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 matthewsnyderâ€
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #291306 |
Thank you! That wording sounds great to me. (more) |
— | 21 days ago |
| Comment | Post #291285 |
Hexchat is not too bad if you want GUI. For console, I think irssi and weechat are the big ones. But since IRC has been around for a while there's at least a wide selection of clients, many of them on https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/List_of_applications/Internet#IRC_clients
But the question is ab... (more) |
— | 21 days ago |
| Comment | Post #291285 |
Good point! I think I got confused while typing the last part. I meant to ask "why".
I would love to see it changed, but it would be pointless to try to convince people to change it without understanding why they made the decision in the first place. (more) |
— | 23 days ago |
| Edit | Post #291285 |
Post edited: |
— | 23 days ago |
| Comment | Post #291285 |
Do you mean that the UX of a specific IRC client is poor, or that the protocol itself has poor UX? (more) |
— | 23 days ago |
| Edit | Post #291285 |
Post edited: |
— | 28 days ago |
| Edit | Post #291285 | Initial revision | — | 28 days ago |
| Question | — |
Why discord and not IRC? Seems like the main option for real time chat related to Codidact is Discord. Were there any other alternatives considered? Why was Discord chosen? There are older, more established options for real time chat like IRC. In my experience, a lot of people object to Discord on principle. I believe ... (more) |
— | 28 days ago |
| Comment | Post #291185 |
Interesting. So are you saying it's not obvious because it's easy to miss?
I meant obvious as in after a close look, everyone would agree that spam is spam, and there's not going to be controversy. Looks like your example follows this - after looking carefully at the markdown source, I'm sure that... (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #291184 |
What would be the solution if people just link-break by inserting whitespace or omitting some obvious parts of the URL? Or is that okay for new users? (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Edit | Post #291185 | Initial revision | — | about 1 month ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Introduce a spam reaction? I don't think it should be called spam. Spam, in the strict sense, is large-volume, unwanted commercial advertisement. For example, if I go to every question tagged Python and reply "Click here to get 10% off my Python course" that would be proper spam. If I go to one question asking about the fastes... (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #291160 |
CD relies on word of mouth, so it's important to consider that before people advertise it, it must be a place they'd be comfortable showing to their friends. Ties into the being helpful vs. content quality. It's not correct to look at the site not growing, and conclude it was opened prematurely. It c... (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #291160 |
So in the end I think focusing on quality won't really get you quality. You'll get "okay" content but no great content. Even if you care more about having excellent content quality, it seems to me that it's still better to be permissive and focus on helping people rather than enforcing quality.
Bu... (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #291160 |
(...) great or bad. If the community tolerates occasional bad, you feel safe and confident in trying, and occasionally succeed in producing great. But if the community seems very intolerant of bad, it's too risky to try for great, so you play it safe and just go for "okay" - when you go for okay usua... (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #291160 |
That's a great point about quality being subjective. I also think so, which is why I'm on the permissive side of fence. I didn't mention it in the question because I wanted to avoid making it biased.
But ultimately yes, a lot of "quality" is a matter of personal taste. When separating terrible con... (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #291160 |
BTW Charlie, as a personal comment - when I first saw Codidact and was browsing around to see if the site is worth using, I liked your posts on the Great Outdoors and elsewhere. It was actually a big part of why I thought to give the site a try. Sounds like maybe we might be in the minority here on w... (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #291160 |
Maybe gatekeeping is not the only or even the biggest reason for the low activity, but it must be a contributor. It stands to reason that you have some baseline rate of activity on any site, and the more strict you are with what's allowed, the smaller a subset of that you will get. Perhaps a strict f... (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #291153 |
I think this answer does a great job of laying out the conflict and ambiguity between the different goals CD might have. I think I was trying to hint at these implicitly in my question, but you've made it clearer explicitly. Thanks!
As you say, people inevitably have a different opinion about wha... (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #291107 |
I get that - at first I thought your proposal could be improved by getting rid of the user/pass too, and making it just GUID. But then after this discussion, I realized just a GUID is not as good as a user/pass, so there's no point making reinventing the wheel and making it worse. (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291113 |
Honestly not that much. I think one was a couple months ago. Second was this week. Not such a big number at this point, I'm speculating that when the site gets bigger it will remain at the same proportion of the userbase. (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291129 |
This used to recommend, as an alternative, using just a secure ID with no password. But I realized that this has a flaw: If you leak the secure ID, there is no way to reset it. You'd have to abandon the account and make a new one. So I removed that.
If anyone is curious, the old version is in the ... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291129 |
Post edited: removed secure id option, it doesn't work |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291107 |
Ah, that's a good point about IDs - you can't reset them. I realize now it works for sites like Mullvad because accounts inherently have little state. As @#36377 says, a CD account is not *that* valuable, but still, it would be a bit annoying to lose access to your post history.
I do agree that we... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291130 |
Ah, I forgot about that. Is this question better moved there? (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291129 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291130 | Initial revision | — | about 2 months ago |
| Question | — |
What mentoring is available for qpixel development? Codidact uses the open source Qpixel, which is also maintained by CD admins. Sometimes it is mentioned in passing that the devs are open to and interested in help with developing this codebase. I'm sure some contributors are resourceful enough as to simply skim the source and figure out everything... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291129 | Initial revision | — | about 2 months ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Allow completely pseudonymous user accounts Yes, please! I think this is a great idea. Generally, I think requiring email verification is dumb. For this site it's doubly so. You did a great job enumerating all the reasons and I agree with them all. The biggest one is removing barrier to entry. Arguably the biggest problem of this site r... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291107 |
This maxim is common on commercial sites. IQ is a bell curve so indeed most people are not very smart, and the same thing goes for knowledge and tech-literacy. Unsurprisingly, it is often more profitable to "target" (perhaps rather "grift" or "scam") a large mass of poorly informed users than a small... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291121 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291121 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291121 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291127 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291127 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291127 |
Thanks for the suggestion! I did have that thought when writing it, but gave up on it because I couldn't think of good names. Yours work great, though. (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291127 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291127 |
Thank you! It was indeed an error, I edited with the fix.
Let me see if I can rewrite with names as you said. (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291127 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291127 | Initial revision | — | about 2 months ago |
| Question | — |
What's more important for codidact - quality or helping questions get answered? When I read through https://codidact.org/ I get the impression that the focus is on helping people get their questions answered. There are obviously other benefits, like providing a platform for people who want to share their knowledge, but the message that stands out to me most is: >This is a pla... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291121 |
Honestly, what you're criticizing sounds like normal, intended behavior for people on a QA site. It's bizarre to me that one would want to run a QA site and discourage people from asking and answering questions, even denigrating that as "do-gooding". I suspect the site admins don't exactly have the s... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291121 |
Why wouldn't I? I want to see who else thinks the question was closed wrongly. (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291121 |
What if you feel the mod is wrong, and should never have closed in the first place? (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291121 | Initial revision | — | about 2 months ago |
| Question | — |
Can we streamline the process for closed bad questions? This is related to my other question, https://software.codidact.com/posts/291064. In that I argued we shouldn't close vague or confused questions, so that other people can post an answer if they want. The current process is that if someone closes the question, you can't answer at all. You could te... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291113 |
That's fair. Just for me personally, if I had to explain every time, I would simply stop bothering to flag them. I don't imagine I'm the only one.
The admins are welcome to decide whether they'd prefer quantity or quality when it comes to flagging AI questions.
Once again, this question is not ... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291113 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Edit | Post #291113 | Initial revision | — | about 2 months ago |