on sharing studies on websites

I don't know where you did get the idea that when something is added it cannot be removed. Stuff here on the site is provided "as is," always has been. If devs don't want to maintain something, they are not going to. How would you force a volunteer to do something that they don't want to do? Seriously...
Anyways, the code is open-source. Take it, set up your own site and be in charge of the moral standards.

To anyone looking for a solution for this thing, at least for the lichess blog, if you use the link to another chapter than the main one instead of a simple study link, the link will be displayed as a big chess board with a START button that takes you to the lichess study when pressed, rather than an incompletely interactive experience. Basically, turning it into a link again.

it's being worked on github.com/lichess-org/pgn-viewer/pull/31

this is easy

@bufferunderrun said in #11:
>

I did not look at what triggered that response, or its tone of the trigger, but in absolute, I find that this suggestion might not be making sense in a collaboration dependent online community. It might be, in a user individual needs buffet software. A caricature to indicate what I think your answer might amount to, if not aware of preceding context.

I lichess becoming such? The point of wanting a feature in, might be that some community and cohesion keeping ties have been created, that going for on own off shoot, would defeat as well. I think the tendency to want to control complexity of the thing, might become a funnelling of user type diversity. How far can one push the argument of maintenance simplicity (in other context with profit involved, it might be "efficiency zones" or layoffs, or saving on dev-hour cost, in general: cutting costs).

I guess, my Don Quichotte, became a philosopher. just asking questions, and not really about this thread only, I have no clue what feature exactly, just that there was a notion of webbing destroyed, and that it might not just have been about one isolated customer.

@dboing said in #16:
> I guess, my Don Quichotte, became a philosopher. just asking questions, and not really about this thread only, I have no clue what feature exactly, just that there was a notion of webbing destroyed, and that it might not just have been about one isolated customer.

youtu.be/LZgyVadkgmI?feature=shared&t=1546

@Toadofsky said in #17:
>
Thanks, good to have such memory perspective. I suggest deprecation blogs then. For reducing futile requests.
The blog explains a lot of things, and the feature complexity with increasing size population. Those are qualitative arguments, and might actually apply in this particular thread where lichess becomes the host server.

I think I was talking more about how the population of lichess users might be put in the loop sometimes, about such decisions, even if one could listen to the video. There are blogs for new salivation inducing features, why not make the serene assessment of choices known. People could take measures. And also, understanding the reasoning (at least for me) goes a long way toward thinking that it was not done lightly with total disregard for legacy users. I doubt it is often, with noticeable exception of the forum visibility one, was kind of worse than that, it was using false arguments about the feature implementation quality, or dismissing its was ever used by anybody, when asked in feedback threads.

I think a deprecation blog, would help. It would also centralize where to share things in both direction.. Not stretch the agony, in diverting argumentations. Specially now that ....

Anyway, at least there would be a healthy basis of facts for digestive discussions.