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 #278230 |
Not sure if the edit makes this a duplicate of my older question [Post action links that cannot be used should be hidden](https://meta.codidact.com/q/276505), but it's definitely similar. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278170 |
@luap42 I guess that depends largely on what we want particularly "status-completed" to mean; *installed in production* or *fix ready, tested and will be deployed* but might not necessarily be deployed *yet*? From a user perspective, the former is more approachable; from a developer perspective, the ... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277949 |
@Moshi Closed as duplicate. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278086 |
@MonicaCellio Indeed, and I wasn't suggesting (certainly didn't mean to suggest) that the outcome of the discussion would necessarily *be* different. You bring up salient points in your comment, and I'm sure there are other arguments against it as well. My point was simply that on Codidact, we have *... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277949 |
FWIW, with regards to the side question on what feature request means, I agree that a feature request can be for something that simply makes the site better, without necessarily solving an existing *problem*. I also think it's reasonable for a downvote on a feature request to express "I don't see any... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277949 |
Is this a duplicate of [More social media/online communities to link to profile.](https://meta.codidact.com/q/75004)? (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278086 |
Regarding an "Abrahamic religions" site, given what's possible on Codidact, and I'm *not* saying such a change should be made, consider the possibility of such a site but with categories for each specific religion. On Some Other network, such a feature wasn't available. Here, it is; and even if it wa... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278042 |
@luap42 Quite honestly, I think adding a preference to turn keyboard shortcuts *on* rather than *off* would be more appropriate. Default off means that users who aren't signed in, and who might not be that familiar with Codidact, wouldn't be subjected to them. I think it's better to save such power f... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277538 |
@MonicaCellio That's... just too Meta for most people. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277490 |
@Mithical Do you mean [Writing Codidact's writing challenges](https://writing.codidact.com/categories/20)? Those should already default to CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0. If there's some use case where they don't, please file a bug report so it can be fixed. If you're referring to some other site's challenges categ... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277459 |
@MonicaCellio Intuitively, and without having thought it through in detail, I would say that they should probably be distinct UI workflows. *Duplicate* implies that the *previously existing* question covers the same ground; *supersede*, on the other hand, implies that a *newer* question takes the pla... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277459 |
@luap42 Closing as duplicates is useful. But so might closing as *superseded* be. I'm not sure whether this should be a specific feature request as such, but I do think it would be a useful feature to have for certain cases. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277389 |
@pnuts Actively interacting with the site (for example, by posting content) is not the same thing as passively consuming content (even when logged in) and performing anonymous-to-others activities such as up/down voting on posts. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277348 |
Also, the text talks about "legal obligations or other exceptional circumstances", but the "other exceptional circumstances" part is (perhaps deliberately) AFAICT left undefined. My worry here is that, in the case of a rogue Team member, this leaves a hole large enough to steer an oceanliner through ... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277348 |
@ArtOfCode But if evidence comes out that a user is, say, underage, or in violation of the ToS, such evidence could just as easily be made available to the Panel, couldn't it? And the Panel would (*should*) need to take all available evidence into consideration when making its decision. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277347 |
@luap42 Then I would suggest simply saying that the Panel decides how to organize itself, within the constraints of its mandate and vote proportions needed for decisions. It doesn't seem like there's a need to call out a specific role, especially if that role is not further defined. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #277186 |
I'm not in the field, but I doubt that managing accounting, taxes, etc. would be specific enough to musical professionals that "accounting for musicians" would need to go on one site and "accounting for writers" would need to go on another and "accounting for photographers" on a third. Advice would a... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276833 |
@OlinLathrop I don't think I've seen it phrased that concretely elsewhere, but concrete is good because it's a specific problem that can presumably be solved. Assuming I haven't simply missed it, would you care to post that problem description as a (likely discussion) question here on Codidact Meta s... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276842 |
While not exactly the same *question* per se, this is addressed in answers to the duplicate target question. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276693 |
Definitely not just "exclude everything except Q&A". Consider [Scientific Speculation's *Rigorous Science* category](https://scientific-speculation.codidact.com/categories/25), which we might definitely want to draw attention to. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276650 |
Yes, let's please have a setting @ArtOfCode. I don't mind such a setting defaulting to on, because many are probably going to find an autosave valuable, but for those who would rather not have it, let's empower the user. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276626 |
I figure that if someone was strongly opposed to this, they would have *somehow* voiced their concerns after five weeks. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276578 |
The flip side of this argument is that *usually*, irrevocable operations involve some confirmation step before committing. Uploading the file is, from the perspective of the user, irrevocable; while you can delete the reference to it (which makes it difficult to access), you can't delete the uploaded... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276509 |
Well, it looks like I can see a Tools link on posts here, but that clicking on it doesn't actually *do* anything. In comparison, if I click on Close below the question, it opens the "Why should this post be closed?" form. Not sure if this is related or not... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276520 |
I agree that this would probably be more usable with a single-column format. Still, nice! (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276508 |
I would even like to suggest that we should have something similar to https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5020 here. That's a *hugely* useful reference not just for Mathjax but for LaTeX in general. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276453 |
@ArtOfCode I don't think such a list needs to update in real time. Tag relationships probably wouldn't be changed all that often, so to batch-generate the data or even the whole page for something like this should be workable. O'Reilly's *SQL Cookbook* has a recipe that comes awful close to doing wha... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276453 |
Much clearer, thank you. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276420 |
@MonicaCellio That sounds like a good idea to me. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276414 |
@ArtOfCode Not to be a downer (I like the idea), but... I don't think it's appropriate to use the SE logo. It comes with all kinds of potential legal issues. Might I suggest something like an appropriately sized U+2398 ⎘ or U+2945 ⥅ or U+2B8A ⮊ or U+2BB3 ⮳ instead? (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276414 |
@manassehkatz I agree that having something like this which works as an actual filter would be even better. However, that would probably require a bit more UI work if nothing else; because all of the *other* buttons there act as sort selectors, not filters, it would need to be clearly set apart from ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276356 |
What I don't have any plausible explanation for is what caused that, especially since (according to the page footer) there was no release in between my reporting this as a problem and my being able to confirm that the software was no longer behaving that way. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276356 |
@ArtOfCode I'm definitely willing to go so far as to say that something caused my browser to treat the non-unicorn avatars as mixed content, which prevented them from loading because my browser is set to block all mixed content (not just mixed active content). (My avatar, which is sourced through uni... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276414 |
Suggested at 15:51 UTC, rolling out at 16:15 UTC. Now *that* is what I call rapid development. (Admittedly a fairly simple feature; but *still!*) (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276359 |
@ArtOfCode Yes, I'm quite sure I was. I can't seem to reproduce this either myself now. Weird. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276356 |
@ArtOfCode Both posters' avatars in the first linked question. I even went so far as to double-check the DOM before posting this. However, I can't seem to get the same behavior now. Makes me wonder if my browser had somehow got into a weird state, and what I was seeing was a reflection of that; I'm p... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276351 |
Looks like it's been fixed now. Thanks! (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276334 |
Votes on posts is the primary (but not only) source of reputation on SE, but if your goal is to see how others vote on your posts, reputation is only a means by which you're notified of new votes. I do believe that we should focus on the goal, rather than the mechanism. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276334 |
@OlinLathrop In general, I'm inclined to agree that some kind of metric that indicates how useful/correct a user's contributions historically have been is useful. However, your question appears to me to talk not about *rep*, but about *voting*, which is different. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276292 |
FWIW, even though I probably wouldn't frequent a judaism site, I agree with the comment by @Harel13 above. We had much the same type of discussion on Worldbuilding SE, where questions about story characters are off topic, but questions about Santa Claus would be allowed during the Christmas season. T... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276180 |
I'm starting to get used to having some variation of my feature requests implemented almost before I post them. Either the developers here have managed to hack into my computer, or I wait too long before posting about my ideas. :-) (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275914 |
@Lundin That's interesting; I was under the impression that "IoT" specifically *excluded* any considerations about things like security, patchability, or update delivery (let alone long-term such). That said, I agree with your basic point, and that was what prompted me to write https://meta.codidact.... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276178 |
I haven't tried it, but I suspect that would let you segregate different sites *even if* signing in would be network-wide without any override. Also note that SE lumps together everything \*.stackexchange.com (including \*.meta.stackexchange.com); only the few sites that are on different second-level... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276178 |
The signing in part could probably be solved with a simple-enough checkbox "Sign me in across the Codidact network", akin to the "Remember me" checkbox already there. I'm not sure what would be most reasonable for how that should interact with an existing session; something to tell the software that ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #276126 |
Fair enough, but then I would argue that the response shouldn't be 404 Not Found, but rather 405 Method Not Allowed. After all, the requested resource *exists* at the URL in question; it just doesn't support GET specifically. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275959 |
I'm probably one of the people who are *least* inclined to blame *anyone* specifically, @luap42 :-) I simply want the software that runs Codidact to be as good as it can be, and since I can't really contribute patches, I figure I can at least contribute clear bug reports so others can reproduce and u... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275949 |
Looks like it's working. Thank you. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275940 |
@MonicaCellio I'm not particularly partial as to what exactly is in the URL, as long as it works for reaching the post. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275808 |
https://meta.codidact.com/a/275860/275863 has an example of Markdown footnotes, complete with linking back and forth between the reference and the footnote itself. / cc @NickAlexeev (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275857 |
The ability to make changes to categories is not accessible to mere moderators. Or if it is, it's awfully well hidden. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |