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 #275856 |
@OlinLathrop I'm not an administrator. However, I believe Monica can help you out there. As for the part about showing that one should have moderator powers, that was more in reference to someone who hasn't been a driving force in getting a site set up but being onboarded as a moderator -- such a per... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275804 |
@luap42 That's more or less what at least I had in mind for the UI for Javascript-enabled browsers. The current simple link to a search page would still be nice as a fallback for those who have Javascript disabled. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275804 |
Maybe one possible, workable middle ground could be a fold-out when clicking Search (sort of like how "add a comment" folds out a comment textbox), with fallback to a specific "search" page in case the Javascript doesn't work, and a link to the specific "search" page for more in-depth guidance? (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275776 |
@MonicaCellio Here's one example of a question on EE SE that uses Circuitlab (I make no claims as to its quality): https://electronics.stackexchange.com/q/254925 In general, searching for the string "simulate this circuit" on EE SE returns reasonable hits. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #275797 |
Myself, I like *Imaginative Science* better than most other suggestions I've seen so far. I think that one captures the fact that it's about things *based* in science, but with imagination added on top of that. Sort of like "what if?" but without the connotation of "anything goes". It also doesn't su... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75046 |
Thank you @ArtOfCode (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #271673 |
Whatever the issue was, it seems to be working now. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75059 |
Not sure why this got downvoted, to be honest. Seems like a perfectly reasonable suggestion on top of the original one. Default to what everyone is (should be) familiar with, namely a username and password pair; allow turning on extra security on top of that *if and only if so desired*. Not everyone ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75046 |
It seems to work fine. However, the `.` at the end of the URL can easily be interpreted as part of the link, while in reality it's meant as a sentence terminator. Please remove it in the email to avoid confusion. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75058 |
Monica pretty well captured what I too have in mind for this site. If you (any "you") can define the magic system sufficiently that *it could as well* be, say, laws of nature -- just laws of nature that work differently from ours -- then chances are that the question is perfectly fine, because those ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74929 |
I've been thinking about this, and if we settle for Speculative Science as the site name, I honestly think we could do worse than speculative-science.codidact.com (with or without the hyphen, though I'm inclined to prefer with over without). Yes, it's perhaps slightly long; but it's also very descrip... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74823 |
@imsodin There's another issue with "Science-based Fiction" as a name that I can see. While various subgenres of fiction are likely to be major drivers for peoples' interest, the site itself doesn't need to restrict itself to fiction. One source of questions on a similar site elsewhere has been "how ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74852 |
Adding to the above, some of those questions may be appropriate on [Writing](https://writing.codidact.com/) (say, "what techniques can I use to express this idea?") or the hopefully soon-to-be [Speculative Science](https://meta.codidact.com/q/74823) (say, "how can I plausibly get this effect?"). Just... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75015 |
Also, I see what you did there with "feed" in the context of a cooking site... :-) (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #75015 |
*"The two categories feed each other."* Compare: the writing challenges over on Writing (both SE and Codidact) which have sometimes prompted questions being asked on the main site. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74951 |
@ArtOfCode Not to rush you, but can you say whether this on the roadmap? (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74980 |
@ArtOfCode I agree that emailed confirmation codes aren't as secure as a proper 2FA solution. However, between what's already available here and what I'm proposing, there should be something that works for everyone. Also, what I'm proposing (password *before* confirmation code) seems like it should a... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74965 |
It doesn't invalidate your concern, but note that Codidact also supports two-factor authentication (2FA), which should make an account compromise much more difficult for the attacker. (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74964 |
Definitely relevant, perhaps even a duplicate? [Spread the word - SE meta information page?](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/74781) (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74929 |
@MonicaCellio A short domain name is nice. A *descriptive* (or, for that matter, easy to remember) domain name is, I think, even nicer. Short and descriptive is best, but if going for short means we lose out on descriptiveness or specificity, I think I'd rather have a slightly longer but otherwise be... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74951 |
@ArtOfCode Yes, I'm thinking of bringing the post to the top of the RSS feed, in much the same way it's brought to the top of the "active" tab on the site. I was referring to prepending text to the entry content. Also, having had a few minutes to think about it, using the answer permalink for the fee... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74951 |
I'm not saying the RSS feed needs to actually feature *the content of the answer* per se, in case of new answers; I just want the feed to reflect the fact that something material has happened to the question, and because one is interested enough to follow the RSS feed for the category in the first pl... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74951 |
@luap42 I haven't checked the RSS/Atom specs, but I'm pretty sure that's what the `<entry> <id></id>` is for. If it's the same as an already seen ID, it's an update; if it's an unseen one, it's a brand new entry. Alternatively, in case of answers, the ID (`<entry> <id></id>`) could be set to the answ... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74929 |
I agree with @HDE 226868 that "what-if" feels like it invites the wrong kind of content. Is there a particular reason why we wouldn't want something very similar to speculative-science.codidact.com (assuming we settle on calling the site Speculative Science)? Sure, it's perhaps slightly on the long s... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74943 |
@Mithrandir24601 It's also worth remembering that, in addition to bulk import, if you've asked a question on WB nothing really prevents you from simply re-asking it on a Codidact site, as well as the possibility of pulling in additional, specific questions that @Monica Cellio mentioned. It gets sligh... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74897 |
Throwing this out in response: How about one category "Dungeons & Dragons" and one category "Other Systems"? (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74887 |
Basically, what is gained by focusing on the "minimalism" part, as opposed to the overarching subject matter? (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74887 |
I didn't downvote this, but I'm still struggling to understand what would be gained by bringing together diverse "minimalist" groups, as opposed to having "minimalist" subgroupings within other communities. Examples: why can't "minimalist writing" questions be asked on Writing, "minimalist camping" o... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #74847 |
I don't see how just "minimalist" is broadly applicable enough, yet *specific* enough, to have a large following. For example, minimalist camping questions would probably get better answers from the enthusiasts at [The Great Outdoors](https://outdoors.codidact.com/) than from, say, a "minimalist prog... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |
| Comment | Post #39448 |
As Sampo Sarrala said, reputation score (as a single number) alone doesn't really mean much. SE tied a lot of things to reputation; I think Codidact can do better. Reputation score really just means you've posted content others in the community have thought was useful. While that's worth rewarding in... (more) |
— | almost 4 years ago |