|
The title says it all, and the rapid adoption of the dotnet cli tooling is a good motivation.
"'Do what thou wilt...' is to bid Stars to shine, Vines to bear grapes, Water to seek its level; man is the only being in Nature that has striven to set himself at odds with himself."
—Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
I added the non-existing tag to your question, and I believe that successfully created it:
Quote: New tags may be hidden due to caching (expires under an hour).
The quick brown ProgramFOX jumps right over the Lazy<Dog>.
|
|
|
|
|
ProgramFOX wrote: I added the non-existing tag to your question
Thank you.
"'Do what thou wilt...' is to bid Stars to shine, Vines to bear grapes, Water to seek its level; man is the only being in Nature that has striven to set himself at odds with himself."
—Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
Some spammers are getting there by signing up and posting 2 spam "questions": Ilkuikl - Professional Profile[^] - has 553 points, and his spam homepage is visible. Perhaps 575 would be enough?
His rep breakdown:
With just the two questions to his name:
Articles 0
Tech Blogs 0
Messages 0
Q&A Questions 2
Q&A Answers 0
Tips/Tricks 0
Reference 0
Comments 0
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
+1. And while on the topic, I looked at the privileges page and I saw that Silver Participant is enough to "bypass spam checks". But as Silver Participant is extremely easy to get by filling in all data to become a 'Professional', I'd suggest removing Silver Participant for the "bypass spam checks" privilege (or raise it to Gold).
The quick brown ProgramFOX jumps right over the Lazy<Dog>.
|
|
|
|
|
Not to worry - I have the "bypass spam checks" check and that doesn't stop the little darling from grabbing a mail once in a while.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
At this point we're going to leave things how they are. It's not perfect, but it's workable
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
SoapBox1.0 has lost its rules and conditions of membership. It has been replaced by [quote] This member doesn't quite have enough reputation to be able to display their biography and homepage. [/quote]
The rules and conditions are necessary, please return them to their proper place.
Thanks.
modified 1-Aug-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
It should probably also have the option to report it as "abusive / trolling" or "spam" disabled. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm - that's an interesting one.
We've disabled the bio for low rep members / orgs because we were getting absolutely hammered with bio spammers. To open it up would open it back up for spammers.
What's a sensible and safe alternative? Certain number of members? Certain number of posts? Bio is only visible to members?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
How about a hidden flag in the database, which can only be set by the Hamster In Chief via a manual SQL UPDATE?
After all, it's only for the one group. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
...and have 13M developers look at me disapprovingly?
No - I think we need to build a proper AI-powered rules engine that, given enough training data, community input, reprogramming, a few minor hacks, some hard-coded logic and 15 layers of modern technology stacks will automatically decide, based on a really, really good random number generator, whether the bio should be displayed.
I couldn't show my face in public otherwise.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking you must already have a flag like that, to indicate that the messages can't be reported or voted on.
Even if you can't reuse that, what's one more flag to indicate that the group can't be reported, and always displays its bio?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Make it a privilege, not a right, and make it dependant on the quality of the members. Two or more gold or platinum members means "public homepage" = true.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Two or more gold or platinum members means "public homepage" = true.
Someone get this man a beer.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
Say thanks to Chris 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
What about giving a boost to that account's reputation so that it gets over the limit?
That's even easier
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
That still wouldn't prevent the group from being reported as "abusive", though.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that's right
But if they have survived until now... 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for replying quickly.
As you know, the forum is read only for non-members and read/write access for members. The forum rules & conditions (the bio) should be visible to both kinds of members so that the rules etc are in plain sight for all to see.
The forum has been around for many years. Is "minimum time living" an option if you are concerned about new CP members doing naughty things? Of course, legitimate groups may not been as long established as SB1.0
Many thousands of postings have been made in that forum over the years. So, yes, you could place a minimum number of posting before enabling custom bio's. However, legitimate groups with too fewer postings would get caught out.
We have over 200 members, but as with CP, not all are active members. A minimum number of members could work, but then, there are other legitimate groups with fewer members. Deciding on minimum membership numbers could offend other legitimate groups by giving a membership criteria as being too low.
Perhaps the URL of legitimate groups could be the enabling factor, that presumes you have some knowledge of who such legitimate groups are.
modified 1-Aug-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
How is it now?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Chris. It looks like as before. 
modified 1-Aug-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Today when I enter a forum the OP is always expanded. Wasn't doing that about a week ago.
I have using Firefox.
Looking at my profile page I didn't see anyway to turn that off.
This includes the stickies at the top of each forum. Which means I must scroll through each forum guidelines even to see first message.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have any JavaScript error at the Console?
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Today it is no longer doing it.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
