|
Same problem here, and not just in the Lounge.
[Firefox 26, Win7 x64]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
As I'm a Chromius, it must be a bad case of 'Sean in the Code Base'
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
It's happening in other forums too, I posted in C# and the page I got back wasn't starting at the first thread like it should be (I replied on the first page). Also you don't necessarily have to post, just trying to scroll back through the Lounge I got a blank thread list attempting to visit the Next page after page 2.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a relief, thought it was just me.
Also when clicking on Notification links in emails etc, get taken to a page with only two or 3 message posts, of which none are the message I was expecting to go to.
I smell broken....(not me personnally smelling that is!)
|
|
|
|
|
When the get pished at CP rowers, they get PISHED!
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
Since the point of a spammer is to post links, how about a new low-level privilege that the user has to have in order to post a Q&A or general forum post that contains a link (or lets say a link outside CP)? Maybe something like completing a profile or having an answered, accepted question.
If the post contains a link, the posting page should say "your post contains a hyperlink to a site outside of CP, please remove the link before posting", and not allow the post to be created with the link.
Maybe that will help cut down on the livestream spammers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
It happens every once in a while, scares me too.
|
|
|
|
|
Was that your MOHI for the next 6 months?
(Moment of High Impact) 
|
|
|
|
|
And then some
|
|
|
|
|
True. But is it a good idea? 
[Of course it is, but it's Monday and I have to be silly.]
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
A problem with this is that if a message contains links as part of a code dump then we are stopping someone from legitimately posting a question. That's bad. We could limit URLs to PRE blocks only, but enough spammers have included their entire message in a PRE block to make the process a little pointless.
This one needs to go back to the drawing board.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, how about scrubbing the link before posting, something like:
User attempts to post a question with a link.
System notices a link, scrubs it, then presents it back to the user saying "all links have been scrubbed, please verify before posting".
Insert a placeholder where link was scrubbed, like "link-removed"
User posts with scrubbed link.
That would be able to work inside and outside of pre-tags, most posts with links in pre tags don't access anything the responder would be interested in clicking anyway (usually local network links).
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure what you mean: User posts, system replaces links with placeholder and then invites user to repost with links put back in place?
Spammers are often humans. This won't actually stop them.
|
|
|
|
|
No...
User creates a post with a link. User hits submit.
Page notices the post contains a link. It replaces the link with "link-removed" and then before posting it, it displays a warning to the user that links are not allowed and have been removed.
If the user is OK with it, they hit post. Since links have been removed and replaced with "link-removed", the page posts. If the user puts the link back in, the page shouldn't allow it to post until the links are removed.
The user shouldn't be able to post any links until they get that privilege. This can remove links inside pre tags, usually when a user posts a link in a QA its to a local site or somewhere that people aren't interested in clicking anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
USers may need to post links - or at least URLS - when they are doing things like posting code snippets that are XML and contain schema URLs, or HTML snippets that contain javascript or CSS file includes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone voted a 3 in one of my answer today in QA.And guess what, surprisingly found that was a down-vote. So probably CP adds this new feature and don't like anything neutral, either excellent or worst.
But i think that is not very fair, vote 3 shouldn't count as a dowvote as it was earlier, at least something needs to exist btn very good and very bad, 
Shuvro
|
|
|
|
|
Send me a link to the answer, please. A vote of 3 is specifically meant to be neutral, a non-event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want when any buddy goes to Answer Down voting, it must be write a Reason of answer down voting. must validation apply.
|
|
|
|
|
Just accept that sometimes you get downvoted for no reason, and move on. This has been requested and rejected many times already.
Veni, vidi, abiit domum
|
|
|
|
|
this is a wrong way, ok sir.
|
|
|
|
|
Right or wrong, that's the way it is: live with it. And don't waste time worrying about it, overall you are likely to gain far more than you lose.
Veni, vidi, abiit domum
|
|
|
|
|
Points are not tradeable to money or physical things, you can not put them in your CV, they are just a "game" in a website. If your participation in CP is depending on the points you win... ejem... I better don't finish the sentence.
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.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
