|
Grex > Helpers > #134: Grex System Problems - Summer 2004 |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 286 responses total. |
mfp
|
|
response 60 of 286:
| 
Jul 22 06:53 UTC 2004 |
That's not technically feasible. Especially since no-one's going to spend
any time doing it. Since they aren't even making New Grex go.
|
slynne
|
|
response 61 of 286:
|
Jul 22 15:19 UTC 2004 |
resp:59 - yes, it would be useful if that were the rule. We could have
avoided the whole valerie and jep thing if that were the case. As it
is, as long as we allow some users to delete their posts, we have to
allow everyone to do it even if some people choose to be obnoxious
about it.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 62 of 286:
|
Jul 22 17:03 UTC 2004 |
I don't think a limit on scribbling is warranted, as much as I'm annoyed.
As intelligently as he writes, tod is acting like a moron every time he does
this. Maybe he's trying to keep up with the polytarp's in the twit race...
|
tod
|
|
response 63 of 286:
|
Jul 22 18:16 UTC 2004 |
Or maybe I'm exercising my right to scribble old responses and saving Grex
some disk space while others see it as a nuisance. Move along, nothing to
see here, folks.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 64 of 286:
|
Jul 22 18:59 UTC 2004 |
Why don't you think a limit on scribbling is warranted, albaugh? It
could give anyone adequate time to scribble if they want. The point is
to stop this *wholesale* scribbling, which grinds one's use of the bbs
to a crawl, as one encounters and bypasses numerous empty responses. If
there were a limit, those that want to scribble would not have as many
to scribble all at once.
|
tod
|
|
response 65 of 286:
|
Jul 22 19:07 UTC 2004 |
Why not change Picospan to not show items as having a new response when there
is just a scribble INSTEAD of punishing those that want to remove their
responses for whatever reasons they may have?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 66 of 286:
|
Jul 22 19:59 UTC 2004 |
I don't _think_ removing your responses will save grex significant disk-space:
each response is lines in a file, and the file still remains after the lines
are gone.
Picospan (and probably every other conferencing system) just compares the
last-modified time of the item file with the last-read time in the
participation file. Deleting a response updates the modification time of the
item file.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 67 of 286:
|
Jul 22 20:02 UTC 2004 |
I'm not sure what the 24-hour time period would do. But it's become
pretty clear that allowing authors to scribble their own responses
causes more problems than it solves.
|
tod
|
|
response 68 of 286:
|
Jul 22 20:48 UTC 2004 |
The discussion of "allowing authors to" is a problem outside of the truth
complaint I'm hearing. People complain they are being told there is a new
response when there isn't one. It has nothing to do with motivation within
authors.
Joe says, " Picospan (and probably every other conferencing system) just
compares the
last-modified time of the item file with the last-read time in the
participation file. Deleting a response updates the modification time of
the
item file."
That sounds like a problem to me. Perhaps its time to revisit the
modification detection process in BBS.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 69 of 286:
|
Jul 22 21:03 UTC 2004 |
"Problem" is relative. PicoSpan was written under the assumption that
modifying responses after they are entered would be a relatively rare
event, and so a little anomalous behavior in this case was acceptable.
Unfortunately, on an open system one can assume that anything which can
be done to annoy people will be done, and not rarely.
|
tod
|
|
response 70 of 286:
|
Jul 22 23:25 UTC 2004 |
"a little anomalous behavior in this case was acceptable"
So the author is responsible if some deem "little" as "too much"?
Illogical.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 71 of 286:
|
Jul 22 23:30 UTC 2004 |
If the "little" behavior is multipled by being done hundreds of times,
and thereby becomes "too much", and the author did it hundreds of times
for the express purpose of annoying people in order to beat a dead
horse, then yes.
|
tod
|
|
response 72 of 286:
|
Jul 22 23:44 UTC 2004 |
Let's break this down. The "little" behavior was a one time thing unless
you're saying that somehow I populated Grex with hundreds of responses in the
sum of one day(which I did not).
If I delete all my responses in one day after years of posting, that makes
means I'm doing it "for the express purpose of annoying people in order to
beat a dead horse"?
I find the analysis of the behavior a spin from the real complaint that there
is "a little anomalous behavior in this case was acceptable".
|
marcvh
|
|
response 73 of 286:
|
Jul 23 00:05 UTC 2004 |
This was not a one-time thing; you have repeatedly run scribble scripts,
which slow the system down, scribble your items, and produce mild
annoyance due to PicoSpan timestamp issues or people who now have
difficulty following conversations in items where your content has been
removed. I have no idea what your point is with the "entering hundreds
of responses in one day" part so I'll ignore it.
Yes, based on the information available, I feel the most reasonable
conclusion is that you run scribble scripts for the express purpose of
annoying people in order to beat a dead horse. If you can honestly say
that you have some other primary reason and you have no wish to annoy
people, then I apologize.
I agree with you that this is a bug in PicoSpan, but that seems only
peripherally relevant.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 74 of 286:
|
Jul 23 11:57 UTC 2004 |
Let's get down to the point of abuse of the system and
stay there. 98% of the responses recently scribbled had already
been scribbled. That is consumeing resources beyond reasonable use.
Tod, I thought you where one for taking responsibility for
ones deeds. It is not the fault of the system. The fault is yours.
|
gull
|
|
response 75 of 286:
|
Jul 23 13:20 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:63: Since scribbled responses are logged elsewhere, I don't
think scribbling is a net savings of disk space. In fact, since I'm not
sure the file containing the response that was scribbled is actually
shortened, it may be a net loss. (I'm not certain about that, but
removing lines from the *middle* of a long file is a time-consuming
process, so I would guess it'd be avoided.)
|
scott
|
|
response 76 of 286:
|
Jul 23 13:40 UTC 2004 |
Quite aside from Tod's other annoyances, he's been running an idle-evader (or
worse?) script recently.
|
tod
|
|
response 77 of 286:
|
Jul 23 15:54 UTC 2004 |
Sorry if I'm annoying everyone with my presence and interaction. I do not
apologize.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 78 of 286:
|
Jul 23 16:43 UTC 2004 |
Your presence & interaction is welcome, not annoying. Your penchant for
periodic wide scribbling of your responses is "stupid" and annoying.
|
tod
|
|
response 79 of 286:
|
Jul 23 16:45 UTC 2004 |
You say tomato, I say roma tomato.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 80 of 286:
|
Jul 23 16:49 UTC 2004 |
All roadsa lead to roma.
|
tod
|
|
response 81 of 286:
|
Jul 23 17:00 UTC 2004 |
On an evenin in Roma
|
naftee
|
|
response 82 of 286:
|
Jul 24 00:50 UTC 2004 |
I've noticed that running scribble scripts nowadays doesn't seem to annoy
people as much as it used to.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 83 of 286:
|
Jul 24 02:55 UTC 2004 |
Perhaps the people doing it now are of less consequence.
|
naftee
|
|
response 84 of 286:
|
Jul 24 14:41 UTC 2004 |
Or people have just memorized the item numbers with all the activity
|