|
We should remove the one at the top right if the approval widget is being shown.
Would that help?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Yes that would probably help.
I did notice yesterday, that clicking an item in the approval menu (typically one of the non-approve items) it goes up to the report flag locations at the top right, but if you click again an item, it then goes to the Approve location, so you end up with both blobs visible.
Also, on the Member Profile, the flag doesn't look right where it is. I would maybe move the member bookmark to the top left of the image, and put the flag to the top right of the image, or put them both side by side at the top right (with the flag on far right) or you maybe have other ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
How is it now?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, that appears better with only the 1 location.
|
|
|
|
|
I asked a question and voted all answers with 5.
One/two days later I voted all answers again 5 to make sure that I did not forget one of the experts.
And surprising: It Counts again +1 for me for "Vote Question/Answer up"
Not a serious thing...but this forum discusses programming issues/Problems
I think it is a bug not a feature.
Kind regards
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that it shows it again, but does not actually increase your reputation. Could you please check that?
The quick red ProgramFOX jumps right over the Lazy<Dog> .
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Sir, I will check this tomorrow.
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
It is like you described it. It shows them only, but it does not count.
So it is _not_ a bug it is a Feature
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like Sean made some edits. The date you see is relative to your timezone so Sean may have made the edits the day after you posted.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would be a great idea if it was possible to include screenshots
when suggesting a solution.
|
|
|
|
|
No it wouldn't. It really wouldn't.
The problem with including pictures in a question or answer is that this is open to idiots abusing the system and including pictures that are not safe for work. With an article, this is different because we have a fairly effective set of moderators who would help weed out the offensive.
This suggestion has popped up many times.
|
|
|
|
|
Very good point! And also a reminder that People should learn again to express them in language (Ok, I'm not native english therefore this was maybe a boomerang ).
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Bruno Sprecher wrote: this was maybe a boomerang
So it suddenly came back to you? (Like this comic[^])
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
---
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
|
|
|
|
|
Similar
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 14-Nov-14 9:06am.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there something wrong? I am unable to upload images by drag and drop. I have to click browse button, select image.Then it appears bellow the box with X mark. Then again I have to click upload option. WHY?
|
|
|
|
|
Is this still happening? It's working fine for me.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
I find I get that as well now and again. To resolve it, I have to "save draft" close and re-open to recover.
|
|
|
|
|
Next time that happens can you please take a look at the Javascript console and see if there are any errors?
Also, are you trying to upload a file that you previously tried to upload when this happens? Or do you also see this happening when you're trying to upload new files?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
After reading this Your article sucks, where's part 3 already?[^] and several others like it, might I suggest that we curb who can vote an article with a mark less than 3.
In order to vote an article with a mark below 3 the user needs to have acquired some basic level of recognition on the site e.g. have at least 500 reputation points for example. They can still vote on articles, downvote/upvote and do everything else, just limit how they vote on articles until such time as they have proved themselves.
Is this a good or a bad idea?
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a bad idea.
I'd like some debate on this.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I find the idea at least worth to think about it. I don't know how complicated would be to implement, but if something in that way has to be done, I would not only use the reputation, or in case of reputation something higher. It is easy to post some items and get points fast.
Maybe mixing usage time as well? I don't only mean registered at XXX, but number of logins or things like that. At least that would reduce the number of puppets or the quick "create account and revenge"
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.
|
|
|
|
|
I think anything that can help numb the pain of dealing with spammers etc. is a good thing, those who don't understand or object probably are a spammers.
e.g.
1) Members who do not change their default display name from "Member XXXXXXX" should not be allowed to post articles/tips/replies.
2) Members who have not replied to at least "x messages", i.e. interacted with others cannot be allowed to post New Topics / Articles / Tips etc.
There are probably other constraints that can be considered to help.
Note: OnePlus[^] use the 5 message replies rule before creating new topics in their forums as I found out when I went to post a query and this forced me to read around the site, look at other conversations and get a feel for the place and engage. And in doing so answered a few other queries I had in my skull, no longer needing to ask them.
modified 13-Nov-14 14:43pm.
|
|
|
|