Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Activity for Olin Lathropâ€
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #286443 |
So what do you propose to do about unresponsiveness? (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286224 |
@manas: You're right, we don't know, which is why I was careful to not accuse the OP outright. However, the vast majority of people that complained on SO about being treated with hostility did in fact post crap. From that and the general tone and writing style of the questions, chances are quite hi... (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286332 |
One problem with the current deletion is that posts are attributed to "Deleted user". The last-used name, or name at the time the post was made should be used instead, but noted that the user doesn't exist anymore. That helps others that might remember the interaction put the post in context, and a... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286243 |
If someone suggested a change, and that change was made, there is no further use for those comments. They should be deleted. (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286060 |
I just tried it on my account, and it worked fine. Is there anything you can think of that is different with your account than the ordinary? (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286052 |
Another point is that while you might not want to be tracked and profiled, that is not in the community's interest. We <i>do</i> want to know who we're talking to in regards to what else they have posted. Put another way, it is useful for members here to be able to mentally profile other users they... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285954 |
At least that's something, so I undid the -1. I still don't get what this has to do with busses, though. (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285954 |
Please put that in your question. We shouldn't have to follow links to get pertinent information to the question. (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285954 |
What's a "bus factor"? (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285846 |
@#36363 Anyone that takes 2 years (or even a month) to become a positive user isn't worth having around. Most people are quite capable of posting decent questions. Those that aren't are better discarded immediately than wasting volunteer resources on. (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285842 |
You complain that you can't bang out a question immediately when it pops into your head, even if you're in the middle of doing something else with lots of distractions around. That's a <b>good thing</b>.
We want questions that are well thought out, to the point, and well written. Doing that righ... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285783 |
@#8046 OK, I signed up on the discord server (was trying to avoid that). Apparently I need to do something special to get on the moderator's channel. I didn't see it after creating the account. Can you get me in or send me a link or something? (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285694 |
Your link only goes to a page talking about how the feature will be removed, but nothing that defines the feature itself. A link to a help page describing this "developer story" thing, and a link to an example would be useful. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285553 |
When you give yourself the permission to delete what you don't like, then it squashes the free exchange of ideas. It also too easily devolves into using censorship to delete dissenting opinions because you find them inconvenient.
It's best to only delete or disallow speech or writing when it reac... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285553 |
The problem with a rule that content should not be "offensive" is that there is a wide range of what people consider offensive. The easier path is to have a thick skin and realize that what people say in their profile reflects on them, not the site. Saying something insulting about a public figure ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285501 |
I don't really care about this "problem". To some extent, I actually like how it is. But, if it were to change I would forget about it soon enough, and certainly not try to get it changed back. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285473 |
@#53922: OK, done. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285473 |
If we delete all content from these phantom users, then we don't need attribution links. We've got to stop clinging to this stuff. It has little value here, and search engines are going to favor the real thing over our copy. There is 0 upside. It's time to realize this was a mistake, delete it, a... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285473 |
It may have sounded good at the time, but hindsight has now clearly shown that importing content from Elsewhere was a mistake. These dummy users are part of that. Personally, I think we should delete <b>all</b> imported content, which includes users that never showed up here in person. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285441 |
@Monica: That sounds good. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285441 |
@Monica: That makes sense about the boxes. I mentioned comments because you seemed to cover the rest. Basically I'm looking for something that tells me on a single line whether there has been any activity on that site since I last checked, and particularly if there has been any associated with me. ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285441 |
What you have looks great. It basically shows in one line what you want to know about all of "your" communities. I'm unclear what the boxes at left do, though. They look like they are meant to have an X in them or not. If they are just targets for re-ordering, then something smaller and solid wou... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285415 |
I can see how some people might want different "about" text on different sites. However, let's not optimize for the rare case. Most people probably want to write their <i>about</i> text once, and have that propagate to all sites. It would be quite confusing if you think you fixed a typo in your te... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285257 |
If it's just about not having to remember another password, you can use the same password on your Google and Codidact accounts. That's no less secure than having them be the same account. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285257 |
<i>"What's the point?"</i> was also my first thought. You, or any one user, just wanting a feature isn't a justification for spending volunteer time implementing it. You're the one that wants the feature, so you need to provide some arguments as to why this feature would be beneficial to Codidact a... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285249 |
@Trilarion: And it's still off by 10, so that's probably just a coincidence anyway. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285132 |
@Keelan: I agree the precise vote counts aren't that important in typical Q&A. Ratings are more important in some categories, like "Papers" in the EE site. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285122 |
This is not a discussion for main meta. We (the collective Codidact users across all sites) shouldn't be telling two specific communities what to do. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285132 |
I disagree with <i>what is actually important (the titles)</i>. The content is what is important, as is the quality of that content. Of course titles do need to be well written and properly give an idea what the question is about. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285126 |
@Lundin: That would also prevent voting on the closed question. Many closed questions are pretty bad. We need those downvotes to accumulate so that the system knows the question is bad. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285127 |
I like your general mechanisms, +1. However, the threshold of -1 to be shown is too low. I have looked over a number of sites where I know enough to be able to judge quality, and it looks like +1 is a good threshold. Most posts that everyone ignored aren't very good. Pretty much anything that got... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285142 |
What you say may be a good suggestion, but it doesn't address the problem of what to do when you end up with a bunch of low quality posts, regardless of what mechanisms are in place to prevent that. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285017 |
Do you have your bank account details listed someplace that is accessible from the US? That way I can do a free transfer from my on-line bank instead of a credit card company taking a piece, and my credit card info being more out there. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285085 |
@Monica see update to answer. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285076 |
I like the freezer idea. The inactive sites are a net negative when someone happens to stumble upon Codidact and looks around. You can't see how active a site is from the main Codidact page. If you start poking around in order the sites are shown, then you see three of the most dead ones first (Wr... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285081 |
Asking about something quite niche, like ursack or lithophane without at least a simple sentence explaining them can be seen as arrogant (and thererfore rude) to casual visitors. Someone that doesn't know what these things are already will probably not answer the question, but they will also be alie... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285081 |
Charlie, you keep going on about this, but your idea of rudeness is apparently quite different from the norm. It seems you don't ever want to say anything negative about anyone. That's neither realistic nor useful. Some people do need to be told that what they are doing is wrong. And, a user simp... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #285080 |
That might be a good idea, but a separate issue. I'm trying to address the problem of someone new coming accross a Codidact site and being turned off by seeing largely junk. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284937 |
I logged out and could see the deleted answer also. It did have the red background, and it did say "deleted", but I could still clearly see it. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284482 |
Whenever you bump into the comment length limit, you should be seriously asking yourself whether what you are writing should really be a comment. Most likely it shouldn't. Or, you need to learn to be more to the point. Comments are not for content. Pointing out an issue to an author shouldn't tak... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284491 |
Maybe for some people, they dump out a message, then go back and think what a summary of that message is. That's not how I think of writing a message, and from comments here, a decent number of others don't write like that either. I know what I want to say, else I wouldn't click on "start new comme... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284473 |
I can get behind the general idea, but I think the details need some tweaking. Votes on any one single post aren't that meaninful as a measure of the user overall. Put another way, there is some noise on individual readings. We want to know the recent trend, not over-react to one-off blips. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282433 |
-1 for the poorly written post. I'm not necessarily for or against such a Codidact site (if it can be sustained, I'm fine with it), but am solidly against post missing critical content here. You are using a single link to define the site you want. Not gonna follow a link, just downvote instead. E... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282764 |
The Outdoors site would take questions on the use and maintenance of weapons for hunting. Military use and history would be off topic. I'm not saying this is a good proposal, but only some of what seems to be proposed here would apply to the Outdoors site. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #282764 |
What's a "r/warcollege" and "r/credibledefense"? We shouldn't have to go hunting for descriptions. Key descriptions belong right here in your question. Put another way, posts here must be self-contained, at least for the key points. You have essentially written a link-only question. It should be... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284371 |
+1 just for the first bullet! (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284331 |
+1. Nannyware is annoying, no matter how well intentioned. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284143 |
This is somewhat of an aside, but 2 Mb is absurdly large to allow for a profile picture. It seems that the largest this picture is ever displayed at is 240 x 240 pixels on your profile page. Even completely uncompressed and 3 bytes/pixel, that only comes out to 0.17 Mb. There may be some point in ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283928 |
Yes, the mechanics of closing is as you say. However, the act of closing has other purposes. It basically says <i>"This is crap"</i>. With the added messages of <i>"We will continue to publicly declare this as crap until you fix it"</i>, or <i>"Fix it or else"</i>, with the "or else" being the imp... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277432 |
It would help to know exactly what you mean by these "favicons", and how exactly you expect them to be used. Where would they show up? Who is supposed to see them? What are they supposed to tell people? (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |