 | | Re: Brickshelf problems? —Bruce Hietbrink
|
| | | (...) Kevin, I'm sure you've thought through all the issues, and you've provided a huge service to all of us, so please don't take this as a complaint, but, is this the best solution? I've been on mailing lists where you were unmoderated unless (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Brickshelf problems? —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | (...) While it wasn't originally designed for kids, the fact is many children visit the Gallery each day. In light of that, there is no responsible option other than full moderation. KL (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf problems? —Shaun Sullivan
|
| | | | | (...) I can certainly agree to this ... However, given the fact that up until yesterday, there were few (if any) outstanding problems with inappropriate gallery content: (1) Would it be reasonable to allow the galleries uploaded *prior* to yesterday (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf problems? —John Henry Kruer
|
| | | | | (...) What makes kids different from adults? Are some things that are good for adults bad for children? I am a child. I'm twelve. (and turning 13 soon!) I have never seen any bad content in b-shelf. Some things have occured, but were quickly (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf problems? —Benjamin Medinets
|
| | | | | | | (...) I think you hit the issue on the head...that is the problem. By not having images moderated, bad content is always a possibility. I think the majority of the posters on-line are abiding with not putting bad stuff on there. I also liked the (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf problems? —Scott E. Sanburn
|
| | | | | | John & All, (...) Legally, there is a good deal of difference. The age to vote, drink, serve in the military, get certain media products, etc. For Brickshelf, if there was a large percentage of "adult" material on the site, Kevin would have to put (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf problems? —William R. Ward
|
| | | | | (...) I hope that you will consider letting others help with the moderating. The task will quickly bury you if you try to take it all on yourself. Also, if you decide to charge for access to upload pictures, you might be able to give moderators (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) Then could you *please* implement a facility to move pics / folders ASAP, as I for one will find it a pain having to have stuff re-moderated just to move it to a different folder. Regards ROSCO (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Maybe... BUT... Right now I'd rather he put time into making the moderating facility a bit more efficient for moderators, there is a terrific backlog of stuff to chew through... I was just in there doing some and it's a lot of work. My fingers (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —James Trobaugh
|
| | | | | (...) Ok since you hit on the moderation process and the massive backlog, would it be better if we didn't submit and new or updated images to Brickshelf at this time? I had some updated instructions I was going to post, but if it's going to cause (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Mark Papenfuss
|
| | | | | | | (...) I have 2 question/comments... First I noticed that there seems to be newly uploaded files. Is this the case? I would think/hope that the old 150 thousand pictures be given the green light first before some new stuff gets added to the pile. How (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) it doesn't matter if you submit new pictures up - the way the moderation cgi works, it shows one of the (random) older folders first... so the new folders will just get added to the queue, but probably not get moderated until the older folders (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually, the randomness is only to reduce the change of multiple moderators working on the same folder. The subset of folders that are randomized is selected from the newest folders. That way new stuff and old stuff get moderated. KL (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) sorry, my mistake. I thought you set it up to select from the oldest first, so that the backlog will eventually diminish...? Dan (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | (...) You can now do that. You will now also see empty folders, as those need to be moderated too. Current moderation stats: 2537 out of 15634 folders moderated. KL (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Bruce Hietbrink
|
| | | | | (...) Wow! I just wanted to send a big thank you to the people moderating. I'm impressed that that many have already been processed. I'd also be happy to volunteer to help moderate. Bruce (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Wow! Thanks! I am busily clearing Eric Sophie's whole tree as we speak. (had to start somewhere, why not there) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) It's harder than I thought! For people with deeply nested folder structure it is hard to tell what HAS and what has NOT been cleared yet. I found myself logging out to check then logging back in a lot... (this was with James Mathis, Eric I (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —William R. Ward
|
| | | | | (...) Try running two browsers - e.g. one Netscape and one IE. Since they have separate cookie jars, you shouldn't need to log in and out. --Bill. (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) OOOH, good idea. I did not think of that. I guess I better go install NS then, do you have a recommendation for a good and stable and free version? Meanwhile the elves have been steadily improving the interface while I was working (I just (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | | | (...) Don't you wish all software development was this efficient? It's even written in C. Kids, don't try this at home :) BTW, you are using Mozilla 1.1a right? Besides being a far superior browser to IE or NS it has a fortuitous bug where it (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) I'm actually using IE but I'll check out Mozilla... (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | (...) unless there's an explicit header saying the cgi has expired (which i didn't check), I say mozilla is doing the Right Thing, while IE and NS don't. A GET CGI is supposed to give the same output when it's parameters are the same, so browsers (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yes. A GET CGI is supposed to give the same output when it's (...) Where does it say that a GET request always returns the same content? a GET for a dynamic page is no different than a GET for a "static" page that might change at some point. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | (...) wait - am I completely confused here? I thought we wanted the cgi output to NOT expire? so that "back" will show you the same page? (...) hmmm... : 13.9 Side Effects of GET and HEAD Unless the origin server explicitly prohibits the caching of (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Richard W. Schamus
|
| | | | | | (...) I use IE, and was quite surprised when that happened to me the first time (checking a folder and going back, just to find that another random folder appeared rather than the one I was exploring). Since then, I just open the questionable (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | (...) Boy, you guys are tough to please! You are right though, everyone, not just moderators should be able to tell that a subfolder is unmoderated. The right thing to do is have an "unmoderated" icon, but as a quick hack, unmoderated folders now (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Cool. Now what happens to the ones that are off topic? Previously the off topic keyword seemed to just get added one more time each time you pressed it but the folder would (randomly) keep reappearing until you said it was safe Also what is (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | | (...) It used to do that, but now the Off Topic link also sets moderation level -1 (the same as Unsure) so it will disappear from the regular moderator page. (...) -5 is temporary while thumbnails are being generated -2 is Unsafe -1 is Unsure 0 is (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Nicole Drumm
|
| | | | | | I'd just like to say again that if you (Kevin) need more free, good, help you have four ready willing and able people here. -- Thanx~ Nicole (URL) Loch" <kloch@opnsys.com> wrote in message news:GyECpE.9oM@lugnet.com... (...) structure (...) with (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Brickshelf suggestions (was: problems?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) That border line helps a LOT!!!! But is it recursive? That would be best, if there is one unmoderated folder in there somewhere, it's still "unsure" and you need to go drilling. (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
