|
John Cardinal wrote: Also there is a log showing who allowed what and finally there should be a snapshot system to reverse damage inadvertant or deliberate, but maybe only the last three edits or something so as not to eat up too much storage.
You're doomed in the face of deliberate damage if you go that way. All the wrecker needs to do is make enough resubmits after his initial attack that the good version is pushed out of the buffer.
--
Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Just wondering -
Like VC++ discussion board, do we need - "How to get an answer to your question" in ATL and COM discussion board?
Most recent post I saw was a request for VBScript code placed in ATL discussion board!
These posts simply push down other relevant threads on these disussion boards.
"Why am I concerned about these discussion boards?"
- because I have replied to such posts couple of times with indications about wrong forum
- I always visit these discussion boards besides lounge
Now, I hope I am posting this message in correct forum
-- modified --
Poor communication on my part. What I meant was "How to get an answer to your question" is missing in ATL COM discussion board. I was seeking your opinion about having "How to get an answer to your question" in ATL and COM discussion boards as well because there are many irrelevant posts or cross posts in these forums as well.
S o h a i l K a d i w a l a
To Err Is Human; to Debug, Divine
modified 21-Apr-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
It's there to help people understand the rules. That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone reads it or follows it, but some do. I'm sure it probably greatly reduces cross-posting, shouting and etc.
Trinity: Neo... nobody has ever done this before.
Neo: That's why it's going to work.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it helps the people who are new to the site and willing to "behave good" to not do accidental mistakes.
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers! We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP Linkify!|Fold With Us!
|
|
|
|
|
Following on from the Empty Messages post (below), would it be possible to ensure that users have to have unique, none-empty, user names?
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
I think they are using a single non-printable character.
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: single non-printable character.
Looking at the source of a post for user 3313989[^] it's empty.
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
|
|
|
|
|
They don't need a username to sign up, but do need a username to post.
Clearly my code isn't listening to what I'm telling it to do.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Clearly my code isn't listening to what I'm telling it to do
"that's wierd" says the programmer
rotfl. here is a new example of anonymous user[^]
|
|
|
|
|
You and I must have been taught by the same teacher. Someday I'll rip his head off.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler]
Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp]
The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson]
I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris, Hi All,
As we already encountered sometimes, some people create - voluntarily or not - messages with empty messages. This implies the post to be "unclickable", and quite unreadable. also, there's still the way of editing the page' source and get the link to get it openend again, but we shouln't have to do that.
to counter this, couldn't we (couldn't you Chris) add the icon placed before the subject into to <a></a> link tag ?
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, he may also put something like [Untitled] if it's got no title.
------------------------------ "The Soapbox has been so ..."
|
|
|
|
|
The system shouldn't allow empty titles but obviously we've got a bug or an exploit or both.
To save me time hunting can you please send me a link to an offending message?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
hum, i had one, but i asked the OP to modify his message and set a title, which is what he did...
BTW, here is the post[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Messages without subject like here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It sucks when I was no where near to that post before.
-Prakash
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but a necessary evil to stop the kiddies abusing the system.
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: Yes, but a necessary evil to stop the kiddies abusing the system.
Yes I perfectly understand your point, but when i could not vote on some post because someone else from 2000+ employees behind the company proxy voted it, then it really sucks.
-Prakash
|
|
|
|
|
Mr.Prakash wrote: Yes I perfectly understand your point, but when i could not vote on some post because someone else from 2000+ employees behind the company proxy voted it, then it really sucks.
Yeah, if Smitha votes on a message, then I can't. Pity really. Maybe in CP v2 they'll fix this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a problem that can be fixed. The only way of identifying someone on the internet is by IP address, so that's the only thing we can check to ensure people aren't abusing the system.
Voting is meant to provide an overall feel for the value of a post or article. If some members are unable to vote then that's a pity, but there are millions of others who can. So while it may be frustrating it's still better than making it easier for vote stacking to occur.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: So while it may be frustrating it's still better than making it easier for vote stacking to occur.
Hey Chris,
Yes, I understand the reasoning behind this. But couldn't you make it easier for regular trusted members (say members who've been active for at least 3 years) by allowing a flag to be set that will allow them to vote (even if someone from the same IP has voted already on the same post)? Could you perhaps put that into a low-priority todo list
|
|
|
|
|
That's the first reasonable sounding workaround I've seen for this issue. Most kidiot's won't be willing to wait years to pull their pranks, and if the requirement is that both accounts are really long term it'd solve the problem of someone stuffing a ballot by creating a new account and voting with it before the old one.
--
Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
|
|
|
|
|
dan neely wrote: That's the first reasonable sounding workaround I've seen for this issue.
Thank you
|
|
|
|