|
Bryian Tan wrote: I'm not crazy after all
Now, let's not jump to any hasty, unsubstantiated, wrong, conclusions here.....
Speed of sound - 1100 ft/sec
Speed of light - 186,000 mi/sec
Speed of stupid - instantaneous.
|
|
|
|
|
Bryian Tan
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw this post[^], read it and was trying to answer - it gave me "posted 2 mins ago".
I couldn't post the answer because "The message is not available", I returned to the Lounge and the message was currently under review as potential spam.
IMHO The message shouldn't be visible when the spam filter traps it, and the spam filter should act before the actual publication.
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS 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--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the message should be displayed with a "not available, in moderation" message until someone let it through or nuke it.
I have seen that behavior several times, and I personally find it good
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.
|
|
|
|
|
My point was that the message has been visible for a while, the the spam filter edited and "removed" it and then it returned visible when the protectors let it pass.
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS 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--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
The reason the message is there is to let the poster know what's happened. If messages just disappear without any visibility, they could post the message again, with the same effect. This leads to frustrated users, very quickly.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
That's not what I meant, I meant that for a couple of minutes the post, with the full content of it, was visible and it could be answered to. After a couple of minutes the post has been caught by the spam filter and its content substituted with the standard text "Message in moderation".
So the flow was (assuming it is a spam message)
1) Message "Hey, check out these skimpy girls for hire in /location/" appears on the lounge, with full spam payload.
2) Minutes pass with the spam message fully visible and interactive (meaning I could post answers to that)
3) Spam filter wakes up and locks the message, changing the text with its "moderation queue".
It's point 1 that is not right as the spam filter should filter the message before its original content are posted to the world.
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS 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--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
You got in the same thinking error than me...
What he means is... message got into the lounge fully normal, he wanted to answer something and in the time writing the answer then the filters went active and took the message to moderation.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
In this sequence, it means that the message got past the Spam Filter, and someone flagged it as Spam.
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
|
|
|
|
|
Is it so? I mean, if someone flags a message, then the filters have a second look on it?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it is already so and I do not recognize it...
In case an article/tip/trick is modified and needs to be approved again (this is is a new version of the currently published article/tip/trick) it would be nice, that the author needs to give some hints what has changed. This will make the approvement process much more easy.
But, I have no idea at the Moment where to place this Information. I only be Aware it does not Need to be in an release history which some authors place at the end of an article. It makes no sense to push authors to notify each and every typo there.
Question related to approvement:
In case an publication does not satisfy the criterions I choose "Extremely poor Quality". Is this the right choice?
I'm asking this because in the rep Point history it will be shwon as "Report object" which has a bad smell for me; sounds like reporting an abuse 
Side Note:
While writing the whole Thing above, the preview Shows finally only "is is a new version of the currently published tip/trick.". Ok, this time with IE, I know I should not use it
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
When you edit an article, there are two text-boxes at the bottom of the page where you should fill in about the nature of the changes/notes for the editors...
Any comments for our editors?
Briefly comment on what was changed:
However these are optional, so it is up to the moderators to re-read the article...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter
Briefly comment on what was changed:
However these are optional, so it is up to the moderators to re-read the article...
Can we request that to be required? Usually I use Compare Two Web Pages or Articles - Copyscape[^] to compare the HTML source. If I do not see any changes, I leave a comment to the author, but 50% of the time I get no response, but somehow the article end up being approved anyway.
Bryian Tan
|
|
|
|
|
Bryian Tan wrote: Can we request that to be required?
You should suggest it at maybe @chris-maunder will approve and implement...
Bryian Tan wrote: Usually I use...
CP has the ability to compare two versions of an article for you, you need no external tool...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter
CP has the ability to compare two versions of an article for you, you need no external tool...
Thank for the feedback. I think i bought the topic up before How to tell what are the changes in the updated article? - Article Writing Discussion Boards[^]
Currently I don't see how we can compare the Submitted/Pending changes version with the published version. Maybe something was implemented between 1/19 and now or member with different Reputation see different feature?
Bryian Tan
|
|
|
|
|
To the left of the article you can see "Revisions" - in that page you can compare any previous version to current or event previous version to previous version.
It's been a feature for a long time - since before I joined CP I think
|
|
|
|
|
|
The latest revision in the list is the one that is currently pending. Note that you may have to click the button to see Minor Revisions in the list.
The one that is currently published will be the latest revision that says "Publically available" in the same revision list
|
|
|
|
|
I did click on the Minor Revision, but still don't see the "currently pending (or the one waiting for approval in the queue)" in the list. Maybe because of my reputation level limit to that view. Maybe it just only me 
Bryian Tan
|
|
|
|
|
As I said - the currently pending one will be the latest revision, although what I failed to mention was that that revision will only show when you view revisions on the Pending article. However, if you go to view the original article you will be informed that there is a new version pending and given a link to go view it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can see currently pending because you're a protector.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Can we request that to be required?
I Support this
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for this Feedback. I will try to check it next time I read a publication which Needs to be re-approved.
Thanks, Bruno
[Edit]
Sorry again me. Ok there are two text boxes for the authors. But where I can found the Message(s) in the article? 
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
