|
Furty wrote:
Why don't you protect your members from spam?
From where I'm sitting they do. Also, that kind of interogation is likely to raise the heckles a bit.
Furty wrote:
I setup a special email account purely for CP, and it's just breached 60 spam emails a day
Me too. And it isn't. I never received spam on that email account until I signed up for a YahooGroups list on the same email account. I've now switched email accounts again and it is spam free again.
"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell
Not getting the response you want from a question asked in an online forum: How to Ask Questions the Smart Way!
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
that kind of interogation is likely to raise the heckles a bit.
Nah, it's cool. I hate spam as much as the next person and I'd want to know that the person I give my email address to is looking after it.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
How about moving the public forums to one or two servers and use the rest for everything else? It looks like there is around 300-1,000 new posts per day in the forums. There would be quite a number more for people reading them, but if they are one their own series of servers, the system would not slow down when someone tries to archive the entire site. The forums would continue to run at full pace.
Rocky <><
www.HintsAndTips.com - Now with GMail Queue
www.MyQuickPoll.com - 2004 Election poll is #33
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to provide an option whereby our email addresses are not shown to the people we respond to? Currently, an email-notification response includes the email address of the person who sent the reply. It would be much better if the email address was not provided, or at least an option to remove it (permanently or per-post maybe).
Ryan "Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
|
|
|
|
|
I have suggested this in the past. I think it would certainly cut down on the number of unsolicted questions I get asked via email after I've responded to a post.
I don't see the relevance of having the email address in the mail, surely the username is enough.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
I think it would certainly cut down on the number of unsolicted questions I get asked via email after I've responded to a post.
Yeah same here. Or when people respond to your answer by emailing direct, rather than on the forum. I've had that happen lots of times as well.
Michael P Butler wrote:
I don't see the relevance of having the email address in the mail, surely the username is enough.
Absolutely. It's not used for anything at all, other than spam of course 
Ryan "Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
|
|
|
|
|
Two things I would like to see.
1. All new posts mentioning the word "GMail" should be automatically rejected as unacceptable content.
2. A per-user filter where we could prevent any post with the word GMail from appearing in the downloaded page would be nice.
Ryan "Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan Binns wrote:
All new posts mentioning the word "GMail" should be automatically rejected as unacceptable content.
But by that standard, your post would not have been accepted! And what if someone has a legitimate question about G-mail? Should we ostracize them?
Ryan Binns wrote:
A per-user filter where we could prevent any post with the word GMail from appearing in the downloaded page would be nice.
Isn't that a little extreme? And if the word "GMail" was excluded, what would the post contain in it's stead, "*****"? It would be really ugly to have a post about GMail that only had a bunch "*" on the page.
Also, what would be done about articles about G-mail? Would the person have to change their filter just to view the article?
Aaron Eldreth
TheCollective4.com
My Articles
I hereby boycott this poll. Really....
- Leppie
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Eldreth wrote:
But by that standard, your post would not have been accepted!
It wouldn't need to be because there would be no other posts about it, which is the whole problem in the first place.
Aaron Eldreth wrote:
And what if someone has a legitimate question about G-mail? Should we ostracize them?
If they ask anywhere except the GMail forum then yes.
Aaron Eldreth wrote:
Isn't that a little extreme?
No.
Aaron Eldreth wrote:
And if the word "GMail" was excluded, what would the post contain in it's stead, "*****"? It would be really ugly to have a post about GMail that only had a bunch "*" on the page.
It's already really ugly to have a post about GMail in the first place. I'm talking about completely removing any post that mentions it. Not just the word. The whole message... as if it doesn't exist.
Aaron Eldreth wrote:
Also, what would be done about articles about G-mail? Would the person have to change their filter just to view the article?
People can view whatever articles they like. The problem is in the message boards, where the one message board is used for lots of topics. GMail was completely taking over the lounge and as far as I know the soapbox as well (I never visit the soapbox. I'm just going on what I've heard).
I have no problems with GMail itself. What I do have a problem with is the ridiculously huge amounts of messagesspam that people have been posting about it. It got sickening after the first couple of days of it, and that was ages ago. If it doesn't stop I will have no choice but to leave CP.
Ryan "Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan Binns wrote:
It wouldn't need to be because there would be no other posts about it, which is the whole problem in the first place.
So now we come back to the paradox. Which should have come first?
Ryan Binns wrote:
If they ask anywhere except the GMail forum then yes.
I agree with that, though you did not specify that in your original post.
Ryan Binns wrote:
It's already really ugly to have a post about GMail in the first place. I'm talking about completely removing any post that mentions it. Not just the word. The whole message... as if it doesn't exist.
I'm slightly confused. You said "I'm talking about completely removing any post that mentions it." Does that include the G-mail forum?
I'll assume that you meant remove from any forum but the G-mail one. What if someone makes a joke about G-mail? Should their post be rejected because of a joke?
Ryan Binns wrote:
GMail was completely taking over the lounge
Hmmm..... I can see the headlines now. "The CodeProject Lounge Netscaped by G-mail"
Ryan Binns wrote:
If it doesn't stop I will have no choice but to leave CP.
That is extreme. If it irritates you so, why not just stop visiting the lounge?
--
Aaron Eldreth
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Eldreth wrote:
So now we come back to the paradox. Which should have come first?
Some level of respect for others from people posting spam about it would have been nice. But they had none, so we have a spam problem as a result.
Aaron Eldreth wrote:
I agree with that, though you did not specify that in your original post.
That's because I wrote it before the forum existed.
Aaron Eldreth wrote:
I'll assume that you meant remove from any forum but the G-mail one.
That's right.
Aaron Eldreth wrote:
What if someone makes a joke about G-mail? Should their post be rejected because of a joke?
I don't see why not. As I said, it would be a filter that people could individually turn on/off as they wanted. People can read what they like.
Aaron Eldreth wrote:
why not just stop visiting the lounge?
I don't visit much else on the site. The VC++ forum, a couple articles here and there. The lounge used to be really good fun before GMail came along and took over. Now that the forum's been made, I'll wait and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
How about a ban on Political comments in the SoapBox.
Amleth Ojalen
ABLogFile - a realtime log viewer, a work in progress
ABBaseCalc - a simple base converter
ABHotKeys - you don't know the functionality your missing out on till you use it.
|
|
|
|
|
That's what the SoapBox is there for. It catches all political comments, and keeps the other forums clean.
|
|
|
|
|
What about keeping the soap box clean ?
Amleth Ojalen
ABLogFile - a realtime log viewer, a work in progress
ABBaseCalc - a simple base converter
ABHotKeys - you don't know the functionality your missing out on till you use it.
|
|
|
|
|
amleth wrote:
What about keeping the soap box clean?
Some things just aren't meant to happen.
Aaron Eldreth
TheCollective4.com
My Articles
I hereby boycott this poll. Really....
- Leppie
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Eldreth wrote:
Some things just aren't meant to happen
Like water running up hill. Except that there is a strange geological phenomena on the west coast of Scotland at a place called the Electric Brae[^] where water, balls, wheels, vehicles etc. do run up hill.
"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell
Not getting the response you want from a question asked in an online forum: How to Ask Questions the Smart Way!
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Like water running up hill.
Exactly. Or like making a C++ developer learn Vb. 
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Except that ...
I think that there are exceptions to everyting. Except the ban on G-mail invites in the lounge. 
Aaron Eldreth
TheCollective4.com
My Articles
I used to be indecisive,
but now I'm not too sure
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Eldreth wrote:
I think that there are exceptions to everyting.
It is the exception that proves the rule.
From the C.A.M. department of Education: And before anyone says: How can an exception "prove" a rule? If it an exception it should disprove the rule. I would like to point out that the word prove comes from Latin and the direct translation back to English is "to test".
"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell
Not getting the response you want from a question asked in an online forum: How to Ask Questions the Smart Way!
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
It is the exception that proves the rule.
You are correct as usual Colin.
--
Aaron Eldreth
|
|
|
|
|
That's what the soap in the box is for. For cleaning up the mess afterwards.
"You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03
"Obviously ??? You're definitely a superstar!!!" mYkel - 21 Jun '04
Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
|
|
|
|
|
But it makes it rather hard to find the dirty jokes and other crud you don't want your kid sister to read.
Searching the web without Google is like straining sewage with your teeth.
Userfriendly, 2003/06/07
|
|
|
|
|
Whilst I have no problem with people using large and colourful signatures.
It would be nice if we had an option whether or not we saw the signatures whilst reading posts. I find a lot of signatures distract my eye away from the content of the post. It would be nice to have the option to browse the forums without seeing signatures
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing the signature becomes part of the message once it has been posted. If you post a message, change your sig, you'll see that your message before the sig change, will not have changed. The CPU cycles needed to find and hide signatures, are probably better spent elsewhere.
I guess one could argue that messages and sigs should be normalized, but that would still "waste" a lot of CPU cycles spent better elsewhere.
Just my 2 bits.
--
...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
I'm guessing the signature becomes part of the message once it has been posted. If you post a message, change your sig, you'll see that your message before the sig change, will not have changed. The CPU cycles needed to find and hide signatures, are probably better spent elsewhere.
I didn't know if they were stored as two seperate columns in the database or not. Or if they were displayed by a specific css class.
It seemed a more reasonable request than asking for html tags beyond anchor to be disabled in sigs. Most people probably don't care one way or another but I find large sigs and ones with images/colour to be annoying but then again I'm a dinosaur who tries to keep to the old usenet rules 
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
I'm a dinosaur who tries to keep to the old usenet rules
No, u are not. Some signatures are really soooo big and colored and ugly. I've never used usenet (too young), but I don't like this *art* as well. Fortunately, there are not blinking sigs. Please do not disable italic, underline, etc.! yeah, I use them 
best regards,
David
Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
