|
I'm the type of person to fix problems,not ignore them.
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't be fixing the issue to solve the problem with that person and not having to need the block?
Sorry... it was too tempting.
I'll get my coat and show me the way out myself.
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 thoroughly support your question, and you're right to ask it!
EDIT CLARIFICATION: This post was directed toward Nelek's comment, not the other guy's.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
modified 6-Jun-22 18:30pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I generally am too, but I'm also the type of person who balances resources, costs, and how this will affect the overall user experience.
We've had this request one or two times, and while adding a table that links users and blocked users is easy, it does affect system performance due to our caching.
We could
- do a custom query, right at the database level, for every user who has an active block list, in order to return just the messages that are viewable
- get messages from the cache(s) as we do now, and simple mask out the items that are blocked.
The first option is the best, except it will kill performance.
The second is easy to implement, but if a user has blocked lots of people their pages could look pretty bad. The noise to signal ratio could make the experience a little rough.
An alternative is to get a page of messages from the cache, prune out the blocked messages, then keep requesting pages from the cache until we have a "full" page. Faster, better, messier for us, but doable.
But there's another issue with option #2 (and 2a). You'll be left with gaps in the thread view. You'll see responses that don't relate to a message you see. You'll see quotes of blocked messages, which can become a can of worms to hide, and relegates option 1 as the most practical solution.
Now having said all this, we get this request maybe once every few years. There are simply too many other things we'd like to add / fix / improve. If there was a clamouring demand we'd bump it up, but at this point it's not in our shortlist.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
As I said...
It is not that simple.
Thank you anyways for the explanation, is always nice to have a small look into the hamsters gauge 
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's not pretty in the bowels of the engine room. I refuse to play the game that our code is perfect. My code looks the same as what I look like on waking in the morning. It's a bit rough and needs a shave.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Simple: You post angry and abusive messages aimed at a long-standing member because two years ago he politely asked someone to use the correct forum for asking technical questions.
You then escalate by demanding the option to block users you don't like from seeing your comments.
Having drawn our attention to the thread[^], we all decide you're a troll, and you get kicked off the site. Et voila - no more CodeProject pixies forcing you to read and reply to old threads you don't like.
This is what's generally known as "the Streisand effect". Your messages had not been reported in the Spam & Abuse forum, and would probably have gone unnoticed if you hadn't drawn attention to them. By trying to be "clever" and drag the hamsters into your personal vendetta, you have only succeeded in harming yourself.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: This is what's generally known as "the Streisand effect".
As we say in Spain... Never go to bed without learning something new.
I didn't know that. Thanks 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, I've just updated IntelliPort[^] article, but it is not shown on main site page! Is it intended? Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
Because the update was minor it doesn't appear on the homepage.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The past couple of days has seen a flood of new spambot accounts. Maybe the procedure for opening an account can be modified to attenuate this. If not, I suspect the flood will continue, because it's easy for the spammers to keep pounding the site once they've automated it.
|
|
|
|
|
Something like
a.) Captcha
b.) Src IP check?
|
|
|
|
|
I dislike Captcha, and apparently so do the site hamsters, though it might be reasonable while creating and verifying an account.
Source IP address is even worse. Competent spammers use a VPN, which makes it impossible to distinguish them from legitimate users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm no expert in this, so I didn't suggest a solution. If forced to answer, it'd be Captcha. 
|
|
|
|
|
Every time I've looked at the first page of QA over the past couple of weeks, a certain set of questions posted between 2010 and 2018 are always at the top - seemingly all related to URLs and redirections.
For example, at the moment, on the first page of 20 questions, only six were posted within the last year:
There's never any indication of what dragged them back to the top of the list. I suspect they're being actively targeted by a spam-bot, which isn't actually managing to get past the moderation filter.
If we can't have the questions drop back to their old position when a spam answer is deleted, and we can't prevent them from jumping to the top when a moderated spam answer is posted, is it perhaps worth "locking" these threads once they've been targeted multiple times?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, we're seeing it too. I've added a task our end to help try and keep things sensible by resetting the "last active" date after spam has been removed.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
XColorSpectrumCtrl - a non-MFC color picker control that displays a color spectrum [^]
The download is flagged by Kaspersky (and possibly another AV) as containing a Trojan that wasn't detected until 3 years after the article was written = so it's probably a false positive, but can you look and remove the XColorSpecturmCtrlTest.EXE file from it?
"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!
|
|
|
|
|
Sophos is also flagging it as infected.
|
|
|
|
|
May be legit detection then - but a trojan that escapes detection for three years but gets into a professional developer's EXE download? It's a bit too unlikely for my taste, but deleting the offending file is the best solution, just to be sure.
"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!
|
|
|
|
|
Checked this again on another machine using Avast AV and it reckons its OK.
|
|
|
|
|
Paloalto Cortex XDR does let it through. Btw. XColorSpectrumCtrlTest.exe is dated on 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
And the trojan was detected in 2011 according to Kaspersky.
"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!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
