It would seem that a rare instance of the vote fairy being late or not having visited has occurred. I seem to recall this happening at least a couple of times in the past, it's a very rare occurrence. The number of votes I have left today is the number I had left over from yesterday. To my knowledge one of these instances was related to a problem with a code change, I don't remember the other root cause. Posting this as it's now been discussed a couple of times in the chatter box. I've also messaged the gods to make them aware of the situation, not that it's a big deal.
As I first wrote in Re^4: Curious: are anon-hashes in random order? in reply to syphilis also noticing it, people have been mistaking the gods as the author of nodes seemingly more often in recent times, since my last post it's happened threemoretimes. The reason is obvious, the top of the Comment on page says "by gods" - if this was changed recently, which I'm not sure of, that would explain why this mistake has happened more often recently. With all respect to the gods and their holy work here, perhaps there is a way to reduce newcomers' confusion by hiding/moving/something the "by gods" on that page?
For most of my time at the Monastery (nearly 4½ years now) I’ve been slowly accumulating information in my private scratchpad. Today I discovered that the majority of that data is gone — apparently just truncated below a certain point. I assume that means I’ve exceeded some pre-set limit? If so, I have three further questions:
Is there any way I can recover the data?
Is the limit local to the private scratchpad, or global across my home node, public scratchpad, and messages?
How can I monitor my data usage in the future to prevent this from re-occurring?
This probably doesn't come as a surprise to many, but I thought I'd throw it out there for those who, like me, haven't realized it before.
We all know that we can link to a node by using its ID: [id://789891|stevieb's home node], but some node IDs have spaces: ChatterBox FAQ. These ones break horribly when trying to use them in [id://ChatterBox FAQ] context.
After years and years of being here, I realized that at the top of every.single.page, the node ID is readily available in the on Nov 07, 2000 at 16:08 EST ( #236794=sitefaqlet: print w/replies, xml ) line, right under the by: $person line. Grab the number to the right of the #, and drop it into the id:// tag: [id://236794], and you're good to go.
I'll bet there are other ways to glean this information, and why I didn't notice it earlier is beyond me. Either way, I thought I'd throw this out there :)
Edit:Just noticed that below my input window it said that I don't need to use HTML entities in code blocks and could use the literal characters. That's obviously not the case.
Could you change the code blocks to retain the user's original input? The worst offender is when one uses unicode. Example: If I include the greek pi (π) in regular text like this, it displays properly @ render time even though it was converted to an HTML entity (like π).
However, if it is a code block, something still modifies my formatting/input and changes my code to use an entity too, but then, to compound the problem, because it is a code block, it doesn't get reprocessed back into a UTF-8 character, but remains as an HTML entity, like:
I would argue that because it is a code block, it should have >not< turned it into an HTML entity in the first place. Then it would display properly at page-render time. While it would be acceptable if it at least was 'round-trip safe' and displayed it correctly @ render time, it seems that it would be more correct or more 'ideal' to not touch the user's input in the 1st place in a code block.
Since it displays correctly in regular text, it should at least be possible to get it to display right in a code block, but no one would know that the author used the correct character to begin with.
It has long been understood, and I have long felt, that the Categorized Questions and Answers section is fundamentally suboptimal in how it works from the users' perspective; and I can tell you that it would be essentially impossible to improve by a sequence of minor tweaks. What we need is a fresh start. And whatever that looks like, it should reduce the complexity of the site, not add to it. I would suggest that the QA section should be eliminated entirely, and instead have some means to identify and indicate "good questions" and "best answers" among the nodes in the Seekers of Perl Wisdom section. Here are my thoughts; please share yours.
A root post (question) so flagged would be analogous to our current "approved questions", and a reply so flagged would be a "good/best answer".
(By procedure, but without enforcement, QandAEditors would generally only mark first-level replies as "good".)
Monks of sufficient venerability would be given special bonus votes to help raise the reputation of worthy replies.
Monks of Level 11 (Chaplain) and above would receive, each day, bonus votes equal to their level minus 10.
These bonus votes can only be spent according to the following restrictions:
Only on replies in SoPW, not on root posts and not in any other section;
Only to upvote, not to downvote; and
Only on nodes which the monk has already upvoted.
In effect, a Level 11 monk would get a chance, once per day, to give +=2 to a SoPW reply of hir choice.
Ancillary to all the above, there would of course be a way visually to indicate which replies to a question were deemed "best". There may even be a reply sorting option to put best answers at the top. An option could be added to Super Search to let the user get only "best answers", if desired.
If this proposal is enacted, then we could theoretically create a batch process to convert all of the existing Categorized Questions to SoPW posts with the "good" flag set, and their answers to replies similarly. That would fairly trivial.
Why Level 11? Because any time we come up with an idea for a new "level power", I like to try to assign it to a level which currently has none. Ideally, each level would offer some new prize as an enticement. And looking at Number of Monks by Level, I see the numbers jump at level 11. For this arrangement to be worthwhile, we'd need a goodly number of monks to participate.
The Original Prophecy of John "Nostradamus" Davies
Old nodes still garner upvotes this year,
but this year's nodes have no chance of being
upvoted five or more years ago:-).
I have no doubt, that in another five years,
nodes like Drunk on golf: 99 Bottles of Beer will have well over 100 votes.
But by then, the threshold for getting into "Selected Best"
will be even higher.
In the spirit of Nostradamus,
I've taken the liberty of distilling John's bold and magical prophecies
into three quatrains:
Ancient nodes garner praise bounteously in the year
a visionary creator of jobs falls from his apple tree.
Yet the nodes from that year shall have not the opportunity
to be complimented five or more years previous.
In front of a monastery are strewn ninety nine intoxicating vials,
disgorged from an illustrious and ancient line of a monk.
His fame, renown and power through sects and speech is such that
they are deservedly praised more oft than the sum total of bottles.
And yet, five years hence, the threshold for being
glorified and exalted shall rise to a loftier plane still.
In consequence, the ninety nine vessels shall remain bestrewn,
forever unwept, unhonored, and unsung.
Today, exactly five years after John's acclaimed prophecy,
I'm bewildered to report that Drunk on golf: 99 Bottles of Beer
stubbornly remains forty six votes shy of a century.
That makes me feel sad,
for I put a huge effort into that node and,
fortified by John's courageous prophecy,
expectantly waited for five long years to see
it finally reach its full potential.
Eerily, the selected best nodes threshold five years ago was
around 100 votes ... and there haven't been any
centurion nodes for nearly five years now.
Since 2010, nearly six years ago, there have been
only five centurion nodes:
So only true believers would claim a significant increase
in the threshold for getting into "Selected Best".
I am a true believer.
I feel sure I've misinterpreted the wording
of John's original prophecy, and patiently
await a contemporary reinterpretation --
and a new prophecy for the next five years.
This ought not to be possible, so there is presumably a bug somewhere which allows it (at least a race condition). Please could TPTB ascertain that these two users are the same and then dispose of the account with no write-ups before confusion reigns?