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 Julius H.
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #290924 |
Thank you.
Can the content of that post be added to the Codidact Site Policy page? https://meta.codidact.com/help
(more) |
— | 3 months ago |
| Comment | Post #288692 |
Strongly on board with this. Love how you broke it up into such a systematic analysis and taxonomization. I want to do similar things as well. (more) |
— | 3 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290736 |
I think there is a misunderstanding that I was advocating a feature where you publicly post half-finished drafts of ideas to be collaborated and refined with others, as some sort of other category of post type. The core focus of my post is about built-in refactoring functions or buttons (or at least ... (more) |
— | 3 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290759 |
I agree completely with the vision. Out of curiosity, do you think the current design lends itself towards that goal?
For example: if a post is downvoted, if we take that as an indicator that the community does not find it accords with the content principles of Codidact, is it sufficiently clear w... (more) |
— | 3 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290646 |
> People who actually need an answer to a question are often in a uniquely bad position to actually ask that question.
I agree strongly.
The nature of intellectual inquiry is often that you don’t know the questions that you’re supposed to be asking.
(Wouldn’t it be awesome if someone had as... (more) |
— | 3 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290080 |
> The details aren’t public.
I’m curious how people view there being some kind of blocking mechanism on Codidact that isn’t open source. Does anyone feel that being open source is relatively integral to Codidact being a genuine alternative to SE, which in a genuinely egalitarian way, is “by the pe... (more) |
— | 3 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290068 |
I’d like to try to understand this better. Is it that all new users would automatically not have their content circulated and visible to other users, until passing a ‘probationary period’?
I can see the value in this. My only suggestion would possibly be a change in terminology. A “probationary pe... (more) |
— | 3 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290736 |
changes how the user will feel using that function, how often they will choose to do so, etc.
I can go into more detail on this point of view. For now I wanted to say that to me, this is a functionality which would very much lend itself to what I currently understand a goal of Codidact to be - a s... (more) |
— | 3 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290736 |
Thank you for your response.
The main reason I believe the general goal of having directly built-in functions (such as buttons) for converting (or even “refactoring”) a single post into multiple separate posts is of value or interest is because of what you might call “user flow”: true, I could edi... (more) |
— | 3 months ago |
| Comment | Post #276749 |
Just for the sake of creativity, I feel like mentioning there are all kinds of possibilities regarding this. For example, whatever you wish to call “the number of times something has been voted on” could be taken to represent *certainty* - sort of like in research reproducibility, more votes is taken... (more) |
— | 3 months ago |