I'm trying to paste some text copied from an eBay policy page. This frequently (normally) causes the HTML glitch.
From: https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/listing-policies/item-location-misrepresentation-policy?id=4244
First attempt, it looked like this screenshot before I clicked Preview which triggered the HTML error. I have the HTML code for both of these pages (before and after attempting to post the copied text) in a text file. Please contact me so I can send you the file.
After clicking the Preview button, the page looked like this. The search box has been removed. (Normaly, I would have cleaned this up and removed text that wasn't necessary for my reply, to try to avoid the glitch, but in this case, I am trying to cause the glitch and record data for trouble-shooting).
I repeated the copy-and-paste a couple of times because I needed to take screenshots and copy the HTML code to document this. when I tried clicking the Post button instead of the Preview button. I got a slightly different error message:
After copying the HTML code that had been changed to my text file, I tried to post this again. This time, I got the post flooding error message, and the message was not posted, as you can see (it's not on this thread).
Unfortunately, I got the same results. It doesn't appear as though anything has been changed, in spite of Khoros' efforts.
First try with this code. Today's efforts are described in blue.
<p>A good lead, but unfortunately, the link is to an auction that is several years old and that appears to be the only remnant that is still available. Only the single pic is still online, so there are no pictures of the mark on that piece.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, the discussion says that the piece of jewelry is marked 950, which is high-grade silver, a bit more pure than sterling silver, and the seller says that they were only able to identify one maker that used an MB mark, but they didn't really think their piece was by that jewelry maker:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><hr />
<p><a style="font-family: inherit; background-color: #ffffff;" href="https://picclick.co.uk/Vintage-Art-Nouveau-Style-Silver-Gilt-Enamel-332641729105.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://picclick.co.uk/Vintage-Art-Nouveau-Style-Silver-Gilt-Enamel-332641729105.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>"To the back of the piece it is marked '950 MB' which is the only mark it seems to carry - I've seen this mark being suggested by some as being that of the Anglo-German manufacturer Murrle Bennett and that it might be an 'early mark'.<br />"I would exercise extreme caution with making this attribution - the mark on this piece is unlike any other Murrle Bennett mark I've personally seen or is known from records - and it also simple doesn't look like one of their pieces!"</p>
<hr /></blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Murle Bennett & Co. made jewelry only as far as I can tell, and although I'm not sure what this piece is for, it doesn't appear to be jewelry. They also worked in high-end materials, silver and gold, and their pieces were always marked for the metal content, and your piece is not mared. And, the mark on your piece does not match any Murle Bennett mark as far as I can see:</p>
<p>https://www.langantiques.com/university/mark/murrle-bennet-co/</p>
I got the Invalid HTML error again, as shown in this screenshot. It didn't remove the bad code:
Tried to post it again (since it was supposed to have removed the bad code) and it triggered the Post Flooding error (showing that nothing at all had been changed).
Since I already figured out what the Invalid Code was and knew how to fix it (as I explained in Message 22), here is the corrected code with the <a style ... > code removed:
<p>A good lead, but unfortunately, the link is to an auction that is several years old and that appears to be the only remnant that is still available. Only the single pic is still online, so there are no pictures of the mark on that piece.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, the discussion says that the piece of jewelry is marked 950, which is high-grade silver, a bit more pure than sterling silver, and the seller says that they were only able to identify one maker that used an MB mark, but they didn't really think their piece was by that jewelry maker:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><hr />
<p><a href="https://picclick.co.uk/Vintage-Art-Nouveau-Style-Silver-Gilt-Enamel-332641729105.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://picclick.co.uk/Vintage-Art-Nouveau-Style-Silver-Gilt-Enamel-332641729105.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>"To the back of the piece it is marked '950 MB' which is the only mark it seems to carry - I've seen this mark being suggested by some as being that of the Anglo-German manufacturer Murrle Bennett and that it might be an 'early mark'.<br />"I would exercise extreme caution with making this attribution - the mark on this piece is unlike any other Murrle Bennett mark I've personally seen or is known from records - and it also simple doesn't look like one of their pieces!"</p>
<hr /></blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Murle Bennett & Co. made jewelry only as far as I can tell, and although I'm not sure what this piece is for, it doesn't appear to be jewelry. They also worked in high-end materials, silver and gold, and their pieces were always marked for the metal content, and your piece is not mared. And, the mark on your piece does not match any Murle Bennett mark as far as I can see:</p>
<p>https://www.langantiques.com/university/mark/murrle-bennet-co/</p>
And here is the message, finally posted without Invalid HTML code:
A good lead, but unfortunately, the link is to an auction that is several years old and that appears to be the only remnant that is still available. Only the single pic is still online, so there are no pictures of the mark on that piece.
However, the discussion says that the piece of jewelry is marked 950, which is high-grade silver, a bit more pure than sterling silver, and the seller says that they were only able to identify one maker that used an MB mark, but they didn't really think their piece was by that jewelry maker:
https://picclick.co.uk/Vintage-Art-Nouveau-Style-Silver-Gilt-Enamel-332641729105.html
"To the back of the piece it is marked '950 MB' which is the only mark it seems to carry - I've seen this mark being suggested by some as being that of the Anglo-German manufacturer Murrle Bennett and that it might be an 'early mark'.
"I would exercise extreme caution with making this attribution - the mark on this piece is unlike any other Murrle Bennett mark I've personally seen or is known from records - and it also simple doesn't look like one of their pieces!"
Murle Bennett & Co. made jewelry only as far as I can tell, and although I'm not sure what this piece is for, it doesn't appear to be jewelry. They also worked in high-end materials, silver and gold, and their pieces were always marked for the metal content, and your piece is not mared. And, the mark on your piece does not match any Murle Bennett mark as far as I can see:
https://www.langantiques.com/university/mark/murrle-bennet-co/
Here's the screenshot showing what was changed in the "After" code that posted successfully. It was the same as I posted in Message 22.
Thank you for taking the time on this @lacemaker3 - I know it's been a massive pain.
We meet with Khoros in a few minutes and we'll make sure this gets brought up directly with them in addition to us adding it to our open ticket with them.
