New Minimum Character Count For Replies., page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times


reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 03:44 PM by Vector J
Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
reply to
post by EnlightenUp



I got warned twice for writing that so please be careful.............................................................................................otherwise its warning time!


Apart from that the system isnt fully thoughthrough atm, they really should have tested it first before implementing it.


Intrugiung that you were warned twice on that, it's not like it's rocket science to work out. Unless the staff consider the membership monumentally stupid and that all hints as to the titanic problem with the system must be hushed up so as not to let anyone else realise, then I can't see why that happened, but then I also don;t know what exactly you wrote that got the 'extreme violation' markup.

I agree that there should have been some beta testing before rolling this out, or prehaps a discusiion, one such as has been triggered by this thread, about how to make sure all posts were quality contributions, would have been a good idea.

There are numerous times when what you want to express doesn't take 200 characters but also isn't 'lol, yeah'. An automated system (such as this is) is a rubbish way to auto-mod peoples replies, because it is pure rubbish to assume that any reply below 200 (or similar) characters, just isn't good enough...


reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 03:47 PM by jfj123
Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to
post by NoArmsJames



Well maybe someone can answer me this question. Why did this come up.

I've cleared my temp file was something going in in the meantime?




[edit on 12-4-2009 by SLAYER69]

I get the same problem.
Hopefully this is just a bug in the coding where the post is attached to the reply info somehow with an improperly coded algorythm.

I'd hate to copy and paste, copy and paste, copy and paste


reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 03:47 PM by blupblup
reply to post by ArMaP




That is true i guess.
Trial and error maybe.... similar to the media site when then started.... how many issues were there then?
Nobody got it.... I'm sure in time this will be resolved.

But i do understand what you mean... many posts may be lost..

It's a bit random for sure



reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 03:57 PM by jfj123
reply to post by Goathief



Here's a screen capture of the problem I'm running into.




I'm assuming this is a bug.
If not......This will suck


reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 04:10 PM by ArMaP
reply to post by blupblup



The problem, as I see it, is that things now need patching, while if this had been thought as it should, the problem with the quoted text, for example, would have considered since the beginning.

Being a programmer, I know that things can never be as good as they would if they have to be patched, the best way is thinking about what we are going to do, about what it will affect and what things will affect it, then we make the changes, then we get someone else to test it, the people that made the code should never test their own code, not because they know it but because they will think in the same way all the times, so while testing they will not think (or at least they have less probabilities of thinking) about things they did not thought about during the coding phase.

Sometimes just showing it to another person (or even just talking about it with another person) is enough to see that something was missing from the initial planing.

PS: this post needed no tricks to pass the character limit.



reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 04:14 PM by blupblup
reply to post by ArMaP




Well, you certainly know your stuff mate.
I know it's frustrating for sure.

Hopefully the kinks will be ironed out.

I'm sure Springer or S.O. will be along with an explanation before too long


reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 04:16 PM by ArMaP
reply to post by jfj123



Hit the preview button.

When the page refreshes the counting starts from the beggining, avoiding this bug.




After writing the above answer I still had to write 54 characters.
Was that answer not enough?
As we can see, it's hard to put a price to a piece of our thoughts, even if it's just a character count.



I have an idea (that will probably be ignored by the site owners), why don't the mods create a thread for testing all the bugs we can find for some time, then this code is suspended (I hope that can be done) until those bugs are ironed out.

What the mods think? (or should I suggest this in a different forum?)


reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 04:23 PM by Blogstalker
reply to post by schrodingers dog



I would certainly hate to miss some of your gems Schrodingers Dog if they are too short for you to post.

And Schrodingers Dog, you will just have to write longer pearls of wisdom in the future.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^