|
This problem was solved a while ago. Try to clear your browser cache, it should help.
|
|
|
|
|
Could you advise how to do this on IE10? I've tried resetting everything I can find in the browser, but its still doing it...
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
cmd> ipconfig /flushdns
Maybe?
(and the reason you saw this message twice, Rob, is because I was testing a different account and was distracted while testing. Oops!)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately not, and I was wondering if it could be DNS caching somewhere.
Alas, it turns out I'm being thick. One of the checkboxes on the delete everything dialog in IE actually preserves 'settings for your favourite sites' or similar and requires unchecking whereas I was just checking everything and slamming the mouse button really hard.
Everything is normal again - thanks.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent. Thanks for the update.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Cant remember the exact path but somewhere in the Options window there was a button for deleting cached files, cookies and so on. Have you tried that already?
|
|
|
|
|
Quite right, as mentioned above it appears something needed unchecking rather than its complimentary state. All good again - thanks.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Glad you got it solved 
|
|
|
|
|
Why am I posting this here, rather in "Spam and Abuse:" well, it ties in, I think, with the broader discussion going on about anonymous voting.
Example: [^].
Note you cannot tell who added the tag, and I seriously doubt the OP tagged his own post "No Effort" !
I've been on a bit of a crusade against this practice, at times just clearing tags like this myself.
An obvious fix would be to have the same thing happen that happens when you edit someone's post with a new version being recorded ?
thanks, Bill
«What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning» Werner Heisenberg
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: block anonymous re-tagging of QA posts with insulting remarks
Insulting remarks won't do it.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
pwasser wrote: Insulting remarks won't do it.
Do you understand that I am reporting an action by some 3rd. party who has edited a QA question and added insulting content in the form of a Tag, and that there is no record of the edit, as happens if you edit the content of someone's else's QA question ?
While the frequency of this type of insulting re-tagging has gone down, it still occurs. I would like to think the strong words I wrote to the one of the more frequent nugatory re-taggers last year contributed to this, but I'm not sure.
If we don't know who did the insulting re-tagging, then there's no certain way to report the person who did it.
How would you feel if you saw someone had tagged a question you posted with tags like "No Effort," or, "I am stupid" ... this actually occurred many times in the last year.
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
Well Bill it was irony. I find the retagging of Q&A posts a bit trite and sometimes over the line. I think 'I am stupid' is inappropriate though I have not seen that myself. Most of the retagged questions disappear so others must agree to some extent. It is by no means the worst behaviour in the Q&A but I would not oppose the taggers becoming publicly known.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
pwasser wrote: it was irony
Sorry, "irony" you ain't got. Irony implies wit, and subtlety, and commentary which is context-sensitive.
Schadenfreude, sarcasm, inappropriate use of a forum for discussing serious matters: you got.
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Sorry, "irony" you ain't got.
No Bill irony you ain't got. Did you get out of the wrong side of bed this morning? I responded to your suggestion fully and with civility. You are now displaying the same hubris that the tagger you are railing against does.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
modified 16-Jan-15 20:18pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I would say that editing a question to re-tag was tracked and added to versions list before.
Maybe a change or collateral issue in latest time?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
It is edited by Sergey :link to revision[^]
It can be a point of discussion,but it should not be considered 'insulting'.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
It is edited by Sergey :link to revision[^]. Till now, versions were displayed when question is edited, but i think right now, theres bug i am not sure.
It can be a point of discussion,but it should not be considered 'insulting'.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
Don't if the calculation is correct but this[^] article got me wondering about the weight and removal of the votes.
Currently there's 51 votes and it's a high rank (4.91) article. However, it also has a lot of votes of one and from members with high voting weight. Even further 7 votes have been removed which matches the amount of votes of 1.
So the question is, should the criteria for removing votes take the member voting weight into account and perhaps not to remove the votes so eagerly?
|
|
|
|
|
This is a fairly common issue. A poor article, or one that contains some serious and fundamental flaws, gets lots of upvotes, probably by the author's friends. Is it any wonder we see so many bad samples in Q&A, when they actually try to implement the bad code? Considering the number of downvotes from people who know, including our great and glorious leader, this should have been removed from publication.
|
|
|
|
|
The funny thing is, it's still possible to vote to have an article removed because of poor quality yet very few people do that. I have just voted to have this article removed for this very reason, and I'm the first person to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't see how to do that, apart from the Delete button. Good grief, my eyesight's worse than I thought. 
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect that's the issue (not your eyesight), but the fact that it's not prominent that you can do this. By the time you've reached the comments section, having suffered through the article, the flag has disappeared.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: I'm the first person to do so.
Only because he updated the article, which resets the counter. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Copy-pasting my response to Chris :
Why was it deleted though? It looks like a decent article, lots of effort, screenshots, code samples and detailed explanation. 40,000 views since December. 2000 code-sample downloads and 50 bookmarks. Can't have been bad enough to have got deleted surely? 
|
|
|
|
|
It was deleted because it contains extremely dangerous code. Not the "hack your machine" type code but "Did they REALLY store passwords like that??" type code.
Never reinvent your authentication system if a better, more tested, more secure one is already available.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
