| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > >
> > > Personally I'd like to be able to visit someone's folders while in moderator
> > > mode and approve them, one by one as I look in each one, rather than being
> > > presented them randomly.
> >
> > You can now do that.
>
> Wow! Thanks!
>
> I am busily clearing Eric Sophie's whole tree as we speak. (had to start
> somewhere, why not there)
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 think is all done now)
If there was a way to mark which folders were and which weren't cleared yet
that would help. I THOUGHT i had it sussed by whether the folder got
replaced by the first pic in the folder but that's not definitive.
|
|
| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> writes:
> 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 think is all done now)
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.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMAZING BUT TRUE: There is so much sand in northern Africa that if it were
spread out it would completely cover the Sahara Desert!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, William R. Ward writes:
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> writes:
> > 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 think is all done now)
>
> 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.
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 cleared about 30 people's folders since I last posted, and I
keep seeing little changes) so it's getting easier.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> 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 think is all done now)
>
> If there was a way to mark which folders were and which weren't cleared yet
> that would help. I THOUGHT i had it sussed by whether the folder got
> replaced by the first pic in the folder but that's not definitive.
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 have a border.
I also added "And On Topic" to the Safe link to clarify
it's purpose :) If it's Off Topic, use the "Off Topic"
link. If you aren't 100% sure it's safe *and* on topic,
select "Unsure".
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > 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 think is all done now)
> >
> > If there was a way to mark which folders were and which weren't cleared yet
> > that would help. I THOUGHT i had it sussed by whether the folder got
> > replaced by the first pic in the folder but that's not definitive.
>
> 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 have a border.
>
> I also added "And On Topic" to the Safe link to clarify
> it's purpose :) If it's Off Topic, use the "Off Topic"
> link. If you aren't 100% sure it's safe *and* on topic,
> select "Unsure".
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 "moderation level"?? That just appeared too.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > >
> > > 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 think is all done now)
> > >
> > > If there was a way to mark which folders were and which weren't cleared yet
> > > that would help. I THOUGHT i had it sussed by whether the folder got
> > > replaced by the first pic in the folder but that's not definitive.
> >
> > 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 have a border.
> >
> > I also added "And On Topic" to the Safe link to clarify
> > it's purpose :) If it's Off Topic, use the "Off Topic"
> > link. If you aren't 100% sure it's safe *and* on topic,
> > select "Unsure".
>
> 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
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.
> Also what is "moderation level"?? That just appeared too.
-5 is temporary while thumbnails are being generated
-2 is Unsafe
-1 is Unsure
0 is unmoderated
1 is moderated Safe and On Topic
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> > 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 have a border.
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.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> 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 cleared about 30 people's folders since I last posted, and I
> keep seeing little changes) so it's getting easier.
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 ignores
expires headers when you hit the 'back' button. That really helps
in the moderator view when you inspect a file and hit 'back'. IE
and NS (correctoy) load the page again which fetches another random
folder. Mozilla uses the illegal cache of the page instead.
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > 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 cleared about 30 people's folders since I last posted, and I
> > keep seeing little changes) so it's getting easier.
>
> 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 ignores
> expires headers when you hit the 'back' button. That really helps
> in the moderator view when you inspect a file and hit 'back'. IE
> and NS (correctoy) load the page again which fetches another random
> folder. Mozilla uses the illegal cache of the page instead.
I'm actually using IE but I'll check out Mozilla...
|
|
| |
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
http://www.geocities.com/duelarcane1/
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=drumm-family
http://www.geekshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=Drumm-Family
"Kevin Loch" <kloch@opnsys.com> wrote in message
news:GyECpE.9oM@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> > > In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > >
> > > > 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 think is all done now)
> > > >
> > > > If there was a way to mark which folders were and which weren't cleared • yet
> > > > that would help. I THOUGHT i had it sussed by whether the folder got
> > > > replaced by the first pic in the folder but that's not definitive.
> > >
> > > 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 have a border.
> > >
> > > I also added "And On Topic" to the Safe link to clarify
> > > it's purpose :) If it's Off Topic, use the "Off Topic"
> > > link. If you aren't 100% sure it's safe *and* on topic,
> > > select "Unsure".
> >
> > 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
> >
> 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.
>
> > Also what is "moderation level"?? That just appeared too.
>
> -5 is temporary while thumbnails are being generated
> -2 is Unsafe
> -1 is Unsure
> 0 is unmoderated
> 1 is moderated Safe and On Topic
>
> KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch wrote:
> 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 ignores expires
> headers when you hit the 'back' button. That really helps in the
> moderator view when you inspect a file and hit 'back'. IE and NS
> (correctoy) load the page again which fetches another random folder.
> Mozilla uses the illegal cache of the page instead.
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 are supposed to cache it's output:
from rfc 2068:
In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and
HEAD methods should never have the significance of taking an action
other than retrieval. These methods should be considered "safe." This
allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and
DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact
that a possibly unsafe action is being requested.
and
Methods may also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside
from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N > 0 identical
requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD,
PUT and DELETE share this property.
not saying that this is strictly followed, but this is how it's supposed
to work :)
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > 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 cleared about 30 people's folders since I last posted, and I
> > keep seeing little changes) so it's getting easier.
>
> 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 ignores
> expires headers when you hit the 'back' button. That really helps
> in the moderator view when you inspect a file and hit 'back'. IE
> and NS (correctoy) load the page again which fetches another random
> folder. Mozilla uses the illegal cache of the page instead.
>
> KL
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 file/folder in another window so I can view it. I know, it
could be considered to be an extra step, but I'm used to it.
Us moderators are doing our best to wade through all the files as soon as
possible. It's a good thing I'm on vacation, Kevin picked a really good time
to do this, otherwise I wouldn't be able to help out as much.
Rich
--
Have Fun! C-Ya!
Legoman34
*****
Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (My views do not necessarily express the
views of my employer...)
BRICKFEST 2002 IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER... START MAKING PLANS TODAY.
Card carrying LUGNET MEMBER: #70
Visit http://www.geocities.com/legoman34.geo/
...(the wait is over...)
..."The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." ...
*****
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Dan Boger writes:
>
> unless there's an explicit header saying the cgi has expired
Yes.
A GET CGI is supposed to give the same output when it's
> parameters are the same, so browsers are supposed to cache it's output:
>
> from rfc 2068:
>
> In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and
> HEAD methods should never have the significance of taking an action
> other than retrieval. These methods should be considered "safe." This
> allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and
> DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact
> that a possibly unsafe action is being requested.
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. Where the Expires header is set it should
always be obeyed. Now, I am setting "Expires: 0" instead of a properly
formatted date string, so Mozilla may be ignoring it, where IE and NS
know what that means.
> and
>
> Methods may also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside
> from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N > 0 identical
> requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD,
> PUT and DELETE share this property.
>
> not saying that this is strictly followed, but this is how it's supposed
> to work :)
>
> Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Dan Boger writes:
> >
> > unless there's an explicit header saying the cgi has expired
>
> Yes.
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?
> 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. Where the Expires header is set it should
> always be obeyed. Now, I am setting "Expires: 0" instead of a properly
> formatted date string, so Mozilla may be ignoring it, where IE and NS
> know what that means.
hmmm... :
13.9 Side Effects of GET and HEAD
Unless the origin server explicitly prohibits the caching of their
responses, the application of GET and HEAD methods to any resources
SHOULD NOT have side effects that would lead to erroneous behavior if
these responses are taken from a cache. They may still have side
effects, but a cache is not required to consider such side effects in
its caching decisions. Caches are always expected to observe an
origin server's explicit restrictions on caching.
We note one exception to this rule: since some applications have
traditionally used GETs and HEADs with query URLs (those containing a
"?" in the rel_path part) to perform operations with significant side
effects, caches MUST NOT treat responses to such URLs as fresh unless
the server provides an explicit expiration time. This specifically
means that responses from HTTP/1.0 servers for such URIs should not
be taken from a cache. See section 9.1.1 for related information.
it does say that "GET" should be ok to be used from the cache, but gives the
exception that if it has a "?" in it, it will not be cached unless the
server specifically ask for caching.
so I guess you're right - in general, GET cgis should not be cached. in
this case, though, we do want it cahced, so you should set an expiration
header in the future - something like "+1d" or something. doesn't a "0"
mean the content has expired Jan 1, 1970?
Dan
|
|
|
