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 Monica Cellio
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #276618 |
On the "gating", see [this post about rethinking how we structure trust levels](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/276209). It proposes more independent measures, so editing has a path and posting has a path and closing has a path etc. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276590 |
In our current spec for trust levels, trust for close votes is based on successful flagging. That could possibly be refined; on SE you wouldn't want the people running Smoke Detector auto-flaggers for spam to earn privileges on sites they're not otherwise on. But the basic idea is that they're both... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276537 |
Could you elaborate on why using the tag to see just bug reports doesn't address the problem? Thanks. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276141 |
I agree about exclusionary naming. I think we can address the very real concern raised by @Lundin with clear messaging both in the Q&A category description (the line you see at the top of the page) and in the guidance on the "ask" page, which can be customized per-site. These are tools that weren't... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276452 |
Credit goes to ArtOfCode! I posted this so Art could get some sleep (because timezones). (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276420 |
Maybe it should just include native posts (which can mean new, native answers to imported questions, too). (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276417 |
Yes, we want different kinds of guidance that are more targeted and thus (I hope) more useful for *that thing I'm trying to do right now*, alongside more general help. A new-user tour seems helpful if it shows the things one needs right away (and points out the help for more info). In time it will ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276209 |
I think this approach would simplify things for all involved. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276330 |
Menorah? And I had the same thought about Jin over Shabbat! It'd be great if we could hire him to do a logo and banner for us. (Right now sites just have the small logos, but our design folks are exploring layouts that would give sites a full-width banner at the top, recognizing that we have to ac... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276334 |
We are planning to show user info (a la the "user card" on SE) that has better stats that just one number. Something like: number of posts of each type (or maybe just number of posts), approximate total score of answers (as a range not a precise number that people angst over when it goes down by 1), ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276301 |
Thanks for the brainstorming! And also the suggestion for the platform; I agree we should explore this. I like your brand suggestions, especially the cheeky one. :-) (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276301 |
I agree in general, but I note that when *talking* about the site to prospective participants, a generic name doesn't work as well in phrases like "there's a great site that could help you with that, ..." or "I participate on ... and I think you'd really like it". Granted, this is a problem other Co... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276300 |
@binyomin yes, definitely tags! Tags are essential to organizing content. If you look at any of the sites in [our network](https://codidact.com/), you'll see tags in use. And for content we import, we'll import the original tags too. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276300 |
And SO *is* one programming site, with questions about Java and C# and PHP and Visual Basic and SQL and FranzLisp and... and most people ignore most of it. Sometimes there's critical mass for a specialization to spin off, but that doesn't mean those questions are no longer welcome on SO. SO is a bi... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276300 |
@binyomin yes there's a difference; not everybody is going to have the same level of interest in all questions. That applies within "groupings" too; maybe you're focused on that gemara and don't really care all that much about this zohar or that Ibn Ezra on an obscure point of grammar in Vayikra or ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276292 |
@Harel13 if we put Purim Torah in a separate category, I think we can be a lot more flexible about timing. On Mi Yodeya we limited it because it sits alongside the serious Q&A; on Codidact we can do it differently if we want to. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276300 |
@binyomin text study, from the *pshat* from the *parsha* to understanding the *kal v'chomer* used in such-and-such place in the *g'mara* to the nuances of a Rambam etc -- that's all clearly Jewish. You expect to see it in a *beit midrash*. Questions about kashrut or Shabbat hospitality or *t'filah* o... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276300 |
We clearly want to support text and talmud questions; they're pretty core to Jewish study, as we've seen on Mi Yodeya. Could you say more about how narrowing the scope to only that helps? Is the concern that you can't find the content you want, that people will be distracted by other stuff and won't ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276289 |
If the issue with the referencer is that it has a lot of SE-specific stuff -- i.e. it needs to be updated to run here -- then perhaps this is an area where the community could help? It's a userscript (on SE) now; if somebody can turn it into a userscript that runs here, that's no greater a burden fo... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276236 |
On your last paragraph, could you give an example? I'm trying to understand the granularity. Do you envision a question about, say, doing or faking multiple inheritance, with variations for C++, Java, Python, etc? Or do you mean something finer-grained, like a question about how to do something in... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276214 |
@ArtOfCode I don't think we should be auto-creating per-site accounts; that should be an intentional action by the user. Adding an answer to elaborate. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276175 |
@Lundin there's a default license on all posts, which is what you get if you do nothing. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276175 |
Whoops, I thought we had that. Investigating. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276168 |
On SE I once proposed something to help the OP re-ask the question without all the cut/paste -- basically, show the on-topic info, user says "yes ask there", and we open the "create post" interface on the other site with the existing content pre-populated. There are some complications that have to b... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275959 |
That's weird; I edited a recipe last night. Investigating. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275943 |
Thanks @Olin; I was in fact eyeing your formatting help. :-) Changes should all be there now; go ahead and try typing something into the "category" textbox and setting sequence numbers. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275940 |
I think they'll all need to change to "/posts". A category can support more than one post type, and anyway these things could change over time as a site's use of a category evolves, so we shouldn't baking that into the external interface. Missed this in testing/code review, sorry. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275857 |
Oh, I didn't mean invite the inquisitive hordes now; you need to get set up first. I just meant that *alongside* developing that site introduction, also try to build some good *content* for them to see. Nobody wants to see an empty site on a first visit. That paragraph was addressed to the founder... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275826 |
[Launched](https://cooking.codidact.com/), so we can now continue these important discussions on meta there. Looking forward to building the site! (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275836 |
On import, while there's no UI for it (and that's not planned soon), we can import questions selectively. The community could assemble a list of links to specific questions and we could pull those over, so you can cherry-pick those few valuable posts that would be a hassle to recreate here. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275776 |
One more question: any suggestions for a logo? What graphical element(s) should we include? Or if somebody wants to propose an image, feel free -- aiming for an aspect ratio of about 3:1 width:height. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275776 |
Now that we've confirmed that Circuitlab integration isn't a blocker and it looks like the overlap with the general-engineering proposal has been addressed, I think we can proceed. What URL slug (the part before codidact.com) do y'all want? "electrical-engineering" is clear but also long; do you hav... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275785 |
Changing a name is relatively easy. Once a site has been in use for a while, changing a URL has more dependencies (we'd have to either break links or have a redirect -- not hard, but something to think about). If the URL slug is "rpg" that's pretty flexible; if it's "tabletop-rpg" or "trpg" and you... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275808 |
If we didn't have Circuitlab integration, what would people do? Use whatever tools they like and just upload images? Use some web-based tool and link to a project there so it could be edited? I'm guessing that site-specific tool integrations are a ways off, especially if there are licensing issues... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275776 |
@KingDuken how did that work? Can you link to a question that uses it so we can see? Thanks. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275776 |
Sounds promising! Do you need Mathjax? Any other non-standard features? (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275785 |
My suggestion on categories is: use categories when the *base expectations* are different. For example, "Researched Q&A" on Speculative Science, "Gear Recommendations" on Photography, and the various contest categories have *different rules*. Blogs/wikis are also different, hence separate. (And, o... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275797 |
Question on the site's meta; let's work it out there: https://speculative-science.codidact.com/questions/275801 (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75058 |
Thomas, could you review the questions with both tags and make a proposal? We can import more data. If it turns out that most or all questions with both tags are fine then we can pull those in; if it's more selective, then if you can compile a list of URLs we can pull in those specific questions. ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275784 |
I've run into this too when trying to do footnotes. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275785 |
I mostly agree, though I wonder if categories or tags serve the first three areas better. (And I wouldn't call that "fluff"; some players are there primarily for the roleplaying and storytelling, with mechanics being merely a means to serve that end.) I'm not concerned about overlap with worldbuild... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75053 |
Sounds good Thomas! We can import more questions later, but wholesale import of that tag would have brought a lot of extra stuff, so let's discuss first. We might end up with a list of specific URLs or a better characterization. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75053 |
I think "what could happen, based purely on science/logic", fits Speculative Science. We're in the process of importing data there now, after which we'll write some custom scope help and meta posts and stuff (reflecting the discussions here). I think it will meet your needs -- and if not, please us... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74907 |
@HDE226868 a category name is easily changed once created, so please do think about it and see if you have better ideas. Thanks! (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75058 |
If the imaginary force can be fully-enough specified that one can apply scientific reasoning, I would think that would be fine. A lot of questions on WB about imaginary forces lack that foundation and answers end up being "well it's magic; do whatever you want", which I think you'd agree isn't very ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75033 |
I want to see Codidact serve this community; I'm asking questions so we can all, together, figure out how to do that. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75033 |
Thanks for explaining, @staticvoid. What you say about overlaps makes sense. Does the space logically divide into "themes", the way web dev does with front-end and back-end work? Do you see this as purely about code or also tools (IDEs, source control, etc)? If tools, what about process and design (s... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75053 |
@Thomas it started out as "WB, but without the magic complications". I see you've found that proposal now and I'm very interested in your input in shaping it. I think it does much of what you're looking for, though maybe not the "plotting" questions ("what would happen" can run quite a gamut). (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75061 |
Yeah, there's a wireframe floating around that includes "follow", but it's not on the must-have list for 1.0 aka MVP. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75058 |
I'll update the proposal with something more specific about intended scope; thank you for calling out this deficiency. We don't mean "science" in the sense of "only stuff that's real today", but more that we're aiming for things where you can draw a line from science to the desired result. Faster-t... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |