 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree with you to an extent, but surely if one wanted discuss, say, God should one not have a more fruitful discussion at alt.god? All lot of the posts in .debate really belong in a .opinion. (...) Fustrated - yes. Mad - No. Scott A (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that you're actually wanting an answer to this, since you go on to sarcastically point out things that we all consider negatives, not positives, but I think it's worth exploring. The value to _me_ of .debate is a place to civilly (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
"r2" <lego@r2eng.com> wrote in message news:G5vI3n.J1v@lugnet.com... (...) You should have an option in your newsreader to View all Headers which would give you the Followup-To:, Reply-To:, etc., fields. -- -Rob. ===...=== New sets and parts for (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
Frank Filz wrote in message <3A3D4858.1F036B0C@m...ng.com>... (...) We almost always post through our newsreader. If I cross post something I can not specify where follow-ups are posted. Is there someway to do this? Rose (26 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Castle set rating curiosity
|
|
(Momentarily x-posted to ".admin", but re-dorected back to ".castle"... You'll see why below. ;-) (...) A single ZERO rating? Or a single "50(%)" rating? IIRC, Todd has programmed the ratings to automatically have a "balancing" initial/default (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) now (...) that (...) What is the added value of having it? People getting mad at each other? People insulting each other? People ridiculing ones faith / politics etc.? I think it is useless. If you want to debate, go somewhere else. That's my (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Ask Suz why -- she was the one who put them there. --Todd (26 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
You forgot one moderating method: Use the password checker, and only accept messages which passes a certain limit of security (or a modified version of the checker, with a specialized dictionary). Seriously, if you have a group with 'free speech', (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I think there is some overflow from .debate into other groups. I can't absolutely put my finger on it (in part because I realize that in part the Larry vs. Scott shouting match may have started outside of .debate, but I certainly see linkage (...) (26 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) What is the added value to those of you who want .debate gone? I can completely understand not valuing the presense of debate, even I duck out now and then when I'm busy. But I don't get the motive behind the suggestion that it should be gone. (...) (26 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
To all, I might as well thorw a comment into the fray here..... (...) I gave up on debate about a year ago now, simply because Icould not stand it anymore. There is a lot of hostile people around, that seem to thrive in debate, and not anywhere else (...) (26 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Larry, you really are a conceited. I'm happy for you to refer to me however you want - as I am pretty thick skinned. The positions I adopt are, often, more about educating myself than spamming this group with my philosophy on life, the (...) (26 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Dot view parameterizable?? (Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
(...) Not entirely sure of what I am talking about here, but would not the delay be caused by more processor time, which is something that we want to get away from? Anyways, you can always choose to view the dots when they are suppressed. (...) (...) (26 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) How about the following? (to be added to the TOS?) *Only members can start new threads in .debate, or .market. No new tech stuff required, just include your Lugnet member number in your sig. If you forget, someone will remind you. If you try (...) (26 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree. I think it is possible to involve Christianity in the debates without the thread quickly heading for the gutter. But the reality is that the way threads go in .debate, the visibility of Christianity is what I'm complaining about. The (...) (26 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well, my post seems to have shut down some of the pointless shouting, and there seems to be some interesting debate starting to creep from under the rocks it dove for cover behind... I'm still going to let it chill for a while and see if this (...) (26 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I assume you mean "informally" in that for example, Frank sends me a note telling me to cool it... or vice versa. (because if you mean formally we're back to a moderator/council/review thingie) I think that's a good idea. More... I think it (...) (26 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well, I just went through the 24 posts that make up this thread at the time that I noticed it. Hmmm. I've been disappointed with the debates of late too, and maybe I'm partly to blame, but I think it's really only the past couple months that (...) (26 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) (nitpick) Some christians. I'm not preaching, and I can't be the only christian who's stearing clear. (...) I'm not sure if I'm one of the folks you're talking about, but I've certainly dropped .debate from my reading. It's gone way downhill (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Hmm. Something that I've noticed for a while not, but not cared enough to mention before this is... The skip filter only works on the highest level, and goes away as soon as I drill down into a sup-group. (ie: I have .debate filtered out, but (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Ya, the default is to omit .off-topic and .admin noise: (URL) and limiting .debate posts from showing in any search (except explicitly (...) That would be a bit trickier but might come almost for free since it already filters out groups not in (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Thanks for the restate. Yes, coughcough was just who I was referring to. Restated that way, I agree 100%. ++Lar (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well that could be handled by having two groups. One for conducting auction business (soliciting bids) and one for asking questions about auctions. Then you just TOS quickly anyone who regularly manages to "announce" their auction in the Q&A (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) they (...) Mmm. That'll teach me to go around not qualifying my statements. Clearly, I don't think that the rules should be mutated too much to encourage everyone (coughMatthewMoultoncough) to join up- on the other hand, if subtle changes to (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree, I'd be sad to see it go. But what I'm really sad is that as far as I'm concerned, it's gone now. A year ago I really enjoyed .debate. The past few months, the time for a thread to deteriorate into one of the two recurring shouting (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
Call me elitist... (and I don't think I'm 100% disagreeing) (...) I'm not. That is, I'm not for enabling *everyone* to be a member. There are certain people I would be happy to see not join, heck, not even participate here. There are only a handful (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) That's a good point. It hadn't occurred to me because I don't usually get ensnared by a debate until it's already in .debate! Maybe we should have off-topic.debate.pure and off-topic.debate.spill. 8^) Dave! (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) <puts facilitator hat on> No no... post your ideas, no matter how wacky, as long as they haven't been posted yet. That's brainstorming. Even if you know there is a flaw in idea E1 and E2 of yours, and in L1 and L2 of mine, someone may come up (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Actually, those two are great ideas, IMHO. I wonder how many people that aren't members post updates about their LEGO eBay auctions on Lugnet, and never give back to the upkeep of Lugnet... I hadn't ever thought of that before. And the admin (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Hear, hear! Though I don't expect that I'll switch to Libertarianism or Christianity any time soon, I have learned a good deal about those two views. That, for me, is the primary reason for participating in .debate (that, and getting the (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) The recent history of .debate is certainly that the types of shouting matches have little chance of being productive, however, I will point out that back some time ago, the "Libertarian" debate DID have real productivity. It DID change (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Well, as soon as I can come up with an idea that I myself can't pick apart on 1000 levels, I will. Unfortunately, thus far I've been unsuccessful... (...) Yeah, but that's the default way of "winning" an argument or flamewar on Usenet. :D (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:>>Hey, that's a good idea- if you pay to become a Lugnet member, you're allowed (...) I'm not yet a member (mainly because most of my posting has been to OT rather than LEGO-specific contributions), (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Dot view parameterizable?? (Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
(...) I would like to put into the enhancement hopper the idea of setting a personal preference for how big the tree view should be allowed to get before it is suppressed. I'm willing to pay a bit more delay to get larger trees, some others may want (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Personally, I come and go. I lose interest in some debates, and gain interest in others. Occasionally I'll see something that really does peak my interest, and other times, I just feel like debating. As to whether it's actually a waste of (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I wasn't clear enough. I was looking for some brainstorming on possible solutions first before we trotted out the sharpened knives to rip holes in the ideas. All the ones i posted were dreamt up in about 5 minutes total to act as thought (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
I *said* they had flaws and were thought starters... so you'll see a smiley behind every one of my responses, I'm trying to be funny in them. I suggest you post some ideas of your own, I'm trying to get some brainstorming going... (...) Why not? (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Only post via the web interface? NO THANKS. I've posted maybe a total of 5 times via the web interface (and only because I was in a training class, not on any of my computers). Broken. (...) Then people would just watch the branches to make (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) Hey, that's a good idea- if you pay to become a Lugnet member, you're allowed to voice your opinions. Sorry, Larry, I can't agree with that. (...) ...giving an automatic "last word" to the person who squeaks in under the post limit. (...) (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I'll take some culpability here, I'm a sucker for trying to show up the clueless, and no matter how many times I swear it off, it's just too tempting... he's just so cluelessly annoying when he wants to be. (but he CAN be a good contributor (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
(...) I agree with some of the philosophies about needing a place for off-topic things to spill, and needing a seperate place for them, etc, but I have to admit that I'm starting to wonder if there might not be a need to somehow restrict the posting (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
|
While I think many of the posts have been somewhat useless (not even entertaining!), there are still many posts that either make me think, or entertain me, so I'm all for keeping the group around. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Message-ID -> Article number
|
|
[redirecting to .admin.nntp] (...) I would really hate to see NNTP Message ID's floating around in HTTP URLs. A workaround is simply to use a standardized NNTP URL format -- for example: news://lugnet.com/qr...eos.uio.no That's postable as-is. Or, (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
(...) Yea, that's a real pain. Sometimes I go to the web interface to follow a thread since you see the whole thread there, but then when the thread gets too big, it becomes worthless to follow it on the web interface because it's hard to keep track (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
(...) There are reasons to keep a thread in multiple groups, see below. (...) Problem with requiring it on ANY cross posting is the discussions which legitimately belong in two or even three groups. (...) Because of how the web interface works (and (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Uselessness of .debate
|
|
Well, after another few weeks of .debate, I'm really really thinking I'm just going to abandon it, and honestly, more and more, I'm feeling it's a waste of Lugnet resources to have it. There are two constantly recurring shouting matches: - Scott vs (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
(...) I can't think of a practical example for putting multiple groups in the followup-to header. Maybe it's just me ??? I don't think jerk-proofing needs to be a *high* priority around here, although it's good to jerk-proof when it doesn't impact (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
(...) I've been that everyone. Typically, the reason I do a "reply to all groups" is because I'm arriving in the middle of a large-ish thread, I have no idea what ng's other people have been using,[1] so I just leave things alone, and reply to all (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Message-ID -> Article number
|
|
(...) I don't read the articles via mail, so the former is of little use, I'm afraid. And so is the latter, because I use Leafnode to read news offline. This means that the LUGNET articles get a different article number on my local news spool. So (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Elemental Challenge
|
|
(...) The raw IP stuff is because of our firewall. Whenever the firewall decides we need to re-authenticate, whatever http request being processed at the time gets converted/returned to the raw IP. I'll pay attention, and see what happens the next (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Message-ID -> Article number
|
|
(...) And via nntp, there's an xref header, for example, Dan's post has the following header: Xref: lugnet.com lugnet.admin.general:8506 (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Message-ID -> Article number
|
|
(...) while this might not be what you need, notice that messages you get via mail from lugnet have this header attached: X-Message-Archive: (URL) you can link to that message directly, or just as "lugnet.year.2002:24"... :) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Message-ID -> Article number
|
|
In USENET, an article is refered to by it's Message-ID. Now, LUGNET is not USENET, and here articles are normally refered to by the article number on the server. This makes it a bit hard for me (or anyone else who reads from the SMTP or NNTP (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New newsgroup
|
|
(...) Can I direct you over to a related thread?-- (URL) free to post a flurry of ideas / suggestions / possible names there as they all interrelate. --Todd (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | New newsgroup
|
|
Todd, I realize you are busy with other things but I thought I would mention an idea I had. I have noticed there has been some excessive cross-posting in regards to movies due to the lack of a specific group. What about creating a ng called .movies (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) Yes, definitely! And the flags can link to country pages that list just the people in the country. (...) It actually won't incur extra overhead (amazingly, it will actually reduce overhead) to restrict things to hard or soft time ranges, so (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) Sorry for having contributed to wasted bandwidth, though I do hope you will give some thought to the ideas of splitting up the members list as I had suggested, and some kind of "recentness" limit to the search, though I realize that the (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) I'm sorry. I know. You're right. It just always happens. Someone says something vague, someone else guesses something about it, someone else adds another guess, someone else adds another guess, and before you know it, everything's way off (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) No need to get snippy. We're just trying to help. We don't have access to the source or even the design documentation so all we can do is speculate based on what you say, and if our speculation is wide of the mark, so be it. It's not our (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) Yikes! Holy speculation, Batman! Thanks, but no thanks! Guys, this is nice and all, but you're guessing way off in left field. On the pages I was talking about, the actual webpage is not held in memory -- ever -- it's written directly to a (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
(...) Thanks for the clarification, I think we're in total agreement. I think it WOULD be nice to have some automation that helped people remember not to excessively cross post (and the place to put the one page netiquette FAQ link for people to (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
(...) I guess I should have clarified that I don't think the current round of excessive cross posting is jerks, I'm just pointing out that trivial things like requiring a follow-up header when cross posting doesn't remove the possibility of jerks (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) Zero time. It's done continuously as a background process. Once per minute, any new article is added into the mix. (...) This kind of index is more efficient to do as soon as something new appears, as opposed to a kind of index where content (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
(...) Again, I am not trying to be argumentative, but I don't see this problem as one of maliciousness. That is, it isn't "jerks" who are multiposting individual groups, or not setting followups correctly. Just lazy people and people who know (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
(...) I mostly concur, I just sometimes wonder if it might be the best solution (of course the counter to that is that you get the jerks who work around the cross posting rules by posting individually to each group - but they can be TOSed). (...) (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) What about using a style sheet? Would that help? I admit that I am not sure exactly what level of browser for the big two correctly supports style sheets (I ought to know this since I have been using them a lot in recent web development (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) How long does it take to generate the index? Can you subdivide the index at all (and do something like backup where you have incremental indices plus once a day or once an hour regenerate the complete index)? If some sort of incremental index (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) Splitting the list into a page for each letter (or perhaps groups of 2-4 letters) or country/state would cut the page size down dramatically was my idea. Almost every time I've gone to look at the list, I'm either looking for a specific (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) It's (currently) a half-gigabyte index that gets indexed in realtime (once per minute). --Todd (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
(...) it does - I think. When you post to .annouce, even from mail or nntp, doesn't it require a followup? if so, adding a few other rules to that check should be quite possible... (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) I think it's more of a problem of having to have the page in memory (all 300k of it) while a slow client downloads it. Nothing much to do about that except make the page smaller - perhaps move all the FONT FACE entries to an all encompassing (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
(...) I think that's a bit extreme, although what I snipped below is good discussion fodder. I think a number of the recent cross posts have been initiated by people who either are new, or who don't post as often as some of us. An initial cross post (...) (26 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) How about breaking down the member pages into pages split by first letter of first or last name, and by country/state? I'm not sure if your "caching" means keeping the indexes by each sort but it would seem this need not be true dynamic (...) (26 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Excessive Cross Posting
|
|
Todd, Is there some way to shut down the excessive cross posting which has been occurring lately? I'm beginning to feel that Lugnet might be better off if no cross posting was allowed, though I can see some reason for limited cross posting. Some (...) (26 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting weirdness
|
|
(...) It's actually infinitely worse than that. The NFA it produced actually had exponential performance, so it would try to do it 2^80 (2 raised to the 80th power) times, which would take about 302,200,000,000,000,000 seconds or about ten thousand (...) (26 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting weirdness
|
|
(...) yah, that's what it looks like to me. Since it would match any newline, and start adding up the whitespace until it found the beginning of a new paragraph. it'll backtrack to the next blank line, try again, and fail once more.... if you have (...) (26 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) Certain bottlenecks are indeed standing out like sore thumbs. One big one is the dynamic generation of the /shop/ pages on guide.lugnet.com, and another is the dynamic generation of member-specific set lists. An even bigger one is (was) the (...) (26 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting weirdness
|
|
(...) Was, ya. (...) I was using a regex involving \n\s* which compiled into a nondeterministic finite-state automata in Perl 5.004 and 5.005. Perl 5.6 is smart enough to compile it into a deterministic finite-state automata (essentially realising (...) (26 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting weirdness
|
|
(...) No prob. I posted what I wanted to post without the spoiler. Something *is* broken, then? (...) About a screen and a half worth. Haven't people done spoilers lately??? (...) ++Lar (26 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: posting weirdness
|
|
(...) OK, please try again now! (...) Whew! Thank you so much for finding and reporting this! I'm not sure yet[1] if this was a stupidly written regex on my part or bona fide bug in perl's[2] regex engine. Either way, the post you submitted caused (...) (26 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) I've had nothing but problems with www.hort.net/gallery/, which is all dynamically generated. Every month at about the same time we disappear entirely out of Google's search engine, which they claim is due to updates. Although it usually only (...) (26 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: posting weirdness
|
|
(...) No, nothing has changed in the web interface for posting since November 3. The good news here is that I see several HTTP processes each trying to use 100% of the CPU -- and collectiving using up several minutes of CPU. They seem to be hung. (...) (26 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) That's an intriguing thought. It looks like it requires Google to be able to crawl a site completely, though. I wonder if they play well with dynamically generated content... (...) Yes, it is. --Todd (26 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: posting weirdness
|
|
(...) Whoa -- stop posting that. Something about it is chewing up tons and tons of CPU. How many whitespace lines are you putting in? I wonder if there is a regex speed issue. --Todd (26 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
(...) Hi Todd, Did you ever consider a google search box? Like this one: www.sis.pitt.edu/~dist I don't know for sure, but I think that the search is done on google's server. Toki (26 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | posting weirdness
|
|
has something changed to disallow lots of blank lines (ala spoiler prevention)? I have tried to post something that has a lot of white space several times now, and the server just times out. Another post at the same time without white space goes (...) (26 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Elemental Challenge
|
|
(...) Steve: Never mind on trying to repeat it -- I see the occurrence in the HTTP logs about 3 minutes before you posted the question about it. Your browser (apparently MSIE 5.01 for Win98) doesn't appear to be sending the referring page URL (...) (26 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Strange Duplicate Messages.
|
|
(...) Well, the good news is that, as far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with the news server. The bad news is that, apparently, your web browser actually did submit the post three times. According to HTTP form the logs, the timestamps of the (...) (26 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Web site font to small to read
|
|
Bingo! That was it. Thank you! I must have accidentally discovered this feature. You know I looked all over the various IE preferences and all I found was a place where I could change the default font. I never found a way that change default size. (...) (26 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Elemental Challenge
|
|
(...) exact time that it happened? I can check the logs and see what your browser is passing. Are you running a beta browser or did you do anything unusual like reload or set up an HTTP proxy? --Todd (26 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Elemental Challenge
|
|
Todd, When I clicked on the set-image (to get the enlarged view) for URL below, I got the frowny-face "Direct Image Link Not Supported". What's up with that? Steve (...) (26 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: New film link list needed
|
|
(...) I think there should be some site(s) where LEGO Movie makers can submit a link to their movie with a brief write up and maybe a still frame of the movie. I envision this as something like the films section at theforce.net with the movies (...) (26 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.space, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Web site font to small to read
|
|
Do you have a wheel mouse by chance? I discovered in IE that when you have the CTRL pressed down and use the wheel mouse to scroll it enlarges/shrinks the font. I had the font set way big on a new computer and had to do the same thing to fix it. (...) (26 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Web site font to small to read
|
|
Starting yesterday, I have started seeing the small text of the LUGNET website in really small text. So small that it is mostly unreadable. I don't know if this is a problem with a setting on my browser or a change of the font size on the website. (...) (26 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: News search function temporarily disabled
|
|
<nod nod> Thanks for letting us know. I'm no geek in any means, but first things first, I would limit the search. Sometimes a single search brings up thousands of posts. I suggest if the search is too broad, say it and make the searcher narrow it (...) (26 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Strange Duplicate Messages.
|
|
This one is wierd... I posted this message last night around 10pm EST (approx). (URL) suddenly for no reason 2 duplicates of that message just appeared. (URL) have no idea how this could have happened. Anyway I don't think I initiated these but I (...) (26 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | news.lugnet.com enhancement request
|
|
Not sure if this is the right group.... Todd. I keep a browser open to (URL) and hit refresh every so often to see if the message count on some groups have gone up. What I don't know is when the last time I refreshed the page. How hard would it be (...) (26 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Error in Hash Database again?
|
|
(...) well, since the error was a non-fatal one (if I recall correctly) the message will not bounce right away, but will try to resend for a while... If sendmail was refusing connections for, say, 4 hours, some messages might be delayed up to 8 (...) (26 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Error in Hash Database again?
|
|
(...) Indeed it does, and perhaps that is what it was. But I could swear I saw the very post that was mixed in there long long ago (on the 10th) and then it reappeared out of order. But it could have been a dup that got stuck somewhere and just now (...) (26 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Error in Hash Database again?
|
|
(...) Is something updating the aliases.db file before sendmail starts up, like /usr/lib/sendmail -bi or makemap? Is it possible that one of these is older and using a different format than your regular sendmail daemon? I was recently bitten by an (...) (26 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
