Too many things!
-
But, do you complain when Outlook runs like shit?
-
New topics are capped at the site level to 2/5th of max_new_unread_topics, out of the box that is 200.
That's what my post was saying. I specified 200 because we are using the default value of 500.
Essentially, this means the site setting is a load of crap. With resets happening so often, most users will be unable to exceed 80% (new + unread) of the setting.
-
I think we just switched to a different server, don't think it was more powerful.
More disk space. Which I must remember to look at a bit later....
@Lorne_Kates said:
Wait, when did Discourse leave alpha?
Unless I'm missing some subtlety there, we stopped following it some time ago (A quick scan of the thread below indicates sometime around Feb.).
@Lorne_Kates said:
I made the mistake of going to discoure's website to try to find out what the current version number is.
Our's is being tracked on an eminently findable thread:
https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/docker-upgrades/1929/last
Ooh - another bug - the onebox doesn't
like havinguse /last being passed as a post number...
-
The original complaint was that unread can not be trusted.
Which was better than stuff being untracked on the user's behalf.
This is the only solution needed:
@blakeyrat said:"You have more than X unread items; only the latest X will be listed."
-
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode thesixfive hundred.
...
Someone had blundered.
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,I usually have no problems with Discourse as a platform (and I haven't encountered the Kuro-bar), but I must repeat that this is a really bad idea, and I still haven't heard any good reason for it. I mean, this is stuff that any decent NNTP1 client (or server, for that matter) manages without blinking an eye!
[1]: I deliberatly picked the 1986 version of the RFC in the link to make a point about how long this problem has been solved.
-
the issue self corrects.
So basically those topics are lost to the user? I guess the only way to find them is to scroll through latest and remember which ones he actually read and which ones he didn't read?
-
Well that's fine because the topics the user has visited are a different colour in the list.
Oh, wait...
-
Nothing is being untracked old stuff is dismissed, but topics remain tracked, anyway I will revisit
-
What about dismissed new topics? Do they stay tracked?
-
So basically those topics are lost to the user? I guess the only way to find them is to scroll through latest and remember which ones he actually read and which ones he didn't read?
Maybe Discourse can assist the user in remembering where in the list she was. All you need to do is use a simple datetime/flag that records when the last time the user read the topic was...
-
anyway I will revisit
You might also revisit the idea of hiring professional software developers to work on Discourse, because the crappy solution to this problem is a problem, but a much larger problem is that nobody on the Discourse development team had a problem with it!
You shouldn't have to rely on the criticism from some assholes on some random forum to produce good software. You need people on your own team who have brains and think these things through before the code's implemented.
This is the gravatar thing all over again, except worse. Stop and think it through before writing the code.
-
the issue self corrects
No Sam, it does not self correct. In the industry, this is considered a fucking hack
How many unread topics do you have?
That doesn't explain away your piss poor choices in designalso
Oh look, instead of actually fixing your junk, you act like a snarky butthole. Just because Blakey can be calous and aggressive sometimes DOES NOT INVALIDATE HIS POINT
Also, bug report, I cannot highlight-quote a post that only contains an emoji. Let me guess, you're going to "fix" this by removing emoji"You have more than X unread items; only the latest X will be listed.
Seriously, how dysfunctional are these guys that this didn't come up in the discussion of this issue?The original complaint was that unread can not be trusted
How does this allow us to trust unread any more? Trust it to be worthless I guessNew topics are capped at the site level to 2/5th of max_new_unread_topics, out of the box that is 200
Sam, NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY FUCKING SENSE
I am a Computer Science Student, not even graduated yet, with like, four fucking months in the industry, and even I know that YOU DON'T ARBITRARILY CHANGE USERS DATA WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT
CHRISTThis is the gravatar thing all over again, except worse. Stop and think it through before writing the code
QFT
-
What happens if a spammer comes along and manages to create several thousand topics before the mods manage to ban him?
-
There are rate limits on that sort of thing and Discourse also watches for new users who post very similar posts in multiple places.
-
So it fixes a hack with another hack? Good lord, is Atwood okay? Like seriously? Can he feed himself? Guys I think he needs help. At this point I am concerned about his safety and psychological well-being
-
At this point I am concerned about his safety and psychological well-being
That puts you in a real minority round here.
-
I'm not going to try to proof-of-concept anything on that, but we know you can easily write bots against discourse.
-
So it fixes a hack with another hack?
What? What hack? This was talking about anti-spam measures.
I'm not going to try to proof-of-concept anything on that, but we know you can easily write bots against discourse.
There is a cooldown for creating new topics. For anyone. Also a limit to how many topics a user can create, period. New users are limited in the number of posts they make. I'm not sure what you had in mind, but it would have to work within those limits. In addition to other anti-spam stuff that's in there.
-
And probably a limit to number of users per IP so you'd need an actual botnet to hit the 'thousands' mark.
-
What? What hack?
I guess I assumed that the rate limiting was to prevent topic overflow
I did this because I am an idiot
-
Well, it's the topic of this topic. But the rate limits have been around for a long time. The overflow stuff is all new. And wouldn't matter since the rates apply to a particular user. I think it was some place called hello fora have over 500 new topics per day.
-
@sam said:
The original complaint was that unread can not be trusted.
Which was better than stuff being untracked on the user's behalf.
#QFFT
-
-
And probably a limit to number of users per IP so you'd need an actual botnet to hit the 'thousands' mark.
Hello Amazon EWS …
But why bother with thousands? You only need to create around 200 to screw a discoforum on the latest track over.
-
Anybody have a couple bucks and an hour? Meta.d could sure use a few bug requests
-
I will pay for it, if you have the time to do it. For science's sake, because it has been said that it can't be done and all.
-
I have zero experience working with discourse
though I could use another project
-
Good luck. At best, you're going to need 100 accounts to create 2000 topics. That's if you wait 24 hours after account activation to make your posts - if not, you'll need ~700 accounts. But you might get post-blocked after the first topic from an account, so that'll make you cycle accounts faster. If a regex can be devised that matches the content you're posting, it can get chucked into the post approval queue instantly (and that account is now burned). You're going to need a lot of IPs, as IPs get burned once an account is deleted. And if your personal IP is burned, you might have trouble logging in. You'll probably want an ipv6 host, but subnet bans are created automatically after 5 IP bans in that subnet. You'll need to cycle email providers too, if you use an uncommon one as email providers can be blacklisted (Bamwar used @gmail.com so they were harder to get rid of). You'll have to wait 2 minutes between each topic, plenty of time for people to flag the accounts. There's more spam measures that I don't feel like typing up right now.
-
If only DiscoDevs spent as much time thinking about the implications to the end user as they do to anti-spam measures...
-
Because obviously there aren't smarter ways to falsely add content to something right?
Also, unless you've changed the default, we wouldn't need 2000 posts, just occasionally make 200ish posts and 200ish topics
-
If only DiscoDevs spent as much time thinking about
the implications to the end useranything else as they do to anti-spam measures...FTFY
-
Also, unless you've changed the default, we wouldn't need 2000 posts, just occasionally make 200ish posts and 200ish topics
Rate limits are all at defaults on Meta.
-
FTFY
-
Then, we don't need 2000
And I'm not intending to be inflammatory here. I'm not intending to actually cause a problem. I think infinite scroll is silly, a UX design that uses 50% of the page is silly, I think discourse trying to be trendy is silly
However, the choice to remove user's stuff without their permission is NOT OKAY
-
-
Warning: you have too many likes, clear some using Dismiss Likes.
-
Or you could trash the server with a single tab from a single ip address without a user:
-
@Polygeekery said:
If only DiscoDevs spent as much time thinking about
the implications to the end useranything else as they do to anti-spam measures...FTFY
I'm sure they spend a lot of time thinking about bikeshedding.
-
Is this taking up two of my @kuro-bar slots?
-
-
That's not bad design.There's enough room for that C at the end, therefore the whole thing can shift.
If you want to get to that kind of nitpickery, English is read left-to-right, and the letters would be placed that way as well, so you'd never run out of space on the left.
-
people with one million unread can wait an hour to get the front page.
Yeah, isn't that already it's own punishment, though? Let them decide when they've suffered enough and want to bring back what passes for performance with Discurse. This whole "you're using our software wrong!" bullshit stinks to high heaven, Sam.
-
As a guy who owns a company that attempts to support people who both keep 20GB of shit in their inbox and complain that Outlook runs like shit...I wish there were more people like him.
For G-d's sake, just tell them to move shit out of inbox into "inbox - older stuff" and Outlook's performance magically improves.
-
So, you're saying a Jew did it?
And that's fucking stellar. Like genius.
Like, I couldn't write first what I was going to think of last.
Psychic powers or some shit.
-
Yeah, isn't that already it's own punishment, though? Let them decide when they've suffered enough and want to bring back what passes for performance with Discurse. This whole "you're using our software wrong!" bullshit stinks to high heaven, Sam.
Read up, I said I will revisit this, will probably just remove the limit, if you decide to work with an inbox 10000 you are going to pay the price of an extra 400ms delay baked into first visits here.
-
-
I'll try to say this with as much as possible, but now you're just coming across as a grumpy child.
You will revisit this, and that is well and good. But the real discussion, using the Kuro-bar as a bat, is that you should never have thought that auto-dismissing new/unread was a good idea in the first place. I believe that this upsets people more than the Kuro-bar does.
-
-
To be perfectly fair here. The automation was kind of my idea. I can't currently search through my posts on meta.d for undisclosed reasons but as the Kuro-bar was implemented I complained that asking the user to dismiss things manually seemed like a weird choice.
In my defense: I had no idea what dismissing posts would actually do. I thought it would just not creep up on unread/new anymore but we would still keep the bubbles / our posistion in the topic.
Filed Under: But yeah, this is a thing!
-
Good lord, is Atwood okay? Like seriously? Can he feed himself? Guys I think he needs help. At this point I am concerned about his safety and psychological well-being
Even more so after today...