|
Hi,
When I click on a message at the bottom of an article using Google Chrome, the page scrolls up and I have to scroll back down to see the open comment. For example in this[^] article, click on the first message in the discussion area. Note that the page scrolls up about 2 pages. noise tolerance is "very low", layout is normal and per page is 50.
Actually, just tried it on this very message and the same thing happens.
modified on Wednesday, January 6, 2010 10:06 AM
|
|
|
|
|
I thought this was the Chrome-specific issue where it has trouble with anchors when it displays pages that were not visible when originally rendered, but your link to an example of this problem (I used the "new window" alternative, which displays as a new current tab) shows that this is not the issue.
I think I've had pages where the problem goes away after a refresh or a move to subsequent comment pages.
BTW It is NOT happening for me on this "very" message, and Clearly there are other comments that work fine -- I'd say this problem occurs about 10% of the time.
After submitting this comment I found it is happening for this message, just not as bad: only about half a page out -- not enough to stop reading the comment exposed.
Regards,
Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.) (Hons.)
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen this before but have not had the time to track down exactly what's happening.
I've moved this into the main bugs and suggestion forum since it's a forum issue, not a Quick Answers issue.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for posting in the wrong place Chris.
|
|
|
|
|
Sometime in the past two years this does seem to have been fixed 
Regards,
Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.) (Hons.)
|
|
|
|
|
Can we make the background of the Question part a bit different, i.e the back ground of the Article header (Light shades of Yellow / Blue) in the Article ? so that we can have a clear visual seperation between Question and Answers.
|
|
|
|
|
We'll be revisiting the UI of the Quick Answers system as a whole. Hopefully this can be addressed at that time but I will make note of it.
|
|
|
|
|
What do this numbers indicate?
John Simmons / outlaw programmer 23,398
Editor 31
Organiser 82
(And "Organizer" is spelled incorrectly.)
.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
|
|
|
|
|
There seem to be 6 components to someone's reputation right now; you'll never see them all at once, and their sum is plotted against time on you reputation graph. You have to post something to get to see the actual numbers. This FAQ[^] attempts to explain it a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
The FAQ doesn't explain how the numberes are arrived at. I'm guessing the large number is my "reputation", but the others are a mystery.
Like "Authority" (of course, my authority value should be "Chuck Norris")
.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
|
|
|
|
|
FYI: I didn't write the FAQ
This is how I understand it:
the big table in the FAQ shows different actions (by authors or by their readers) that fall into one of six categories and alter the associated reputation value; the total reputation is the sum of those six numbers. For you and me, "authority" is the big contributor; it results from articles and forum replies.
Missing:
- seeing the seven reputation numbers somewhere
- a clear explanation
Uncertain:
- where will we see current values, and where the values at the time of posting?
And then they invented six more colors: besides the old "overall" bronze/silver/gold/platinum, these colors now also exist for each of the six rep components. Probably we will get some color tags somewhere (I would rather see actual numbers, maybe in engineering notation  e.g. "22K")
The above is the result of some observation and some guessing.
And I wouldn't worry too much, it may well change many more times...
IMO they overdid it.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: the big table in the FAQ shows different actions (by authors or by their readers) that fall into one of six categories and alter the associated reputation value; the total reputation is the sum of those six numbers. For you and me, "authority" is the big contributor; it results from articles and forum replies.
Correct.
The numbers for each reputation type will appear on your reputation graph shortly - a line for each. We've implemented it locally but haven't yet put it on the live site.
|
|
|
|
|
Thiru Thirunavukarasu wrote: - a line for each
if all lines use the same linear scale, I'm not sure that will make much sense.
My Aythority and total rep would be some 45000, whereas the other five would be between 0 and 500, that is less than 1%, hence invisible.
Ideas:
1. use a logarithmic scale (has advantages and disadvantages)
2. use separate scales (I don't like that myself)
3. use a second graph for those components that are less than say 10% of the grand total; this might be the best solution.
Please do show the seven current values as numbers ASAP, that will avoid most of the recent questions.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: less than 1%, hence invisible
Good thinking !
| There are only 10 types of people in this world — those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
|
|
|
|
|
We'll be updating the live site later today in fact (if all goes as planned ). Take a look a let me know what you think. I'll update the Suggestions and Todos[^] when this happens. You'll also be able to specify date ranges so you can drill down. This could be especially useful for those reputation types where you have little reputation.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. Working nicely. Thanks and keep implementing such new enhancements .
Did not see the date ranges implemented yet though.
Minor suggestion - you could consider scaling the graph to fit to the width of the page.
Although, different people would be running on different resolutions so I'm not quite sure how that will work out.
| There are only 10 types of people in this world — those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
modified on Monday, January 4, 2010 10:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
There appears to be a few issues with the date pickers so we've hidden it for now..
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Thiru,
Having the current 7 numbers is a big step forward.
However as I expected, for me[^] 5 out of the 6 components are less than 5% of the total, and hence invisible on a small graph with a linear scale.
[ADDED]Checked a few other people, whoever is very active in answering forum questions seems to be in a similar situation repgraph wise.[/ADDED]
Could the graph be scalable, e.g. made to fill the width of my browser's window?
if not, could you provide two sizes (current, and larger, say for 1400 or 1600 pixels wide window)?
suggestion: if necessary, add a "monitor width" field to the personal settings page.
[ADDED]
Also useful could be: sorting the Who's who by current total rep (descending).
[/ADDED]
modified on Monday, January 4, 2010 11:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
This is what I hoped the date picker would address but yes it would be useful to have the rep graph a bit larger. It might not be so easy to do this in such a way that it works for all users. I'll add it as a TODO but it'll have to be a lower priority item. 
|
|
|
|
|
If you were to keep the external width of the graph, changing "All Reputation Types" to "Total" or "Sum" would result in a big improvement, assuming the actual graph grows as much as the legend shrinks.
|
|
|
|
|
moving the legend inside the graph itself is a major step forward.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds very cool !
| There are only 10 types of people in this world — those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
|
|
|
|
|
How does 'Rate this message' (at the bottom right of every comment) fit into the reputation system?
| There are only 10 types of people in this world — those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
|
|
|
|
|
IMO this is it at the moment:
- your question or reply yields +5/-2 of Authority when upvoted/downvoted (not sure how 2,3,4 maps unto those)
- you up/downvoting a question or reply doesn't bring you anything (?)
FYI: your guess is as good as mine, available explanations and observability are limited...
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: +5
Ok. Then I just +5ved your answer. Hope it worked .
| There are only 10 types of people in this world — those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
