Hi all, I propose that the timestamp on a post be updated to the time of the most recent edit.
The original time should also be preserved and used for computing the Best/Worst nodes lists. But if someone edits their post I would like to be able to know that programmatically (ie in RAT, Newest Nodes) rather than having to scan all existing posts to see if an author has added/changed/cribbed something (*if* they declare it).
I will gladly help with implementing these changes if needed.
The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
(2) Node Perl 5 Forever, which I re-parented as per the consideration, is displayed as “U[napproved]” even though it is no longer a root node (and the node’s own display contains “Approve” and “FrontPage” buttons).
I’m also seeing different “Created” times when I view this node via the “Nodes You Wrote” display.
1 or maybe “1 hour ago”? The display changes (erratically) when I refresh.
What I found strange is that google's search results present this link with the date Jun 15, 2018 whereas the actual node's newest content is from Mar 20, 2002. It also misses the author count (3 instead of 4) but succeeds on the posts count (4). But it is the date mismatch I find the most important, it happened to me several times already.
This could be entirely google's mistake, or a PM hack-not-bug :), I am just reporting it.
My node Last best chance to rename "Perl6" which pointed out a blog post elsewhere, predictably garnered a number of downvotes. For most of yesterday and today the reputation of the node has been displayed to me as '10' with 'no significant downvotes.' Yesterday once in the evening I saw it showing (16+, 6-). Is "significant downvotes" variable? Is six downvotes sometimes or always considered insignificant? Is this intermittent behavior a bug?
The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
Even if the Developers of PerlMonks could take offense about this issue I will very frankly suggest you possible improvements on technical side.
I have been told there were many Post on this issue before ...
- I could not find any of them.
=> By the flood of Posts stuff gets flooded away.
=> You can't find your way around on PM when you for some information. Solution:Tagging - Setting Tags on discussions helps the visitor navigate the site and read more information.
(It helps you very strongly on Google as well.)
The PM Theme needs a new modern Mockup.
You might implement:
I've just encountered a transient error with respect to timezones.
While logged in I viewed a thread to which I had contributed and noticed that the time on one of my posts was incorrect (because I was asleep at the reported time). It was around 4 hours out. Looking at the responses to my post the timestamps there were also out by the same sort of amount. I then up-voted a couple of nodes on the thread and on doing so the reloaded page showed the correct times (or rather the times in the correct zone) again. My user's timezone is Europe/London and the reported incorrect times appear to have been 4 hours behind this (ie. UTC-3).
Obviously this does not constitute a major problem in and of itself. But just in case it is a symptom of something much more serious I thought it worth reporting.
If it helps trace it, the page with the incorrect timezones was Re^2: The Future of Perl 5 and was loaded at 2018-08-22 08:04 GMT, according to the Other Users nodelet.
even clicking on "I've checked all of these" on RAT view can redirect me to Monastery Gates
this seems to be related to https redirection. I followed old links and saw a http version of the forms (actually the http:// part was hidden), but after posting I was redirected to the https:// version of the start page.
Not sure if this should be just redirected to the Janitors or if anyone even cares ... but:
The form at the bottom of the CPAN nodelet is aimed at 'http://search.cpan.org/search' which still gets one to the MCPAN site due to the external re-direct (as I understand it). However, there is constantly a warning in browsers like Google Chrome and Chromium about an insecure site being targeted from the secure site. Not a huge deal I guess, but I was wondering if it would be worth it to simply change that form to point to MCPAN directly. Again, not a huge deal, and I understand that it might be pretty low priority...
Addendum and Thanks!This item has been taken care of... Thanks much to the folk that maintain this site!
...the majority is always wrong, and always the last to know about it...
A solution is nothing more than a clearly stated problem...
In the eye of the public (that is, not-logged-in visitors), the apparent quality of the site can be significantly dragged down by answers (or other replies) which are esteemed by the voting population to be notoriously poor.
Within threaded views of discussions, hide from Anonymous Monk any replies with a sufficiently low negative reputation.
In the threaded view of a post within a section such as SoPW, and within the threaded outlines displayed by RAT, any reply with a reputation below a given threshold will not be displayed. (This has the effect of hiding the entire sub-thread rooted at such reply as well.) This feature would only affect Anonymous Monk. Proposed threshold: -7.
This would not affect any node being viewed "directly", only replies under it -- regardless of that node's type or reputation. It also would not affect root posts being shown in RAT.
Q. I want to see every reply, even low-rep ones. Does this affect me?
Q. Ok, then are these "very bad" replies completely inaccessible to me?
A. No; you can still get to them via other normal means, such as Search and Super Search, and direct links.
Q. What about in Newest Nodes? Will these "very bad" replies be hidden there as well?
A. Not under the current plan. That's a more "raw" interface, and isn't particularly useful for visitors trying to get a view of a "question" along with its "answers".
Q. I think a node would have to be much worse than -7 to merit this kind of treatment.
A. That's not a question. Here's a question: What threshold value would you suggest?
Q. This sounds like reaping but without the process. Why don't we just let the reaping process handle this problem?
A. The criteria for reaping are fairly strict. Simply having abominable technical merit (for example) is not sufficient grounds for reaping. Yet these are not strangers to our land it may still be desirable to shield the eyes of innocent visitors from such content. That's all we're trying to do here. Once you've signed in at the front gate and picked up your meal chit, all content is laid bare, just as always, no matter how bad.
Other thoughts on this idea? Alternative proposals?