|
We're fixing this as we speak
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Probably another symptom of this post[^].
Take a look at this article[^]. The fun starts at the first bullet. When I revised it and printed a .pdf only two days ago, it was all good.
EDIT: Now I see OG's post below[^], which must also be related to this.
modified 30-Mar-21 6:41am.
|
|
|
|
|
Have a look at my answer to this: Why I am not getting any output?[^]
In edit mode, it ends with this:
But I'll give you a hint: when do you reset <code>i</code>?
But it displays as this:
But I'll give you a hint: when do you reset i?
Oh good, it happens here as well ... and yes, Markdown is off as this image shows:
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Yep - both the <code> and <pre> formatting seems to be messed up in the latest update.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
No, missing ">". Our end, my fault, all fixed.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
What I'm thinking is a list visible to those who can see the "messages" and "QA" moderation queues, to which we can add and remove the "dodgy ones": probable spam setup, spam testers, and such like.
It doesn't stop anyone posting, but it alerts us when they change it, post something new, or get a reply.
We probably all have mental watch list, but I for one am having difficulty remembering what I had for supper last night, so 20 or so "Member 15nnnnnn"s is way beyond my meager capacity. Yes, yes - I can write it down, or have a spreadsheet - but a common list we can all reference would be so much more usable!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Can you paint a bit of a picture of what you're thinking?
You can currently Watch any member, section, forum, article etc you wish, and then go to your Items You Follow list (or just check the homepage) to view what's happening.
Do you mean a list where members manually add/remove items? The moderation list is all those items marked "In Moderation" so if you want to add items to that then we need to give you an easier way to relabel stuff
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
No, not adding posts to moderation - we can easily enough raise existing messages in S&A.
I'm thinking we get members (One to keep an eye on... (ΧΡΥΣΟΥΛΑ ΠΑΠΑΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΟΥ)[^] for example) where what they have posted isn't spam ... but it stinks of "future spam".
At the moment, they go in S&A like Richard did with this one.
But ... they get scrolled off pretty quickly - a lot of spammers to help with that - so it's easy to forget them. Plus, my spreadsheet list isn't anything Richard could check if Mr RussianName posts more of the same on Friday.
It'd be nice to have a list (and maybe a user flag option for those with permission) to say "watch this one" and have that be shared with all moderators. And if a new post or a reply gets posted, an alert to remind us to check and either de-watch or escalate the member would help.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure if this is going in a good direction. For me it is - at first glance - on public defamation. Sorry, but things seems to go wrong. It seems that the volunteers are getting a little too extreme here. 
modified 24-Apr-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Why?
First off, it isn't public - it's restricted to "trusted members" who make spam / not spam decisions already.
Secondly, it's an extension of things we do informally already - we all have a list of untrusted members that we keep an eye on as we suspect they are up to no good but haven't done anything yet. At present we share that fairly publicly, so if anything this would be less public than existing methods.
Thirdly, this doesn't stop people posting unless they do start to misbehave. And then we can shut them down even faster which is good for us moderators, good for the site, and good for non-spammer members. Spammers are fair game for the ban hammer anyway!
In what way are we getting too extreme? At a guess it's because you are currently in moderation for everything - but that's not a volunteer function, it's that the automated system doesn't trust you because your first posts looked possibly spammy and it routed you to moderation to check. That's where volunteers come in, and I remember letting your posts through. It happens - and it learns, so it will "release you" fairly soon. Not posting links would help, even if they are only to YouTube music vids... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: First off, it isn't public - it's restricted to "trusted members"
Sorry, but that makes it much more suspicious... I remember times...
Yes, sure I see also the fight here against spammers and you are doing a great job! But nevertheless a counterweight won't harm anyone;)
Quote: That's where volunteers come in, and I remember letting your posts through
Thank you;) Well, I also take the right that my posts were neither spam nor abusive. Ok, sometimes very (too) direct... sorry for that
modified 24-Apr-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Sorry, but that makes it much more suspicious.
I don't think so. The alternative is to let it through and kill it as soon as possible after, and we tried that.
The result is called a spam flood and it very quickly becomes the only thing anyone can see on a site, particularly when the spambots locate a vulnerable site.
Public moderation of spam and / or abuse is in fact doing exactly what the spammer / abuser wants - making their cr@p public. Private moderation is the norm, and in fact the only way you can have an "open" site in modern times with more than four or five viewers ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Ok ok, I don't like to waste your time. In my experience here, I trust you so far more or less (more than less). But sorry there are other so called 'protectors' I would ... @@redacted@@
modified 24-Apr-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
First of all... I am writing this on my own perception / experience with the site and my own protector status.
Protector status is like the MVPs it is a temporary status that can end in several ways:
- After a certain inactivity of a protector
- Dropping the status voluntarily
- Status revoked by the admins due to many possible situations
So... if you think some of us protectors are not being moderated or "abusing the badge" just give a message to the admins. Explain why you think that and give a couple of links / concrete examples.
I bet that @Chris-Maunder or @Sean-Ewington would take a close look to check your statements and if you are right, I suppose that that protector / those protectors would get the status revoked pretty fast.
And if I am one of the "so called protectors" you say, I would like to ask you what I have done that you don't agree, so I can explain myself or even apologize if it was a mistake.
At the end we all are normal people that can have errors or misunderstand a concrete context (or lack of it) due to "chat / forum environment" and missing non-written information.
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'm afraid he is no longer with us - I know not why, I see no reports in S&A for his ID.
He may have departed of his own free will.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
maybe a sucket puppet that acomplish his target of blaming on protectors?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Mr RussianName
Written in Greek.
|
|
|
|
|
It's all Greek to me! 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Except Greek. That's Aramaic to me.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 19-Apr-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
For some time now when I try to rollback a previous version of a QA entry I get the following error message:
Failed to rollback article. Error:Creation of article file is not enabled . Please try again later
Since it was rarely important I have not done anything about it. I just tried again and duly got the error message. However, when I refreshed the page I notice that the rollback seems to have worked.
|
|
|
|
|
This article was published and accessible even to non-members despite work-in-progress flag in the submission wizard:
https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5297157/Markdown-Calculator
I don't remember that I removed the check on the checkbox, but even if I accidentally did, I made sure the flag is there. Then I deleted the article, but it is still visible.
It is an essential problem because it makes a spoiler: the plan was to publish the article exactly on April 1st, 2021.
[UPDATE]
After a while, the content of the deleted article is not rendered anymore, except its title, subtitle, and abstract — still a spoiler.
It is shown as "deleted". Now, I'm not sure that I can update it while keeping it invisible to the readers. Will I be able to use the same URL when I publish it on April 1st? If not, will I be able to keep the same name and last part of the URL, ".../Markdown-Calculator"?
Thank you.
—SASergey A Kryukov
modified 15-Mar-21 1:33am.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks very much for your message. You should be able to update that deleted article and when you post it on April 1, it will be treated as a new article and will retain the same last part of the URL.
Currently people can only view the heading of your article if they use the link. It is not visible in searches or on the home page, and it is not visible in your article list.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Sean.
This is good enough.
Are you saying that I have to "uncheck to publish" as we do with not published but not deleted articles?
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to make sure an article stays in Composing status, check the "work in progress box" before publishing. If you have a deleted article and check that box, the same should also be true.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
