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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edit | Post #284729 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284729 | Initial revision | — | about 3 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Where can I report private issues Follow the "Contact us" link in the page footer In the footer of (I believe every) page, there is a "Contact us" link. Following that takes you to a page that describes how to report issues, specifically calling out security issues as one type of issue that should be handled in a particular manner... (more) |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284679 |
Looks like it is indeed fixed in the currently deployed version (`a0370cd9`). Thank you! (more) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284673 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284673 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284673 | Initial revision | — | about 3 years ago |
| Question | — |
Link to deleted user's post visible on front page but post returns 500; breaks category Atom feed There's a post on the Judaism front page titled Meor eynayim by de rossi by "deleted user" (which looks to actually be a deleted user, since that links to `#` rather than an actual user profile). Following the link to that post results in an Internal Server Error response, for example with error I... (more) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #284472 |
@#8058 Any update? Or does the existing answers cover what you were going to post? (more) |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284523 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #284523 |
Suggested edit: (more) |
helpful | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284473 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284473 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284473 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284488 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #284488 |
Suggested edit: (more) |
helpful | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284480 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284474 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284475 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284476 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284477 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284478 |
Post edited: |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #284474 |
Suggested edit: (more) |
helpful | about 3 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #284475 |
Suggested edit: (more) |
helpful | about 3 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #284476 |
Suggested edit: (more) |
helpful | about 3 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #284477 |
Suggested edit: (more) |
helpful | about 3 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #284478 |
Suggested edit: (more) |
helpful | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #284480 |
Suggested edit: (more) |
helpful | about 3 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) |
— | about 3 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284473 | Initial revision | — | about 3 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Hobbling of users who consistently post low-quality content This is my suggestion for how to implement hobbling of users who consistently post low-quality content. For a final decision, when a user saves a post: 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 positivel... (more) |
— | about 3 years ago |