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 Lathrop
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #280356 |
There is no edit button shown to me on *this* question either. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280356 |
@Monica: I clicked on the "edit URL" link in your comment, and was able to edit the question. So the system allows me to edit, but isn't showing the edit button for some reason. Strange indeed. I looked around, and this bug seems to apply to all my questions on sites where I'm not a mod. I don't ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #280356 | Initial revision | — | almost 4 years ago |
| Question | — |
Can't edit my own post. I just tried to edit my question on Outdoors (https://outdoors.codidact.com/posts/279707), but the "Edit" button at the bottom of the post is missing. Here is a screen shot: Microsoft Edge Windows 10 I just noticed that "Suggest Edit" is missing for me on all questions in all site... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280318 |
@Monica: Only mods should be able to change the list, but ordinary users should be able to see what is going on if only on the ground of openness. For example, perhaps someone disagrees with the choices. That would be a valid discussion for meta. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #280328 | Initial revision | — | almost 4 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Where’s my suggested edit? There is apparently a bug relating to suggested edits. I've had a pending suggested edit to https://meta.codidact.com/posts/280084 for two weeks now. See the comment from Monica to that question. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280212 |
@Monica: If someone truly just fixed a small typo in an old post, then bumping the post is not useful, and usually detrimental. I agree the problem of claimed minor edits really being minor is real. That's why I suggested moderators being able to review minor edits, as they can do now with comments... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280211 |
Minor edits can still be useful. If flagged correctly, then it shouldn't matter if a comment was posted right before the edit. Minor edits should only be for fixing obvious typos, spelling, grammar, etc. Anything that actually changes the meaning should not be flagged as a minor edit. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280209 |
Yes, same here. It seems no matter how much I look over a post before posting, I always find something to fix right after posting. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280212 |
I agree it would be nice to have a "minor" edit type that doesn't bump the post. However, how do we decide what is minor? I'm not comfortable trusting everyone to be truthful about an edit being minor. Perhaps this is a higher ability than edit. Moderators should be able to review all minor edits... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280143 |
And another. I'll assume this would go on indefinitely, but I'm not going to keep writing more comments. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280143 |
Yup, another comment box popped up, as you reported. I hadn't noticed that before. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280143 |
This is a test comment to see what happens when I click Post. Using Edge on Win10. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280126 |
Yes, this works, but it's a bad idea. Links rot. If content was important enough so that it needed to be shown directly in a post, then it needs to reside here. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280115 |
Wow, I didn't know there was such a thing. I still don't know how to get there except via the link you provided above. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #280084 |
Suggested edit: Fixed title, removed irrelevant (and therefore consfusing) comments, and questions about other site. (more) |
helpful | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280084 |
You have now significantly changed the proposal from Biology+Chemistry to just Biology. That really should be a different proposal. In any case, the "feed all these birds with one seed" comment makes no sense anymore. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280084 |
Biology and chemistry are different topics, and should be in different sites. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280078 |
I can see @Moshi's suggested edit just fine. Using Edge on Win10. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280058 |
On second thought, not a popup, but a check box in the post editor. The default is checked, meaning you will be notified of changes unless you opt out. As long as it's not too easy to overlook, that would be better than a popup. Did I mention that I really hate nanny-ware? (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280058 |
I like the "follow" idea. That's a general mechanism that could be useful for other things too. When you edit a wiki post, maybe you get a popup that gives you the option to follow the post, with the default being "yes". That way you know it's happening, and it's easy to opt out. I don't think ed... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280055 |
I saw that and thought it looked stupid too. Make the text in the blue box editable, with the default being what is shown above. Most of the time, it will be a reference to a question. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280058 |
This all makes sense, but anyone that edited such a post should get notification of any changes. That fits more with the post being owned by the community, as seems to be the intent. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280056 |
I agree, except that the resulting rep is useful for more than just "bragging rights" as you put it. That's one of the two things it's for. The other is to identify the few key core people that put serious effort into the site. For that, a great answer is better and should count more than one that... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280044 |
@Mith: That doesn't make sense. Having a score that keeps going up when you do good things incentivizes you to keep doing good things, not stop doing them. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280053 |
@Canina: Everything I talked about would be configurable per site. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #280053 | Initial revision | — | almost 4 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: What will become of reputation? Whatever it is called, we still need a nice simple single number that is a rough measure of how much good content someone has contributed, as judged by all others on that site. "Reputation" is a reasonable name that captures this concept well enough, but there are probably others out there that woul... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280047 |
Yup, +1. Looking at recent comments seems to be the single most useful mod tool so far. Making it better will yield real returns. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280005 |
@luap42 it was originally promised that the new abilities thresholds would be tweakable per site. As far as I can see, they are not. Is this work in progress, or has something changed? (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280005 |
@luap42 if your deciding what rep really should be, then I've got a few suggestions. The rep change per vote should be settable per category. For example, votes on meta shouldn't effect rep at all. We have a Papers category on EE that should result in higher rep for both up and down votes. Again, ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280005 |
@luap42 I have no problem with you allowing communities that don't want rep to shut it off. But, you took away the rep display on the banner unilaterally, without input from the community. Don't take it away before at least giving me the option of turning it back on. Preferably, all changes defaul... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #280005 |
*"part of our move away from reputation"*. This is a bad attitude. Reputation is very useful. Rep was one of the main drivers that caused traffic on SE. Don't throw it out because some people imaging some ideal world where it shouldn't matter. It does. Also, bring back the rep on the banner. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #279989 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #279989 | Initial revision | — | almost 4 years ago |
| Question | — |
Incorrect activity shown in question list I've noticed this in several cases in the last day or so. The activity shown in the question list does not match the actual activity. Here is one example activity list entry: Image The actual question is at https://electrical.codidact.com/posts/279978. Inside that question it shows the quest... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279964 |
You are unlikely to find the askers here when the site is being defined. You need committed domain experts to launch a site that is ready for questions. Getting questions is about getting the word out. The marketing plan should be part of the site proposal. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #279970 | Initial revision | — | almost 4 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: How can we improve community proposals? I agree that the site proposal and validation process needs a re-do. One of the biggest problems I see right now is that everything about a new site is limited to a single "question" in the Site Proposals category. That makes sense in trying to keep the chatter about individual sites from drownin... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279157 |
The title is fine for a title, but not sufficient for a question. What's a "table of contents"? I don't anything like that at the link you posted. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279832 |
I think that "every day" physics should be explicitly on topic. As you say, it's not the level of the question. It's about the quality of the ask, and whether reasonable research has been done *for the OP's level*. For example, high school students wouldn't know where to find papers, and may find ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279802 |
*Addressed* is not the right word. It implies the question has been "dealt with", "worked on", "dispatched", or in some way resolved or attempted to be resolved. It means *something* has been done in response to the question. This is misleading when the question received no answers. All we can re... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279758 |
@Monica: I just tried an edit after yours, and that did reset whatever was causing the problem. I can see the edit indicator now, and I suspect everyone else can too. So this has something to do with the state left in the database after an approved edit, which is set correctly when an edit is done ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #279758 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279765 |
Looks like you nailed it. Nice sleuthing! (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279758 |
@Monica: I was away from the computer between your two edits, so I couldn't see the result of the first. However, the second edit (that required someone else to confirm) caused the bug to appear. As it is right now, I don't see the edit indicator. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #279758 |
@Monica: I just did an edit to my question, and I see the change notification "<1m ago". Now you or someone else should make a small edit to see if the bug appears. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #279758 |
Post edited: |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Edit | Post #279758 | Initial revision | — | almost 4 years ago |