|
I don't use firefox as I try to keep my work computer clean from unnecessary stuff.
(I have a virtual PC with all the browsers)
But I'm not religious about it, so I might check it out.
Thanks
"When did ignorance become a point of view" - Dilbert
|
|
|
|
|
Te hae been requests in the past for user filtering. I'm not sure how well database would hold up under the strain. Where would you draw the line? Five users allowed in your filter? Ten? More? There would have to be a reasonable limit.
I currently have my Noise Level filter set to "very low" because all too often, someone that is a regular (and mostly well liked) can be set upon by univoters for no other reason than a complete lack of humor on the paert of the voter.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Where would you draw the line? Five users allowed in your filter? Ten? More?
Also depends on how many people use that feature. If only 100 people use the filter, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow each of them 100 people in their filter. Though, I doubt many people have that many people they'd not like to hear from. So, I don't think this would be an issue; not in practice anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Not the backroom - this is specifically a forum for those who want to discuss global warming and Obama. Combining the soapbox and the Lounge is a great idea IF everyone marks their posts accurately - which won't happen in a way to make having a "Safe Filter" option a safe option.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: which won't happen in a way to make having a "Safe Filter" option a safe option
I'm not so sure about that. Say the Lounge and Soapbox were combined in a way that they were obviously two different things. For example, they Lounge is on the top half of the page, and the Soapbox is on the bottom half (each labeled clearly and with an outline of a certain unique color). This makes reading them obvious that they are different things. Then, at the bottom of the Lounge, you have a link to "Post to Lounge". And at the bottom of the Soapbox, you have a link to "Post to Soapbox". There are various implementations, but I think they can be combined with minimal problems (my guess being that it will solve more problems than it creates).
If you wanted to go a step further, you could display a message before somebody is allowed to post that says "You are about to post to the Lounge, NOT the Soapbox. Keep it kid sister safe, according to the [link: Lounge rules]." Then show that to them every time they attempt to start a new thread until they click the checkbox that says "I understand the difference between the Lounge and Soapbox. Don't show me this message again."
And to go a step further, maybe the Soapbox isn't shown by default. Maybe there's a button at the bottom of the Lounge that says "Show Soapbox" that makes it display when clicked. Then, it hides again when the user clicks "Hide Soapbox". And maybe when the Soapbox is shown, it has another message that says "You are about to view the Soapbox. This will be displayed below the Lounge, but is not part of the Lounge. The Soapbox is for more mature content, but the Lounge above it should be kept kid sister safe. If you understand this, then click [I Understand] to proceed."
But that's just one more way if implementing it. I'm sure we could come up with a million more ways. It's not as simple as "add a rating and hope people self regulate." Though, there's idea 990,001... allow others to rate where a thread belongs (enough "M" votes move a thread to the Soapbox). Hmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
aspdotnetdev wrote: I'm not so sure about that. Say the Lounge and Soapbox were combined in a way that they were obviously two different things. For example, they Lounge is on the top half of the page, and the Soapbox is on the bottom half (each labeled clearly and with an outline of a certain unique color).
That's called a waste of screen space, bandwidth, and server capacity. NTM something that would IMO look like puke. 
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
That is why it would all be user configurable. You think it looks like puke? Change it. But it would default to basically what the Lounge looks like today. Though, I've never been a fan of limiting functionality for purely aesthetic reasons.
As far as bandwidth/server/screen capacity... it would only be adding two forums on one page... the default could be to show only a few (20?) lines in each forum, but allow the user to configure that value.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no comments-forum below the answer section of quick question&answers any more. Is that a bug or was that done deliberately?
I asked the same thing already in the Lounge, and since William Winner was wondering the same I assume this might be a bug."I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
|
|
|
|
|
| ...and they're back. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
| That was quick. Thanks. "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
|
|
|
|
|
I am really confused and eager at the same time to know why this article is being showcased as a featured article of ASP.NET section?
Drag And Drop Using Java Script[^]
There is nothing in it...absolutely nothing! what are we suppose to understand from this step of CP?
|
|
|
|
|
Its Random !! 
Or may be because of the photo !  Cheers !
Abhijit
Codeproject MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I've reported the "article" to be removed.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
| Thank you. There has been a bug in the works for a while and I've never been able to catch it. I think I've just squashed it! cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hey, this was a great article. It shows you how effective his code is. It even managed to drag the article's entire contents and drop it in the trash. Please do not read this signature.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it's just my bad vision or if it's a bug, but I've noticed (especially in the Lounge) that threads that weren't there before suddenly show up in the thread listing. It is not a totally new thread, it has just happened to me again with a thread that was posted almost 2 hours ago. The thread stays in the listing afterwards, it doesn't disappear or anything.
I am more or less sure (like I said, it *could* be my vision  ) that the thread weren't shown before.
Has it got anything to do with how the system works[^]?
Just out of curiosity..![Green Alien | [Alien]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/alien.gif) Kristian Sixhoej
"You can always become better." - Tiger Woods
|
|
|
|
|
| This could certainly be an issue with the caching as described in the link. I moved a thread and it could cause some jumping around if the cache was out of sync between servers. The servers should sync up quickly. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
That explains it then.
Thanks for your answer.![Green Alien | [Alien]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/alien.gif) Kristian Sixhoej
"You can always become better." - Tiger Woods
|
|
|
|
|
I can reply to a removed message, but that's not so bad.
Whats worse is on the reply page I can see the original message
See this[^] message if you want a test case that's where I noticed it.modified on Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:48 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Can we agree to call that a feature?
Anyway, what is it you would like to reply without seeing the original message?
|
|
|
|
|
Happy?
No what I was trying to say is:
The reply link being there would also be a bug but if we weren't able to see the original post it wouldn't be a bad bug.
Since we can see the original post on the reply page it kind of defeats the whole purpose of the delete feature.
And if this bug persist on automatically removed messages, then that would even be worse but haven't been able to test that.
|
|
|
|
|
for automatically removed messages I hope there is no reply link, and no way to still see them.
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't just found one that was removed
But still it shouldn't be there even for 'normal' removed messages.
|
|
|
|
|
Good feature... good to know and hope it stays.
Nothing against deleting your own posts, but after a certain time (and replies) I would prefer if users can not easily delete posts or as emilio[^] puts it: "Let further readers to be able to figure out what we are talking about".
/M
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Java | [Coffee]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
Now with 26% more Twitter