Page 2 of 134, showing 100 records out of 13,394 total, starting on record 101, ending on 200
| # | Username | Text | |
|---|---|---|---|
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 14:56 | alkemann | cool. i think it could work very well |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 14:57 | gwoo | alkemann: did you update the docs? |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 14:57 | alkemann | with this idea? |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 14:57 | gwoo | yes |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 14:58 | alkemann | no. i asked my coworker to write it. so maybe tomorrow |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 14:58 | gwoo | ok |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 15:00 | jperras | my only concern is going to be what the threshold for 'higher level' users will be |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 15:01 | alkemann | well lets say accepted authors have a value of 1, moderators of 5. need a value of 15 and at least 1 moderator |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 15:02 | jperras | only positive points allowed? |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 15:02 | gwoo | yeah |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 15:02 | jperras | i.e. no one can 'vote down' an article |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 15:03 | jperras | so over time, the more authors are added, the easier an article will become to push to the front page |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 15:03 | jperras | but I guess if we restrict it to needing at least one moderator it should be ok |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 15:03 | alkemann | yea need some finess to this rule |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 15:04 | alkemann | if a moderator sends a message with suggested improvements, should the article then be put offline for all? |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 15:13 | alkemann | not sure i agree with only positive votes.. with it, eventually all articles could be published |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 15:15 | ADmad | some value divided by no. of moderators ? |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 15:15 | alkemann | copy pasted log of this into wiki. http://thechaw.com/bakery/wiki/spec/articles/publish-voting |
| # | Feb 16th 2009, 15:15 | alkemann | ronny he said he would do a write up of his original idea tomorrow morning |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 02:44 | alkemann | http://thechaw.com/bakery/wiki/spec/articles/publish-voting |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:42 | alkemann | ADmad: jperras: http://thechaw.com/bakery/wiki/spec/articles/publish-voting |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:43 | ADmad | alkemann: yeah i checked... the first option is a bit overkill imo |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:47 | rvv | ADmad: yeah, I agree.. I only mentioned it because it was my original idea, but I think the 2nd approach would be quite viable. especially if augmented with some "special" users' votes weight more to offset the problem of articles requiring many votes to be published |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:48 | ADmad | rvv: yeah... say for eg. a core member's vote will have more weight than a moderator |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:52 | rvv | I do like the side effect of all articles being rated, because it can be very hard for a noob to tell articles with good practices from those with bad |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:52 | alkemann | well the goal should be that no bad practises are published :) |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:52 | ADmad | rvv: yes i personally don't mind if only a select few have the power to make an article available to general public |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:53 | ADmad | i dont want crap like this to be published at all http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/filling-a-select-with-tree-behavoir |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:53 | alkemann | ADmad: doing something about bottlenecks are also a point though |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:53 | ADmad | alkemann: ? |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:54 | alkemann | select few with power means that things are pubished only at their leisure |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:55 | alkemann | also, we have the select few system now and it is not working in regards to QA.. |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:55 | alkemann | anyways. time to head home from work |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:56 | jperras | alkemann: thanks for the link, I'll give it a read |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:56 | ADmad | k ttyl |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 08:56 | alkemann | laters :) |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 12:46 | alkemann1 | gwoo: u see the wiki update? |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 12:50 | alkemann1 | my suggestion is that we agree that a behind the scenes system for publishing is good and specc/build it in a manner that lets us tweak the rules as we test it |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 12:51 | gwoo | alkemann yes |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 12:51 | alkemann | hmm.. did i forget to log of work? |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 12:52 | alkemann | gwoo: heard from mariano_iglesias about when he will have time do write use cases? |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 12:53 | gwoo | alkemann: no i have not seen mariano_iglesias around here |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 12:55 | alkemann | gwoo: rvv's ideas use jsut one rating though, and lets articles be published with ratings. do u feel one or two is best? |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 12:57 | gwoo | actually 1 rating might work |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 | gwoo | and would make things simpler |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 | gwoo | so "bakers" get to rate the article before the "public" |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 | gwoo | and if the bakers rate the article >= 4 |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 12:58 | gwoo | it goes live |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:00 | alkemann | yea that could work |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:01 | alkemann | would still need a system of x amount of votes and at least one moderator or higher though |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:04 | alkemann | gwoo: about existing bakery and article. i assume we want to take some. are we going to take all? might be a good opppertunity for a purge. what sense in having strict quality rules if we start out with a lot of sub par. |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 | gwoo | yeah |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 | gwoo | some purge would be good |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 | jperras | alkemann: read the wiki post |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 | jperras | I agree with the '1 rating' |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:06 | jperras | (read as in past tense, "I read the post") |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:09 | alkemann | ok i guess u get to figure out some clever math? :p |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:10 | jperras | haha |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:11 | jperras | rating is probably going to be the lower bound of a 95% confidence interval on the approximated normal distribution of the ratings |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:11 | jperras | with some tweaking for temporal effects |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:11 | alkemann | hehe. i see you |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:12 | jperras | not overly clever, but quite stable and numerically simple to calculate |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:15 | jperras | actually, the ratings are most likely going to be a biased normal distribution, since the articles will need to be rated positively a few times before they even get published |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:15 | jperras | now I'm getting all math-geek excited :P |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:16 | alkemann | heh excited is good |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:18 | jperras | I'm going to be starting the wireframes this evening based on the use cases in the chaw wiki |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:19 | jperras | should have something to show by tomorrow |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 13:23 | alkemann | goody |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 14:55 | alkemann | hey teknoid |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 14:55 | teknoid | hiya |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 14:56 | alkemann | did u approve this http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/tabhelper ? |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 14:57 | teknoid | yep |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 14:58 | alkemann | in my oppinion all the 5 articles that are currently on Latest code are ... not good enough |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 14:58 | alkemann | bakery shouldnt be just place to paste some code. we got paste bin for that |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 14:59 | alkemann | "The code should explain it self" stats the tab helper article. well it doesnt, and it shouldnt. |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 14:59 | alkemann | starts* |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 14:59 | ADmad | this is crap too http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/maintain-url-arguments-while-paginating |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:00 | teknoid | alkeman: that's a tough decision... i looked at the code and it seemed "decent" ... guess, i'm too nice... |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:00 | ADmad | its bascially 1 line of code which is already mentioned in manual |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:00 | alkemann | also the article states that there are currently many such helpers in existing, but doesnt discuss why this one is worth sharing or doing. whats different, how is this better? |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:01 | alkemann | teknoid: if you think the code is worth sharing, you can still request the author to spend some time writing a worthwhile article to go along with it |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:02 | alkemann | api will be required in the next version of bakery, but there is a convention of at least including examples in the current one |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:03 | alkemann | teknoid: so yes, basically i think you're too nice :) unfortunatly it's a character trait i dont have :/ |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:03 | teknoid | alkemann: i completely agree with you, but i don't think we should discourage community participation by being "too tough", hence the ranking the system will come in quite handy... the code itself (in that article) was decent, imho |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:03 | alkemann | teknoid: dont think of it as discouragement, think of it as ENcouragement, of doing it right |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:04 | alkemann | teknoid: on a completely different note. there is a typo in one of ur blog articles that is giving lots of copy paste artists lots of trouble.. ADmad u remember what it is? |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:04 | alkemann | a missplaced ) i think |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:04 | teknoid | i made a typo... no way :)... |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:05 | ADmad | teknoid: the one about prg |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:05 | alkemann | hehe imagine that |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:05 | teknoid | fckuk |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:05 | teknoid | dohh |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:05 | ADmad | http://teknoid.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/retaining-a-search-string-in-the-url/ |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:05 | alkemann | yes line 3 |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:05 | alkemann | of code |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:06 | ADmad | remove the ) after 'search' and put it at the end :) |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:07 | alkemann | teknoid: i can let you know that i have already read ronnyvv's dummy article, so that is good enough for you publish :p |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:08 | alkemann | i dont think i managed to be a suberfuge as i intended there .. hehe |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:08 | teknoid | thank you... fixed... i wonder if i had too many or that was really working, 'cause i usually copy/paste stuff from my own apps... |
| # | Feb 17th 2009, 15:09 | alkemann | had to many.. beers? |