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 Canina
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #285081 |
A moderator elsewhere on Codidact should *not* hold any special status on other sites in the network. Such a user is more likely to be invested in the network as a whole, but that's about it. If you flag such content for moderator attention and feel that the response is inappropriate, you can escalat... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284973 |
@#53922 That wouldn't be a given. Even if that was because of a post deletion (I don't know whether that's the case), if a post is hard-deleted *properly*, it should be as though that post never existed. The non-existence of the post should then not have any effect on anything else, just as was the c... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284847 |
(1) I fail to see why you bring that up in response to my answer.
(2) If that's how you feel, then I suggest that you propose either changes to the current method, or an entirely different method, of solving the problem that the site proposal process aims to solve; which is unrelated to any partic... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284764 |
Curiously enough, that exact information *is* available on the front page (but of course only for the post that was most recently edited). This definitely feels like an oversight. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284733 |
Works for me for both `https://codidact.com/` and `https://www.codidact.com/` with Firefox ESR 78.15.0 on Debian Bullseye. It sounds odd that DNS itself would cause such an error. Still, I would try switching the not-working system to Google's DNS temporarily if possible (or switch the working system... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284733 |
Worked fine for me at 08:04 UTC. What version of Firefox are you using? Can you reproduce the problem with a fresh browser profile? (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284688 |
@#8046 Yes, I meant for it to be `codidact.com`. A link from `codidact.org` to wherever it is might also not be a bad idea, but that would just be a link so should be largely a non-issue regardless of what actually runs on the web server for the host name in question. The donation page should be clea... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284688 |
@#8045 Oh, I'm not criticizing; anything is better than nothing, and this is already plenty more than nothing. It's just that at least for me personally, unless I actually *want* to make a one-off, I greatly prefer set-and-forget schemes. For an example, look perhaps at the Internet Archive; they off... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284688 |
@#8045 Well, how about a separate `donate.codidact.com` or something along those lines, then? My suggestion isn't so much about the exact domain name, as it is about clearly indicating already in the domain name that the donation doesn't go to any particular community, but to the network as a whole. ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284688 |
As it is, it's easy to get the impression that since the donation form is hosted on each separate community's host name, `https://meta.codidact.com/donate` is somehow distinct from, say, `https://writing.codidact.com/donate`, and that the donation somehow goes *directly* to the community where one ma... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284688 |
It looks like the UI only supports making one-off donations. Are there any plans to extend this to allow for registering one's card for recurring donations? I imagine that allowing people to set-and-forget for a donation of, say, £1-£2/month (and of course making it easy to stop donations, should one... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284688 |
For those who for some reason would rather pay by bank transfer than by card, do you plan to publish the details for bank wire transfers (such as [BIC/IBAN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_transfer#International) details)? (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284679 |
Looks like it is indeed fixed in the currently deployed version (`a0370cd9`). Thank you! (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284472 |
@#8058 Any update? Or does the existing answers cover what you were going to post? (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284472 |
I agree with @#8176 that publicly singling out specific users for inappropriate behavior is rude. Generally, doing so only puts those people on the defensive, often destroying any hope of getting them to improve their behavior while remaining contributors. That's why what I propose focuses on the pro... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284515 |
We can discuss the specific values, and with configurability that discussion can be had within each community, but the data for the system to be self-adaptive is available, so to build *some* degree of self-adaptation into the system seems to me to be a reasonable approach. Yes, it puts some aspects ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284515 |
@#8046 As @#53410 to some extent already pointed out, a big part of the reasoning behind my suggestion to take activity by other users into account is that *it makes the system self-adapting to varying traffic levels.* It would also enable the system to adapt to temporary fluctuations in traffic; con... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284473 |
@#53410 I might well be missing something obvious, but what then happens if, say, the user closes the wrong browser tab, or their browser crashes, or they have a power outage, or anything else that causes their session (and possibly also their cookies) to disappear? Wouldn't that leave such a flag da... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284473 |
@#8056 You can oppose it if you like, but doing validation server-side is a basic design principle for building secure client/server software, of which complex, interactive web sites is certainly a subset. Failing to do proper server-side validation is what led to the Apache web server's [CVE-2021-41... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284473 |
@#8056 As a basic design principle, validation will always need to happen at the point of saving. Validation prior to that is a UX optimization only; worthwhile, but can't be relied upon.
Exactly which votes to count for the purposes of this decision is certainly something that can be considered. ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284473 |
@#36396 I was aiming for predictability for the individual user as well as a reasonable starting point; I certainly don't claim that these criteria are perfect. By all means add an answer of your own to suggest alternative criteria, if you like. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284486 |
@#8176 I agree that silent downvotes aren't particularly constructive. (Silent upvotes are less of a problem, but the same general principle still applies: what about this was good, and is there absolutely nothing whatsoever about it that could be made even a tiny bit better?) However, especially wit... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284486 |
Near the end of your answer, you write that
> But I don't want someone to permanently ban. Cause if you ban an user than they will go to create another account and he will keep doing it. So permanently banning isn't good idea.
That's why, in my proposal, in particular the final "escape hatch" o... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284486 |
You quote the part from my suggestion that
> First, look at their most recent post of the same type (question, answer, article, ...). If that post has a score >0.5 (that is, is positively received by the community), then allow the new post.
to claim that
> Look everyone have their opinion. A... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284490 |
Certainly for me, one of the really nice things about reactions is that they allow for more expressive responses than simply "this is {good,bad}, for some definition of 'this' and for some definition of '{good,bad}'" *without* requiring a separate comment. Especially if you aren't the person who aske... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284483 |
Considering that the comment text itself logically belongs to the user who posted the comment, but the title applies to *all* comments in the thread; who should have the ability to edit the thread title? Just the user who posted the first comment; any user who has a visible comment in the thread; or ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284476 |
Why? What problem does this solve? Although Markdown line breaks don't work in comments, certainly paragraphs are already possible.
Please note that I'm not saying that what you propose is necessarily a *bad* idea; I just don't see the benefit, so consider this an invitation to edit the post in su... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284472 |
@#53922 Especially if implemented as I suggested in my self-answer, a single downvote won't matter much even for a brand new user account. Single votes will only actually make a significant difference for a user who is already *right at* a threshold, in which case there's probably something that can ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284470 |
Perhaps this should be an answer to my question [Should it be possible to "react" to one's own posts?](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/284457) Either way, I'm not quite sure what kind of response this question seeks. You tagged this post discussion, but phrased the final paragraph as some kind of req... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284458 |
@#8058 Editing to fix outdatedness or dangerousness might require significant work, which one might not want to put in at the time. (Adding a reaction is comparatively a very rapid operation.) Also, some things might be dangerous by their very nature, and there's nothing to be done about that. Being ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284458 |
I've been thinking some about that last part as well. I haven't quite made up my mind, but I'm leaning toward somehow signifying the fact that a reaction is from either (a) the top-level post owner, or (b) the reacted-to post owner, would convey useful information in many situations. Case (a) would b... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284455 |
@#53503 @#8058 FWIW, I got the mail. It arrived in my email inbox just fine. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284455 |
@#8046 No matter what starting set of reactions is provided, it'd be wrong in *some* manner *somewhere*. I agree that it's better to try to make it *reasonable* for most communities and allow for configuration. A reaction like "dangerous" might not make much sense on [Writing](https://writing.codidac... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284455 |
@#53078 "Works for me" seems every bit as useful at least for support questions on Meta as for the typical question on, say, Power Users or Software Development.
I'm having a harder time imagining a legitimate situation where one might want to use, say, "dangerous" on Languages & Linguistics, but ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284359 |
@#8163 How does the fact that users X, Y and Z configure the system such that *they* don't see contributions by user W prevent rudeness on the part of user W? If anything, it seems to me that it would *reduce* the set of possible flaggers, thereby doing nothing to reduce, and possibly extending, the ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284083 |
I'm getting the behavior that OP is describing, running Firefox 78.14.0esr. Simply triple-clicking the question title on the question page is sufficient to demonstrate this for me; a copy and paste into a plain text editor further confirms it. A quick look at the actual HTML source code of the page a... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284098 |
@#8045 I take that back. The same thing happened again now; going to the front page (not yet logged in), got a Cloudflare browser check which completed successfully, and resulted in a POST request to `https://meta.codidact.com/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=...` which gave me a 404 response back. If I click in... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284098 |
@#8045 I still got the "browser check" just now, ~~but at least when it went through, I was properly redirected to a functional site front page (which, although I didn't explicitly check that, would mean a GET, not a POST, request). So whatever change you made might at least have fixed the worse part... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284072 |
@#53922 *Absent* copyright (I assume you meant copyright and not [copywrite](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/copywrite)), generalizing somewhat, anyone can do anything with a work. In the presence of copyright and without an explicit license, again generalizing, only the copyright holder can do anythi... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284072 |
Adding to what @#53398 wrote above, while *I am not a lawyer*, for @#53922 (or anyone else) to actually make the qpixel source code available under a different license would almost certainly be copyright infringement by way of offering something under terms not granted by the copyright holders.
Th... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284098 |
@#8058 I'm not sure how my geographical location would influence how qpixel responds to a request it receives? The bigger issue I'm raising here isn't the browser check (that's a nuisance, but not a problem), but the fact that I get a 404 once it completes. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283668 |
@#8046 I just ran across this in a comment thread on Software Development; `@Lundin` became `@8176in`. Has this bug potentially been reintroduced somehow? (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284072 |
It seems to me that the only part to this answer that really addresses the question is the heading. OP claims to have been able to set up QPixel locally, so what you are talking about seems to not even apply. Also, what does specific licensing terms for content have to do with user authentication on ... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284005 |
How computerized automation might affect live births could also be a question on medical care. Either way, other than the fact that the two first paragraphs are just fluff in context of the question in the third, I don't see anything in that question that aims to extrapolate from known science. It is... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283623 |
@#53922 Doesn't seem to be fixed yet, even though 2021-08-26 (as currently indicated in the page footer) is much later than 2021-08-20 (when you started this comment thread). Yes, it now shows "0 / 1000" instead of "0 / 255" immediately after clicking "edit", but the character count of 0 is still jus... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283823 |
@#8058 From an edit point of view, there is currently no difference between fixing a one-character typo in or completely replacing the post body; IMO tags shouldn't be different in terms of what's captured in the history. Both are examples of changes that made the post what it is at the time of viewi... (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283235 |
@#8046 I'm sure you have seen the pattern as well, but it seems to be site-dependent; at the very least, Meta seems less problematic than Power Users. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283235 |
@#53922 The linked PR was committed and merged Aug 21, but the footer here indicates that the qpixel version running is from Aug 19. So unless someone has invented time travel without telling the rest of us, the changes in PR#639 can't possibly be in the running code. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283235 |
@#8046 I just got the same behavior, also on Power Users. Error ID 10d4a828-7b0c-4bc9-81f7-8a8a0edb0a59, comment thread https://powerusers.codidact.com/comments/thread/4177. (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #283235 |
@#8046 I haven't seen any similar errors since. (And this comment posted just fine.) (more) |
— | over 2 years ago |