|
Yeah, its getting crazy in the Lounge now with all the bloody wordle crap and CCCs. agreed.
then again, a Lounge anywhere in the world is where retired and bored people go to drink cheap booze, play puzzles, and think about days of old.
I highly doubt Chris will move on this.
|
|
|
|
|
but, take out the wordle's and CCC's, and Oi's, and detailed technical daily blogs ... what is left ?  
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
-- modified 25-Jan-23 15:38pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I think this item on page 3 may be incorrect:
|
|
|
|
|
I wish that all web developers - including CP developers - would try out all their web pages, including all dialog/popup boxes, with the zoom function (typically operated by ctrl-scrollwheel), from minimum to maximum, in relevant browsers!
I discovered more or less accidentally that the ragged layout of the author column in the forums could be straightened by zooming in a little! Zooming in will increase the author column width - but note that the entries making the ragged left are not the longest ones. There is lot of white space between the author and the date with both short and long names, but apparently there is some connection to the width of the date text. When you zoom out, and raggedness sets in, there is no further zooming of the character size; it remains unchanged to the minimum zoom level.
This is in Firefox. So I tried Edge. Here, the columns are straight all through the zoom range, and zooming out reduces character size to far below readable. If I zoom out to see all 50 entries in one screenful, it is still readable. With Firefox, there is no way (that I have discovered) to see all 50 entries in one go.
Then I tried going the other way, zooming in. As expected (based on experience from other web pages), menu lines and similar lists are terribly messed up. With Edge, the menu changes with zoom level - 'Home' disappears, 'Quick Answers' turn into 'Q&A' (which is a reasonable abbreviation), 'Discussions' change to 'Forums', 'Features' change to 'Stuff'(!), 'Community' to 'Lounge', 'Help' to '?'. Maybe these are all attempts to abbreviate texts, but some of them are outright misleading (e.g. 'Stuff', and 'Lounge' is one of several entries in the 'Community' menu).
With Edge, there are few if any cases of different fields being put on top of each other when zooming in. In the forum lists of posts, Edge will put the author on a line below the subject, which is a good solution. Generally speaking, zooming in with Edge is reasonably good.
When playing around with the zoom in FF, once it locked up - not completely; I could zoom from 250-300% to 500%, but not further back to get an overview of the page. A reload page fixed it; I don't know
Firefox is a a completely different story. It won't change the menu entries, but places items on top of each other, such as '15,553597 members' at the top of the top banner, which is not zoomed. The left side menu overlaps the list of posts, and the subject column is reduced to with of a single word, maybe two words - while the author column fills half the window width!
If you search for a selection of messages and zoom in close, in Edge the right hand column is dropped, and the window is given a horizontal scroll bar, at least from 250% and upwards. This is reasonable behavior. In FF, the left hand menu is chopped off (not overlying the hit list in this window!) so you can't see what the filters are, and there is no horizontal scroll bar. The right hand column is not dropped.
In this hit list, if you zoom the other way, all the way out, text lines are laid on top of each other, as if the characters were reduced in size - but they are not.
All taken together: Zooming in Edge is 'reasonable'. In Firefox, it is a mess. And I prefer Firefox.
A fair share of regular posters have quite a few years of professional experience. Or stated in a different way: A fair share of them may today, or within a few years, have a real need for a well functioning zoom.
|
|
|
|
|
That ragged alignment has been fixed but... the fix is in a branch of the code that has a full port to Bootstrap, along with a complete rewrite of the forum UI. It's a big, big change internally and it's been sitting there while a million other things get in the way. It's probably too big a change a this point, so what I will probably end up doing is back-porting the changes to the current codebase and, once and for all, fix that thing that's been annoying the daylights out of me.
FWIW I do test in multiple browsers and on multiple operating systems (Try Safari sometime - that'll truly make you tear out your hair). And then mobile. And tablets. And older browsers, because not all browsers were auto-updating (looking at you IE). It goes on and on and on and it has to work on every single one. And this is why I started the move to bootstrap: a solid framework that's well tested beats a homegrown solution that's grown through 20 years of browser evolution. The tradeoff is, however, size, as well as chasing the frameworks as they change. A huge part of the stall in dev was that while I was working on the port, Bootstrap moved from v4 to v5, which was a huge, huge breaking change. I'm pretty sure it'll happen again.
Once browsers started moving to WebKit I really thought this intensely painful time of browser incompatibility, but then Google very quickly forked to Blink, FireFox continues to use Gecko, Safari uses Chrome but has different default settings, and on it goes still.
It's the thing about standards: there are so many to choose from.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: It's the thing about standards: there are so many to choose from.
Sorry... I had to: xkcd: Standards[^]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be a good idea to order the articles awaiting moderation by age, so the oldest one is top of the list?
Today, we had one new member post some 60-odd spam articles, and because we only get 15 at a time in the queue it wasn't until they had all been vote closed (or deleted - I dumped loads of 'em once the member was kicked) that the article that had been sitting there unmoderated for 11 hours could be seen.
Surely, we should be moderating older material first?
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be better if new members were prevented from posting articles until they had earned some minimum number of votes?
|
|
|
|
|
That seems a bit of a "sledgehammer approach" - it seems politer just to moderate older articles first as they have been waiting longest anyway.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe, but it would prevent situations like the one we saw this morning.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps they should be restricted so they can't post a second article until their first one has been approved? Or at least have a sensible limit on the number of unapproved articles they can have in the queue at one time.
One for @chris-maunder to consider at least. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good idea, I like 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.
|
|
|
|
|
We have posting limits. I'll have to dig in and see why the limiter didn't kick in
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Paul - off the top of your head do you remember if those articles were all from the same member or from multiple spammers?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Same member: Quote: Today, we had one new member post some 60-odd spam articles
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
About a month ago, I stopped getting my daily Insider News emails. How do I get them turned back on? When I go to sign up, it says that I'm already subscribed. They are NOT going to a spam folder or anything. As far as I can tell, they're not getting sent.
Hard to believe I'm begging to get spam but I really like the Insider News.
|
|
|
|
|
In the meanwhile... The Insider News[^]  
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Is this still an issue? Your account looks OK from here, but we can dig in further if there is still an issue.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris,
Yes, this is still an issue. Still not getting the daily Insider News. Would it help if I changed to a different email address?
Mark T.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Mark,
It might. For now I've sent you an email confirmation request and tried one other thing. Please let me know if you receive the confirmation request. If you do, and you accept it, and don't get your Insider tomorrow, changing your email would probably work.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
I got the confirmation request and responded and it worked. Hopefully, I'll get Insider News tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey - I got my first Daily Insider newsletter daily since a few months ago. What did you do to fix it?
|
|
|
|
|
The team made some recent updates to the newsletter system. I'm guessing in the process they also fixed some things.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: article removed
Shouldn't it better be removed totally of the list instead of leaving the empty option?
Additionally... I am just curious about what can trigger it. A spam nuke? An owner deletion once the article was selected? The hamsters being fed after midnight?
Edit:
You can even vote for it... that would be a nice prank if the winner is a deleted entry (already in position #4).
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.
modified 10-Jan-23 17:21pm.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
