|
isn't it be good if new tag from the message i already read be removed
(including current filter)
It is Good to be Important but!
it is more Important to be Good
[My Question]
|
|
|
|
|
The new tag indicates that the messages are new since you last logged in or of that sort, it does not represent read or unread posts.
-Prakash
|
|
|
|
|
storing and querying against a timestamp is cheap, doing the same for each of the millions of messages on CP is not. Per message/thread mark read is nice, but doesn't scale well to large sites.
--
Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
|
|
|
|
|
i don't think it will be that resource consuming
1st it will be done on client side
2nd as soon as user click on the link (to open the message) the flag will be stored and queried at the time of refresh/ load of page
3rd it will only check for messages already having new tag at most it need to keep record of 100 or so messages which is already been kept
-- modified at 17:43 Thursday 16th November, 2006
-- modified at 18:47 Thursday 16th November, 2006
ok they are not storing tags for new message they are storing time and all the messages posted later show with new mark
and if you have posted any message then it is relaxed by some time
-- modified at 18:53 Thursday 16th November, 2006
It is Good to be Important but!
it is more Important to be Good
[My Question]
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully, Chris read's this, cause I'm wondering about the new tag and a few others. Regardless of whether I log out or not, the new icon shows up on all messages. Additionally on a page that lists all of the forums along with a bolded message count, the page always says, '* Forums in bold have new messages since 11:00 Monday 2nd October, 2006'. I don't know what's so special about that date and time, but I do know that while I do not logout often, I have logged out several times since that date and time.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler]
Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp]
The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson]
I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
|
|
|
|
|
Your last visit is stored in a cookie. Have you tried clearing your CodeProject cookies?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Cleaned out everything. After logging in, it looks like it is working properly. Thanks. Just don't tell Osmo about the problem, okay? We'll just keep it between ourselves, for now.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler]
Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp]
The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson]
I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
|
|
|
|
|
i thought about it and applying it from some days
how ever i am not an asp programmer but i think this will work
why don't we have a button which will reset the time stored in cookies so that we don't have to login again
it is good to be important but it is more important to be good
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
Two articles of mine were moved yesterday (this one[^] and that one[^] ). Unfortunately the sample projects can no longer be downloaded. It looks like the articles' reference to the ZIP file was not updated.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about that. All fixed.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
I have noticed recently, as in the last several months, that my machines at home are no longer able to log into CP. I have cleared all temp files, deleted cookies, cache, etc... and still no luck.
My machine at work is just fine, however, I never "log-out" of CP ... I do turn off this PC, but I do not click the "Sign out" link.
Is that affecting my ability to sign in on my other machines? I have never had an issue with this before, and thought perhaps it was just a bug that would work itself out, but it is still happening to me.
[update]
I should also note, that on my machines at home, when I attempt to sign in, I receive no error messages or the like. The system just does not log me in ... Last modified: 11mins after originally posted --
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Troy wrote: Is that affecting my ability to sign in on my other machines?
No, it shouldn't.
Douglas Troy wrote: when I attempt to sign in, I receive no error messages or the like.
That's weird. Have you tried other browsers? Does our FAQ[^] help?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: That's weird.
 The typical programmers response to a bug report. I have been known to utter that phrase myself on more than one occasion.
|
|
|
|
|
Happens to both IE and FF on two different machines; one running Win2k the other running XP. I even nuked the Pwd Mgr stuff on FF, thinking that was messing with it ... but that didn't do it.
They will take the user name/password, but the system never actually logs me on ... (i.e, name doesn't show at top of screen, if I try to browse for a user, I get the "can't show picture unless you're logged in)
|
|
|
|
|
Is there something upstream of you caching pages, cookies or other content? Do you have web optimisation stuff installed? Your router? Your work / ISPs systems?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry it took me so long to reply: No Web Optimization stuffs. Same router I've had for ages, and never had a problem with it before. Can't rule out ISP (it's COMCast) ...
I'll double check my settings on both FF and IE tonight, when I'm at home ... I'll also try downloading Opera and see if it happens there too. Since it's happening to both FF and IE, I figured the problem lies elsewhere (either on the server or a local disk file) ... hadn't considered my router or ISP ... so I'll check my router first ...
It is odd, I have no problem getting to the site, viewing pages, etc... just can't sign in.
|
|
|
|
|
What about implementing a system where new users / new registrations must have their first 100 posts in the lounge approved? This way trolls can register 1000 new ID's and will never have their posts seen publicly if it's a troll post. This would be so easy to do because there's not a deluge of posts in the lounge (and the number by trolls is even less) if there were 20 posts a day that would be a heavy day. Chris could find 10 people who are available. They get an email that a new post is in the lounge. It's only visible to users in the 'Approver' group. If the post is totally fine a single click and poof it's visible.
If a post is made that is questionable there's another button that can be clicked that promotes the process to guys who have delete powers. I cannot delete I can only approve or I can promote a post to the point where someone with delete/move powers can take the right action based upon the content and their experience here.
This would be a low-burden solution as you should be able to find plenty of people who can "approve" a post. You keep your regular admins (people already granted move/delete) as they are and they get involved when/if an approver flags a new post up to them.
|
|
|
|
|
code-frog wrote: new registrations must have their first 100 posts in the lounge approved?
who is going to do the "approval" and where do the posts "stack up" until approved? I've been a moderator in a number of forums before and babysitting new user posts is not a low-burden solution. that means one or more people has to read each and every new-user posts in the lounge from n-number of postees. Not always fun.
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
If you're already registered and haven't been put on "probation" which would reset your count. Then you post freely and nobody has to approve.
If you are a new registration or have been put on probation then your posts need approval. So far today no posts in the lounge would need any approval and nobody would need to have been email notified.
Finding 10 or so people to do this would be cake. I'm watching the lounge all day long by RSS and I could probably get at any of them almost instantly and not even bat an eye at having to. I'd be quite happy to do this.
|
|
|
|
|
code-frog wrote: So far today no posts in the lounge would need any approval and nobody would need to have been email notified.
As I am sure Chris knows, these things tend to happen in "surges". Forum moderation is easy 90% of the time, with almost no effort, then that last 10% can just zap hours at a time. All it takes is one persistant and particularly nasty troll to REALLY discourage a moderator by destroying his time for the day. Then you have fewer people to help. Forum moderation is generally a low turn-over, but continuous turn-over.
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
A nasty troll would be nasty for anyone. Right now someone has to:
A. Be notified of a bad post.
B. Go find it.
C. Delete it. Which may cause thread/message problems.
My solution would be simple. "Approve" with a click or "Flag" with a click. At this point nobody has seen the message to be able to reply to it including the troll. They don't have a clue what's going on behind the scenes they just know their message hasn't appeared. They can try again and again. The net result is that while I'm there I click the "Flag" 5 times instead of 1 time. A moderator comes by later and simply kills the posts before anything happens to cause thread / message problems or anything else. My guess is that it would nix programming questions to.
|
|
|
|
|
code-frog wrote: My solution would be simple.
I am not disagreeing in principle, the concept is good. I just think you are being a bit optimistic in saying it would be "simple" "easy" etc. It will be realy easy 9 out of 10 days and be a royal pain in the ... err ... neck on the 10th.
It is a reasonable idea, I just think that labeling it as "easy" would give the approval-volunteers an unreasonable expectation. The 90/10 or 80/20 rule still applies depending on if you are optimistic or pessimistic.
All in all it is up to the CP programmers still to build-in the approval and hide-message system which would be some work behind the scenes. Then find some volunteers to handle the approval system.
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree about the 90/10 rule cropping it's head here. In another forum we have an ongoing problem with a persistant troll who manages to avoid ISP bans every few weeks. The current software makes setting a new one easy enough, but that person is a continual headache for the moderators.
Fortunately he's not technically literate enough to use something like Tor to continually spoof his IP.
Edit: Hit post too soon.
Also related to the 90/10 issue, most of the time the moderators burden is fairly low, but once or twice a year there's a major blowup over something that turns contentious enough that one or more moderators end up resigning rather than repeating the experiance.
--
Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Approvers are not moderators. So selecting approvers wouldn't require as much care. All they can do is approve a message or promote it to a moderators attention.
Approvers can only "Approve" releasing the message to the public or "Flag" for further evaluation by moderators who would have to look at it anyway if it was Spam or Abuse.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
