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 FoggyFinder
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #278313 |
@MathPhysics `Let us allow the author of the post clarify what they meant` Yep. I see no issues with clarification. But you haven't done that. You didn't change the text after you read comments on the answer. You didn't change the text after first removal. It was obvious that people is confused by th... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278313 |
The second ("too busy") implies that one doesn't have time at all and/or they even doesn't bother about project's future.
"most (all) community staff <...> are too busy" - looks like ungrounded statement. This project exists cause staff spend hours and hours of unpaid time to create something that... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278313 |
@MathPhysics `I reread it many times, and I cannot find any disrespect in it. `
I'll try to explain. It's disrespectful cause there is no proof to your words.
There is a big difference between **"busy"** (expected) and **"too busy"**. While you're busy you can still spend some time to improve the ... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278313 |
@MathPhysics `I did not revert the changes to original version` I'm really appreciate it (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278313 |
@MathPhysics Least valuable part of the answer was removed. The main idea is stayed unchanged. As you can see moderators heard arguments and reacted accordingly. So I consider current decision as perfect compromise. You should agree that your original version wasn't perceived well by community (incl... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278313 |
@MathPhysics `only claim that my post is disrespectful without showing any evidence.` Your last paragraph is arguable and doesn't add anything useful to the answer. It also has statement with no proof: `However, why do they insist on continuing their staff role while they are too busy?`. It is **not ... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278313 |
@MathPhysics May I give you an advice? Do not attempt to edit current redaction of the answer over and over since you obviously noticed the discussion here. It's not constructive way to communicate. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278310 |
@luap42 agreed. But please do not remove my comments above to get full context to readers. I'll try to prepare new Q better next time (since this incident is resolved and I'm more than totally satisfied with the decision) or, I hope, someone with better knowledge of English will do it first :-) (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278310 |
To my opinion post was removed by mistake. I'm not going to make any conclusion by one, two decisions with whom I disagree. That's fine (I actually like it, otherwise it would be boring).
But freedome of speech is a red line to me. If community doesn't want to hear negative feedback - well, then ... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278310 |
@luap42 Since there is a statement that `community-run Q&A platform; by the community, for the community`. I want to discuss and create rules if needed as soon as possible to avoid misunderstaning, unfounded accusations (in both sides), resentment etc that leads to dramas. All users are different bu... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278310 |
@luap42 yep, my question was general, about current rules. I asked the question because I noticed removed answer. I'm not really interested in why the specific answer was removed but quite the opposite I want to be sure that answers & questions won't removed only because they contains something that ... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278274 |
Okay, got it. So it is an exception due to poor wording of the Q. I disagree with the decision but at least now I understand why it was handled that way. Thanks. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278273 |
@Moshi But the last sentence makes clear it was a question/assumption and not a request. Tbh, such request (and even Q) doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously it's impossible. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277918 |
__Will add a full answer later__ @luap42 reminder (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278216 |
__"Most people would agree that complaining about problems without providing alternative solutions isn't constructive."__ I doubt. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278201 |
I don't think the Q was about technical details. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277162 |
@Moshi Yep, I know but I suppose there is no point to create a separate Q for it (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277162 |
Doesn't work for me (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278166 |
The same applies for the icon there as well. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278101 |
`IMO anything more than that is scope-creep from the Q.` @ShowMeBillyJo Agree. Though I don't think off-topic conversation is something bad on meta. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278101 |
@ShowMeBillyJo Thanks, got it. May I ask why did you think so (`this is not a case because I thought reactions would be mixed instead of mostly positive`)? If something is clearly useful and doesn't require much efforts then why CoDidact leaders would opposite (to clarify: partially, i.e. mixed react... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278101 |
@ShowMeBillyJo You seems like ignoring the second part of my comment. Have you attempted to point out on this existent issue through discord chat or any other way ? (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278101 |
@ShowMeBillyJo I'm afraid it leads to endless discussion about styles. There are `FrontEnd`&`Design` leaders already - if someone has a good proposal why not contact them directly? (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278077 |
Not a false alarm - there're other bug reports related to comments. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278059 |
Not only comments but rep as well. And I suppose as anything else (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277175 |
It also marks all notifications to unread that are above one that you clicked. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277945 |
@Mithical Big thanks for the link to trello board. At least now I know the feature-requests/bug reports aren't ignored if they don't receive any comments (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277924 |
Downvote. Current behavior is confusing.
Reasons:
1. Users don't know date of new deploy.
2. There are communities that don't related to development at all. How can they know what "deploy", "PR", "merged" mean ? I think that should be changed. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277851 |
still don't see how it's related. If there are enough users who want (actively) new community then it should be created. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277851 |
How is it possible? If people are interested in such community they should vote for the proposal. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277565 |
Ok, that's great. I hope you don't mind of a bit of off-topic comment. Maybe I just misunderstood how reputation is calculated? I assumed it's 10 for upvote on an answer and 5 for upvote on a question. Let's take [user53232](https://meta.codidact.com/users/53232) as an example. He's got 40 rep. and I... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277395 |
No, it's something different: https://meta.codidact.com/questions/276223 (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277180 |
@msh210 No, it's not. The Q from your link is "Why it was done that way". This Q is a proposal to change the current behavior to opposite. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277101 |
Wonderful, thank you (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
- ← Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next →