 | | | | | |
We're pleased to announce that voting for the December 2005 Model of the Month
and Scene of the Month Contests is now open.
Visit the voting page to cast your vote:
http://www.ldraw.org/index.php?module=LdrawMOTM&func=ballotindex
Please inform me of any errors you may encounter.
-Orion
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Please inform me of any errors you may encounter.
when i click the link I get:
Fatal error: Call to a member function on a non-object in
/usr/www/users/peeron/ldraw/PostNuke-0.750b/html/modules/LdrawMOTM/pnuser.php on
line 313
Good thing this is restarted again! Thumbs up! :)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Oh wait: when I logon to LDraw.org first, I get no errors. Good work!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> We're pleased to announce that voting for the December 2005 Model of the Month
> and Scene of the Month Contests is now open.
>
> Visit the voting page to cast your vote:
> http://www.ldraw.org/index.php?module=LdrawMOTM&func=ballotindex
>
> Please inform me of any errors you may encounter.
>
> -Orion
I'm not complaining as I think it's a bit of a silly rule but this entry
<http://www.ldraw.org/gallery/SOTMSub/1970_G.png> does not fit the rules I read
(800x600 and <150k). Does this mean the rules have been changed and if so, can I
submit a larger entry of my scene?
Yours,
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Timothy Gould wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > We're pleased to announce that voting for the December 2005 Model of the Month
> > and Scene of the Month Contests is now open.
> >
> > Visit the voting page to cast your vote:
> > http://www.ldraw.org/index.php?module=LdrawMOTM&func=ballotindex
> >
> > Please inform me of any errors you may encounter.
> >
> > -Orion
>
> I'm not complaining as I think it's a bit of a silly rule but this entry
> <http://www.ldraw.org/gallery/SOTMSub/1970_G.png> does not fit the rules I read
> (800x600 and <150k). Does this mean the rules have been changed and if so, can I
> submit a larger entry of my scene?
800x600 isn't a hard limit on size, your entry can be larger. This doesn't mean
you can submit a 8000x6000 image but 1024x768 is fine. The same applies for the
150k limit (however the rules wording on this point seems to imply differently
so I'll do some rewording), Again, I will reject/resize entries that are
ridiculously huge but the current batch seems to be ok.
-Orion
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
--SNIP--
> >
> > I'm not complaining as I think it's a bit of a silly rule but this entry
> > <http://www.ldraw.org/gallery/SOTMSub/1970_G.png> does not fit the rules I read
> > (800x600 and <150k). Does this mean the rules have been changed and if so, can I
> > submit a larger entry of my scene?
>
> 800x600 isn't a hard limit on size, your entry can be larger. This doesn't mean
> you can submit a 8000x6000 image but 1024x768 is fine. The same applies for the
> 150k limit (however the rules wording on this point seems to imply differently
> so I'll do some rewording), Again, I will reject/resize entries that are
> ridiculously huge but the current batch seems to be ok.
>
> -Orion
OK. Cheers. I did think it was a bit strict but my reading of the rules was that
it was a requirement. I'll email you a new version of my image.
Thanks for the clarification.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
I’ll email you a new version of my image.
Tim
|
I could also email Orion a 800 x 600 version of mine....
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jan Folkersma wrote:
| |
| |
I’ll email you a new version of my image.
Tim
|
I could also email Orion a 800 x 600 version of mine....
|
POVray worked hard for those images. Shrinking them is telling it that you have
no respect for its work. You never know, all future renders might turn out wrong
because it is mad. ;)
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> http://www.ldraw.org/index.php?module=LdrawMOTM&func=ballotindex
>
> Please inform me of any errors you may encounter.
It looks like I was only allowed to vote in one of the two categories.
First I voted in MOTM and got to a page saying "Thank you for voting".
Second I voted in SOTM and got to a (similar) page saying "You are not
authorized to carry out this operation".
Play well,
Jacob
--
Horse (building instructions):
http://lego.jacob-sparre.dk/Dyr/Hest/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
>
> > http://www.ldraw.org/index.php?module=LdrawMOTM&func=ballotindex
> >
> > Please inform me of any errors you may encounter.
>
> It looks like I was only allowed to vote in one of the two categories.
>
> First I voted in MOTM and got to a page saying "Thank you for voting".
>
> Second I voted in SOTM and got to a (similar) page saying "You are not
> authorized to carry out this operation".
>
> Play well,
>
> Jacob
Strange. I managed to vote in both (or at least I saw no errors to indicate
otherwise).
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Timothy Gould wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > > http://www.ldraw.org/index.php?module=LdrawMOTM&func=ballotindex
> > It looks like I was only allowed to vote in one of the two categories.
> Strange. I managed to vote in both (or at least I saw no errors to indicate
> otherwise).
Could it be because I opened two tabs - one with each of the categories -
instead of working sequentially?
When I tried again now, I was allowed to vote in the SOTM category.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Jacob's LEGO trains:
http://lego.jacob-sparre.dk/Transport/Tog/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Timothy Gould wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> > > In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
>
> > > > http://www.ldraw.org/index.php?module=LdrawMOTM&func=ballotindex
>
> > > It looks like I was only allowed to vote in one of the two categories.
>
> > Strange. I managed to vote in both (or at least I saw no errors to indicate
> > otherwise).
>
> Could it be because I opened two tabs - one with each of the categories -
> instead of working sequentially?
Yes that's exactly why. The way postnuke does user authintication involves
generating an authorization key. Everytime you open a form it generates an auth
key and when you click submit it passes the key along with the other form data.
This prevents people from remotely calling the followon PHP function to process
the form data without actually using the form (i.e. bot protection among other
things). Postnuke only remembers one key at a time so if you open a new form in
another tab (or window), postnuke will gen another auth key and if you click
submit on the first form you opened you'll get an authintication error.
-Orion
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> > Could it be because I opened two tabs - one with each of the categories -
> > instead of working sequentially?
>
> Yes that's exactly why. The way postnuke does user authintication involves
> generating an authorization key. [...]
Why do everyone want to force me to work sequentially?!? :-(
(the SAS booking system has even worse tasking errors)
I find it very hard to beleive that there is a real need to prevent me from
having multiple windows open on the same site. As far as I can see, it is only
related to horrible coding.
> This prevents people from remotely calling the followon PHP function to
> process the form data without actually using the form (i.e. bot protection
> among other things).
And what do we need "bot protection" for? It is already a "members only" page.
Play well,
Jacob
--
City X'ers truck (building instructions):
http://lego.jacob-sparre.dk/CityXers/Ladvogn/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 10:14:28AM +0000, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> > This prevents people from remotely calling the followon PHP function
> > to process the form data without actually using the form (i.e. bot
> > protection among other things).
>
> And what do we need "bot protection" for? It is already a "members
> only" page.
Not to mention that it's trivial to bypass it if you did want to use a
bot. If we need to do bot protection, we can use a captcha (similar to
the way we're protecting the full installer) when votes are actually
submitted. But there's no reason (imo) to disallow multiple windows.
Dan
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 10:14:28AM +0000, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> > > This prevents people from remotely calling the followon PHP function
> > > to process the form data without actually using the form (i.e. bot
> > > protection among other things).
> >
> > And what do we need "bot protection" for? It is already a "members
> > only" page.
>
> Not to mention that it's trivial to bypass it if you did want to use a
> bot. If we need to do bot protection, we can use a captcha (similar to
> the way we're protecting the full installer) when votes are actually
> submitted. But there's no reason (imo) to disallow multiple windows.
While I agree with both of you, we should keep in mind that Orion said that this
is a postnuke problem. Since the whole site is done with postnuke, I don't
think there's much he can do about it, unless there's some postnuke option to
work around the limitation.
--Travis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 10:14:28AM +0000, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> > > This prevents people from remotely calling the followon PHP function
> > > to process the form data without actually using the form (i.e. bot
> > > protection among other things).
> >
> > And what do we need "bot protection" for? It is already a "members
> > only" page.
>
> Not to mention that it's trivial to bypass it if you did want to use a
> bot. If we need to do bot protection, we can use a captcha (similar to
> the way we're protecting the full installer) when votes are actually
> submitted. But there's no reason (imo) to disallow multiple windows.
I'm hesitant to use a captcha since it's just one more step in a process that's
supposed to be quick and easy (i.e. it makes since to us webheads but the
general user will see it as a pain-in-the-rear). I do however agree that a
permissions check is also done so this "authid generation" might be pointless.
I've asked the PN forums for more clarification on the issue since I can easily
remove authid checks in this instance (i.e. it's in the code for the module and
not part of core PN).
-Orion
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 10:14:28AM +0000, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> > > > This prevents people from remotely calling the followon PHP function
> > > > to process the form data without actually using the form (i.e. bot
> > > > protection among other things).
> > >
> > > And what do we need "bot protection" for? It is already a "members
> > > only" page.
> >
> > Not to mention that it's trivial to bypass it if you did want to use a
> > bot. If we need to do bot protection, we can use a captcha (similar to
> > the way we're protecting the full installer) when votes are actually
> > submitted. But there's no reason (imo) to disallow multiple windows.
>
> I'm hesitant to use a captcha since it's just one more step in a process that's
> supposed to be quick and easy (i.e. it makes since to us webheads but the
> general user will see it as a pain-in-the-rear). I do however agree that a
> permissions check is also done so this "authid generation" might be pointless.
> I've asked the PN forums for more clarification on the issue since I can easily
> remove authid checks in this instance (i.e. it's in the code for the module and
> not part of core PN).
Here's the reply I got on the pnForums regarding the use of the authid:
The main reasons are all security related. When a form is secured using authid:
1) The form can't be faked by inserting things into the get/post array.
2) The form is securedfrom flood protection - i.e. multiiple submissions of the
form.
My question is this: is there a way to prevent the 2 things mentioned above
while also preserving the ability of the user to have multiple tab open, use the
back button, etc...
-Orion
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hey Orion,
Would it be possible for people without logins to at least be able to see the
entries, even if they cannot vote?
I had a login at one point, but tried all my normal usernames to no avail.
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
> Hey Orion,
>
> Would it be possible for people without logins to at least be able to see the
> entries, even if they cannot vote?
A bug is currently preventing this. You can see all the winning entries but not
the current submissions (i.e. what's on the ballot). I'm working to fix this.
> I had a login at one point, but tried all my normal usernames to no avail.
Email me more detail and we might sort out which one is yours.
-Orion
| | | | | | |
