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 Andreas demands justice for humanity
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #290983 |
It’s certainly better to fill that spot with the top-level post’s title (for now), but it’s very much a workaround, and not an actual solution to the feature request, so it’s not sufficient to mark it as status-completed. It doesn’t really solve the issue at hand; it only aleviates it partially. It w... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290916 |
Post edited: Rewrite of the post to clarify. It's based on the information in one of the comment threads. This post would be an ideal duplicate of a feature request asking for a network profile, but it seems as if none exist so far. |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290962 |
Post edited: Remove fluff |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #290962 |
Suggested edit: Remove fluff (more) |
helpful | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290957 |
> Being able to mention user names also helps to differentiate between different approaches in answers.
I’ll make the assumption that I understand what you mean here. I’ve seen it on Stack Overflow, and even done it myself, so I understand its uses. But I still don’t like it. It’s a very crude way... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290957 |
@#36377 Also, since you mention licenses; I figured it would be fairly obvious I’m talking about referring to other users on the network for a personal exchange with them.
Quoting content, and providing necessary attribution, is of course not something I’d ban.
From the question I answered:
> ... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290957 |
@#36377 I fail to see the applications you mention being realistic or useful. Can you share some examples?
My answer concerns Q/A posts (questions and answers) (mainly the main category), not blog, nor comments. (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290957 | Initial revision | — | about 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Can I use @Username to notify users from within my question or answer? This is not only a bad idea for the reasons already outlined in existing answers, but: Codidact is first and foremost a Q/A network, not a discussion forum, not a helpdesk, not a chat service, and not a social media. Being able to mention users in posts would directly contradict the goals of this ... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290955 |
Post edited: |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290955 |
The description for the tag should be quite simple; state the purpose of the tag, and link back to this post. (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290955 |
Post edited: Pesky typos! |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290955 |
Post edited: |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290955 | Initial revision | — | about 1 year ago |
| Question | — |
Mark cross-duplicates with tags until cross-closing is available I think it would be reasonable to introduce a new tag, "cross-duplicate-candidate" to tag cross-category or cross-community duplicates with until the software is updated to allow closing them. We're already identifying these posts now, and it's wasted resources to leave them to be forgotten. If we ha... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #290916 |
Suggested edit: Rewrite of the post to clarify. It's based on the information in one of the comment threads. This post would be an ideal duplicate of a feature request asking for a network profile, but it seems as if none exist so far. (more) |
helpful | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290917 |
Post edited: Whatever GitLab is built with, is completely off-topic here. Normally, one would close a question like this instead of editing it, but it's an attempt at salvaging what some others believe to be mildly on-topic. |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290918 |
Post edited: Remove fluff |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #290918 |
Suggested edit: Remove fluff (more) |
helpful | about 1 year ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #290917 |
Suggested edit: Whatever GitLab is built with, is completely off-topic here. Normally, one would close a question like this instead of editing it, but it's an attempt at salvaging what some others believe to be mildly on-topic. (more) |
helpful | about 1 year ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #290919 |
Suggested edit: Remove fluff (no need to write out obvious statements) (more) |
helpful | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #285414 |
Post edited: |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290916 |
Do you specifically mean a network-wide search that can filter per user, or a network-wide profile for _viewing_ per-user activity across all sites? (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290916 |
https://meta.codidact.com/posts/285414 (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #285414 |
Suggested edit: (more) |
helpful | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290845 |
A great way to mitigate this issue is to simply stop automatically loading pages so much. For instance when I create a new comment thread, with a comment in it. Why does that reload the page? It shouldn't. (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290856 |
We don't really need that button, do we? You can just use backspace to delete the tags. (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290853 |
Although I stand by what I say. I really don't think it's correct to decline what is to be considered correct edits. But I cannot enforce that view onto those reviewing your edits. (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290853 |
You'll see it's one and the same person that's been declining your edits, while staff members of Codidact have been accepting them. That said, staff members opting to do it that way, isn't much of an argument in itself, as this is a (somewhat) democratic community-driven platform. My answer stating t... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290853 |
@#65178 I'm not so sure why you'd be getting that mentality from SO, where there's a precedent for such edits being acceptable. Are you sure the problem isn't that you actually just made edits to low-quality posts? If a post is headed for deletion anyway, there's no point in sending edits of it to re... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290853 |
I've gone ahead and upvoted your post, as you bring forward some important arguments for your edits, but I must dissent with these parts:
> I believe that submitting an edit just for removing or adding a tag is not enough.
> I would have also opposed an edit for just some normal tags.
I'd ju... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290849 |
Post edited: |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #281610 |
> If they are editing their own post, well, the only harm done is to themselves.
Not entirely. Spammers sometimes post spam seeds; these are seemingly innocent posts reserved for later pasting in spam by editing them. (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290850 |
TLDRBSTTEF (Too long, didn't read, but scrolled to the end first):
Choosing to design an ability system like was done here in the first place, is all about ensuring only the ones we _can_ trust are granted the permissions they need to curate this site. If we have failed to select trustworthy membe... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290850 |
> The review queue is entirely public; just click the Edits tab in the category
See, that's how stupid I can be. Or just blind. But my eyes work fine, so it must be stupidity. :D (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290850 |
check their reviews. As I also said in the first comment, keep the list of all reviews (sort by most recent date) easily accessible to everyone. In addition, every now and then, submit their reviews for peer-reviews. So, review the review.
In addition, we can also introduce an edit reviewing abil... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290850 |
> Neither the editor nor the reviewer is well placed to decide
> The editor, the reviewer, or both could be malicious, so allowing either of them to decide which edits should be hidden from the community is not appropriate.
> This also applies to a post author editing their own post. A spammer ... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290850 |
> Users can choose their own sorts and filters
> If a user does not wish to see the default view of the question list, they are free to change the sort order or apply filters. For example, they may choose to view only unanswered questions, in order of age rather than activity. This way they would no... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290850 |
> Showing the post at the top of the question list allows the community to provide an element of informal review and raise any problems they see.
There's also another way to do this, which is less invasive. As I don't yet have the abilities required for reviewing, I have no idea where to go to fin... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290850 |
> Not every edit is reviewed. Some people have the Edit Posts ability and can edit without review, and the post author can always edit without review. A reviewer's decision is also not reviewed. Showing the post at the top of the question list allows the community to provide an element of informal re... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290845 |
Has happened to me occasionally, so it's definitely a problem. Either you revisit a page that you've been on, which has since been updated (but the updates aren't visible, because you're viewing the cached version), or you end up back on a post editor page, or similar.
The solution is probably to ... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290849 |
Post edited: |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290849 | Initial revision | — | about 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: How should we approach large numbers of edits made all at once? The problem with this question, and overall discussion, is that we're only having it because the post activity update system is broken. If we can't make minor edits without causing a lot of disruption on the platform, we have a serious issue, as a curated and maintained repository. We have the tools ... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #290843 |
Well, thanks for clarifying the situation here; that's useful, and does put these cases in a slightly different light. However, I still disagree with the reason you described in the review comments, as well as these parts:
> I really don't want to see all old posts dredged up whenever current tag ... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290842 |
Post edited: They're not a moderator, apparently. Nor do they have the "edit posts" ability, so I'm honestly a bit confused here. |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290842 |
Post edited: |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290842 |
Post edited: Specify which edits I oppose the refusal of. There are more than just tag edits on the list, and my answer does not concern the review of those. |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #290842 | Initial revision | — | about 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Minor suggested edits to old posts I strongly oppose the refusal to accept these tag edits. Many of the edits were declined by the same reviewer with similar reasons, namely that "it's not worth bumping posts for silly tags". This is incorrect reviewing. This is an incorrect reason for declining edits. The reason is quite simple: corr... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |