 | | Re: No Comment —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Unrate. If that's what it does. We were at one point talking about using rating as a way to tell that an article had been read. If that path is pursued, I'd differentiate between all of the following (somehow) states. never read, never rated (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: No Comment —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) I knew I could count on an ex-IBM'er to come up with a good non-word! :) :) OK, so how about "Unrated" in place of "No Comment" if the article has not yet been rated by you, and "Unrate" in place of "No Comment" if you're revisiting it later (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No Comment —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) to (...) Bingo. I walk off the end all the time. And you are right. It's WAD, because I in fact HAVE seen that URL, it just didn't happen to contain anything useful underneath yet because it hadn't yet been posted. So can you tell when I am (...) (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No Comment —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) No, not without either some kludges or some rewiring of the header code (planned). --Todd (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: No Comment —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) It was driving me crazy before. Now that I know what it is (or at least you've bluffed me into thinking I do :-) ) I can live with it. ++Lar (25 years ago, 5-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
